DNI Tulsi Gabbard Outlines Reason for Criminal Referral of Trump Impeachment Collaborators


Posted originally on CTH on April 16, 2026 | Sundance 

Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, appears for an interview with Katie Pavlich to outline the importance of bringing all of the information about the Intelligence Community targeting of President Trump to the public.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and We the People want to see accountability for the Machiavellian conduct.  The intelligence community targeted President Trump and people within the CIA ran an operation to remove him.  These people have names and titles that have remained hidden, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is putting those names, specific names into the public psyche so we can have a full understanding of what took place.

Now, for many here this may seem like information we have all known about; however, Gabbard is providing the receipts, the actual evidence, of how these IC operations took place.  WATCH:

.

DNI Gabbard is showing how specific people within government weaponized their positions to conduct some of the most insidious schemes in modern U.S. history.  The criminality of those schemes is for others in Main Justice to determine, but the evidence of those schemes is clear.

I am thankful that people are now starting to use the new information to review past timelines. [SEE HERE] What they will discover is that Michael Atkinson’s work with Mary McCord and the Lawfare network are not isolated events. This is a continuum of targeting against Donald Trump using all of the intelligence levers at their disposal.

Michael Atkinson and Eric Ciaramella are the current names, but beside them sits Mary McCord, Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Dan Goldman, Benjamin Wittes and many others from the Lawfare community.  They intersect with various high level government officials in Main Justice, the FBI, the CIA, NSA and various intelligence agencies.

This is the nest of Deep State and Tulsi Gabbard is exposing it.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals for ICIG Michael Atkinson and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella


Posted originally on CTH on April 15, 2026 | Sundance |

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ for former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and former CIA Analyst (National Intelligence Council) Eric Ciaramella.

Atkinson was the intentional organizer of false impeachment material submitted by CIA operative Ciaramella.  Apparently, people know the background. lol

WASHINGTON DC – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for the whistleblower whose complaint helped trigger President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment and for the former intelligence community inspector general who notified Congress of the allegations, Fox News Digital has learned.

“I want to refer information that may constitute possible criminal activity in violation of federal criminal law committed by one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” ODNI’s general counsel wrote in the referral to the Justice Department. Fox News Digital on Wednesday reviewed the referrals ODNI sent to the Justice Department.

“The possible criminal activity concerns the circumstances described in the following congressional briefings: Discussion with Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intel., 116th Cong. (2019); Briefing by the Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intel., 116th Cong. (2019),” it continued.

[…] An intelligence official told Fox News Digital that the language in the referral is broad, but that it’s specifically directed at Atkinson and the whistleblower who reported concerns about President Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (read more)

Don’t forget, Michael Atkinson turned the Ciaramella complaint into a criminal referral, a criminal complaint, then submitted it to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Abuse of govt position.

Manufacturing evidence for a legislative procedure.

Conspiracy to conduct fraud.

Lying to federal investigators.

Falsifying information to manufacture a criminal complaint.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Releases a Statement with Document Release from Two Silos


Posted originally on CTH on April 13, 2026 | Sundance 

It’s worth remembering how the IC silo process was used to manipulate proprietary claims by government agencies. These setups are intentionally designed this way, and none of the reasons behind them are good.

The CIA Whistleblower Complaint and subsequent Intelligence Community Inspector General investigation and report, falls under the work product of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  The IC IG is quasi-independent but works for the ODNI.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard is releasing direct stakeholder information from within the ODNI with the release as noted – SEE HERE.  This is the background information that led to the impeachment effort.  The DNI is the Executive Branch.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson was held within another branch of government, within the Legislative Branch, and as a consequence DNI Gabbard needed to gain permission from the House Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), another silo, in order to review the testimony that came as an outcome of the ICIG complaint and investigation. SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

DNI Gabbard then needed to request the release of the HPSCI transcripts [legislative branch] to her DNI office [executive branch] where all three aspects of the ICIG activity can then be examined and reviewed in full context.

The DNI then requests the HPSCI to permit declassification and public release.  HPSCI reluctantly agrees.  DNI declassifies then returns the transcripts to the HPSCI for public release – while simultaneously the DNI office declassifies and releases the baseline ICIG investigative material so the public can have context.

The resulting outcome is a combined work product from five silos (HPSCI, DNI, CIA, ICIG, NSC) along with a statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and a summary of what all the combined materials show:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard releases never-before-seen documents exposing a coordinated effort by elements within the Intelligence Community (IC), including a former Inspector General (IG), to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.

During his preliminary investigation into President Trump’s July 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, former IC IG Michael Atkinson did not follow standard IG procedures and relied upon politicized, manufactured narratives – only conducting interviews with four individuals: the Whistleblower, the Whistleblower’s friend who was a co-author of the January 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and close colleague of disgraced former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and two character references who had zero firsthand knowledge of the July 2019 phone call.

Despite a lack of any firsthand evidence, IC IG Atkinson proceeded to take actions to weaponize the Whistleblower process and exceed his statutory jurisdiction by ignoring Department of Justice guidance and relying on only second-hand testimony to ensure the whistleblower complaint was released to Congress, referred to the FBI, and leaked to the propaganda media.

Then-House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi used this false, second-hand narrative to create media intrigue and ultimately spark the basis to impeach President Trump in December of 2019.

“Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States,” said DNI Gabbard. “Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth. And this, along with the politicization of the whistleblower process by a former CIA employee who was working hand in glove with Democrats in Congress, are egregious examples of the deep state playbook on how to weaponize the Intelligence Community. Exposing these tactics and showing how they undermine the fabric of our democratic republic furthers the critical cause of transparency and accountability and will help prevent future abuse of power.”

Review the documents released here and see below for a summary of newly declassified materials:

Today’s release includes investigative materials used by then-IC IG Atkinson (here) and a review of two transcripts from IC IG Atkinson’s closed-door testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (here and here), which were withheld from the House Judiciary Committee during the sham impeachment trial and kept locked in a safe until House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford led the vote to release these transcripts on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.

♦ NO FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE: The Intelligence Community Inspector General’s preliminary “investigation” into the whistleblower complaint relied on politicized actors and second-hand evidence. Newly declassified documents expose how IC IG Atkinson relied upon second-hand information from the self-declared “Democrat” whistleblower [Ciaramella] and two biased witnesses to justify his determination that the whistleblower compliant was of “urgent concern,” “appears credible,” and must be reported to Congress. IC IG Atkinson also ignored concerns by the whistleblower’s supervisor about a rushed complaint.

The Whistleblower [Eric Ciaramella] confirms he/she had no firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

In an initial form submitted by the Whistleblower, he/she claimed, “I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President.”

New witness interviews released today show that IC IG Atkinson’s public claim that “other information obtained during [his] preliminary review…supports the complainant’s allegation” was false and hid the fact that neither the Whistleblower’s nor the key witness’ allegations concerning the President’s phone call were informed by direct, firsthand knowledge.

WITNESS 2 admitted that upon reading the transcript of the call he/she “would not have been able to get from ‘point A to Z’ the way the Whistleblower did” and described that he/she lacked the “granular detail” that the Whistleblower had to justify filing the complaint.”

WITNESS 2 admitted that he/she had to “read between the lines” of what was being said, and that his/her perception of quid pro quo “became clear” only “in hindsight.”

The Whistleblower’s superior, a senior officer in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), told IC Inspector General investigators that he/she, “did not like how the [Whistleblower] handled the filing of the report,” saying that he/she felt that he/she was “looped in right at the time of the crash.”

IC IG Atkinson’s 14-day preliminary investigation was intended to assess apparent credibility, but instead became the basis of a flawed, mischaracterized account that House Democrats peddled to launch a sham impeachment, even though the IC IG never conducted a formal or complete investigation.

In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a “preliminary investigation,” noting that “I haven’t done an investigation to determine whether they actually, in fact, took place…that all of the alleged actions actually took place.”

♦ ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIA HOAX CO-AUTHOR AS KEY WITNESS: IC IG Atkinson relied on testimony from a co-author of the 2017 Russia Hoax ICA to support the Whistleblower’s allegations that there was some form of wrongdoing by President Trump.

Last year, DNI Gabbard revealed evidence that President Obama directed the creation of the January 2017 Russia Hoax ICA. This served as the basis for what was essentially a years-long coup against the duly-elected President of the United States, subverting the will of the American people and attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.

WITNESS 2 – who was one of the key sources for the Whistleblower ahead of filing a complaint – admits in a witness interview to being a “co-author of the 2017 ICA” which used manufactured and manipulated intelligence to create the false narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to the benefit of President Trump.

WITNESS 2 also admitted to having worked alongside now-disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok who inserted political bias into FBI investigations about President Trump based on the manufactured Russia Hoax.

WITNESS 2 further exposed political bias when explaining that he/she “routinely deals with issues on a daily basis that are contrary to [his/ her] personal beliefs,” and “stated that [he/she] is disappointed everyday by policy decisions and statements made by political figures.”

♦ WHISTLEBLOWER’S PARTISAN BIAS, LIES CONFIRMED: The Whistleblower [Eric Ciaramella] admitted he/she lied to the Inspector General about speaking to Democrats in Congress ahead of submitting allegations of wrongdoing by President Trump to the IC Inspector General. While media widely reported on this detail in 2019, the pre-complaint meeting with Congress has never before been confirmed by the Whistleblower.

In October 2019, after the media began to report that the Whistleblower had spoken with Congress ahead of submitting the “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form,” the Whistleblower called the IC IG to admit that he/she had, in fact, spoken with Congress.

IC IG Atkinson admits in newly-declassified testimony that his investigative team “did ask the complainant who else knew about the disclosure” and the complainant withheld from the investigative team, within the 14-day window, that he/she alerted HPSCI Democratic staff.

[Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella pictured left with U.S. President Barack Obama]

Whistleblower interviews reveal the political biases of the Whistleblower, in his/her own words:

The Whistleblower states he/she is a “registered democrat.”

The Whistleblower claims to have “worked closely with Vice President Biden…travelled with Biden to Ukraine and was part of conversations where LUTSENKO corruption was discussed.”

The Whistleblower also claims to have become “the target of right-wing bloggers…and conspiracy theorists.”

Yet, IC IG Atkinson ignored this and insisted during his testimony to HPSCI, “I also want to make it clear that I never considered the whistleblower to be politically biased.”

Despite public reports that the Whistleblower worked with Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, inquiries into the Whistleblower’s bias and motive were blocked during the 2020 impeachment trial.

♦ IC INSPECTOR GENERAL WEAPONIZED THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROCESS: Newly declassified documents confirm that IC IG Atkinson failed to conduct basic due diligence and willfully exceeded his statutory jurisdiction to mischaracterize the President’s phone call with Zelensky as an “urgent concern” to Congress.

• From Day 1, IC IG Atkinson knew that a transcript of President Trump’s call existed. And yet, he never, throughout the entire preliminary investigation, requested access to it.

• IC IG Atkinson sent a criminal referral to the DOJ on this matter, despite only relying on second-hand knowledge to support his claims.

• The DOJ later assessed the allegations raised by the Whistleblower and IC IG and found no basis for a criminal case, concluding that based on the facts and applicable law, there was “no campaign finance violation” and “no further action was warranted.”

• After the DOJ reviewed the whistleblower complaint and determined there was “no urgent concern,” IC IG Atkinson ignored their determination and proceeded to transmit this faulty whistleblower complaint to Congress without completing a fulsome investigation, despite the allegations being made based on second-hand information.

• On September 3, the DOJ provided Office of Legal Counsel guidance to IC IG Atkinson that the complaint did not rise to the level of “urgent concern” because the alleged conduct does not relate to “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity” under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.

• On September 9, the IC IG ignored this guidance and the Acting Director of National Intelligence to pen a letter to inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the existence of the “urgent concern” complaint.

• As was reported at the time, IC OIG altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints.

• IC IG Atkinson sought unprecedented assistance from other Inspectors Generals to carry on this investigation “if [he] was stopped, [he] wanted to see whether other inspectors general could proceed.” In particular, he contacted the IGs at the Departments of State, Justice, and Defense.  {SOURCE}

IC IG Michael Atkinson pictured below

Hopefully everyone can see the construct above and how IC IG Michael Atkinson worked with his former DOJ colleague Mary McCord who was at the time working for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff.

Ask the right questions.

Michael Atkinson moved from his position as legal counsel for the Asst Attorney General of the DOJ-NSD (Mary McCord) to the position of IC IG effective May 17, 2018.   The ICIG position is a nomination by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI):

Who was the person in 2018, at the height of the Mueller investigation, who told President Trump to nominate Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General?

Who told Trump to appoint Atkinson?

Find that person and you will find a person who was directly working against the interests of President Trump.

Why does this matter?…

…. Because this is not a random nomination and random appointment.  ICIG Michael Atkinson was intentionally moved into the position of ICIG in order to carry out an impeachment effort.

This was not happenstance. This was intentional.

At the conclusion of his impeachment trial, President Trump fired IC IG Michael Atkinson.

Simultaneous with the Senate acquittal during the failed impeachment, and following the firing of IC IG Michael Atkinson, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence suddenly dropped their block on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of National Intelligence.

DNI John Ratcliffe was confirmed by the SSCI on May 21 and sworn in on May 26, 2020.

Atkinson Transcripts and Background ICIG (CIA) Investigative Documents Released


What I think we should send to Jade April 13, 2026

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has retrieved, reviewed, declassified and forced the release of internal background documents related to the Intelligence Community’s collaborative effort to impeach President Donald J Trump in 2019.   {GO DEEP – BACKGROUND}

The HPSCI wants to take political credit for the release; however, the HPSCI was forced into this position by the diligent work of Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

Without DNI Gabbard, these documents would never have seen sunlight.   This type of public information release is exactly why DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been targeted by friend and foe alike.

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released two declassified transcripts from 2019 hearings with the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, following a security review from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The Committee received the declassified transcripts from the ODNI the evening of Friday, April 10, 2026. These transcripts are from two hearings held to examine Atkinson’s role in an alleged whistleblower complaint, which ultimately led to Democrats’ first impeachment efforts against President Trump in December 2019. (link)

Looking closely at the information in these three documents makes it clear why the HPSCI never wanted them released. Both current and former members, including Republicans, are tied to a pattern of willful blindness, knowing the details yet choosing to stay silent for months and even years afterward.

Former HPSCI Chairman, then HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes was a participant in the testimony.  Former HPSCI member, now CIA Director John Ratcliffe was a participant in the testimony.  Former HPSCI staff, now FBI Director Kash Patel was a participant in the testimony. [Think about it]

♦ Principle Players – The National Security Council leaker was Alexander Vindman.  The CIA “Whistleblower” was Eric Ciaramella.  The Intelligence Community Inspector General was Michael Atkinson.

There is a lot of information to review as the documents include:

(1) The CIA complaint from Ciaramella and subsequent ICIG investigation. (pdf)

(2) The first interview of the ICIG Atkinson by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), dated September 19, 2019. (pdf)

(3) The second interview of ICIG Atkinson dated October 4, 2019. (pdf)

In total there are about 450 pages of documents and transcripts to read and review.  The story they tell is remarkable as it outlines how internal people within the various intelligence agencies of the United States government, collaborated and used their positions of responsibility to target a sitting president for impeachment and removal.

In short, in addition to all the “Spygate” surveillance and “Russiagate” wrongdoing, these documents highlight the real and actionable activity by the U.S. Intelligence Community to work collaborative with congress during their targeting of President Trump.

Do not lose sight of the forest while surrounded by the details of the trees.

I will share much more detail about what evidence the documents show and put that detail into the context of what it means.  Unfortunately, there are some alarming realizations about how our government operates and the false entities within it who claim a position to fight against the corruption, while keeping their mouths shut about specific evidence of corruption.

Much more will follow, but right now I need to pray a little bit and maybe go for a walk.

Please begin to read the releases and share your thoughts in the comments below.

There are more documents that need to surface, more stuff that I will never relent from locating and finding methods to bring it out.  In the interim, thank you to Tulsi Gabbard for the painful truth we all need to absorb.

Understanding the Fox News Podcasters


What I think we should send to Jade April 13, 2026 | Sundance

Against the backdrop of President Trump calling attention to the narcissism podcast universe, several people have made inquiry about relationships, motives, financial structures etc.

For those unaware, the traditional media framework of billionaire and corporate opinion/information shaping, modified itself for a new digital era.  However, the motives that underpinned the original control mechanisms remain the same, only the venues are different.

RED SEAT VENTURES HERE

As an example, most reasonably intelligent people caught on to the manipulative political content pushed by Rupert Murdoch, his family of control agents and the Fox Corporation media empire.  However, most people are unaware that Fox Corporation controls the information space of well-known current and former Fox News employees and contract agents that shifted to the podcast venues.

Fox Media purchased Red Seat Ventures {Citation} and expanded the narrative control operations through “podcasting.”  As a consequence, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Piers Morgan, Bill O’Reilly and many more still work for Fox Corporation, just in different venues.

When Tucker Carlson is interviewing Megyn Kelly during a podcast, or when Piers Morgan is interviewing Bill O’Reilly during a podcast, it is no different than Megyn Kelly interviewing Piers Morgan on Fox News television.  The platform changed, but the relationships -and more importantly the information content itself- is the same.  The same control mechanisms apply; it is just a different distribution channel.

Instead of watching Fox News, you are essentially watching Fox News ‘podcasting’ division, via Red Seat Ventures.

♦ Red Seat Ventures (a Fox Corporation subsidiary) controls the advertising, distribution and financial payments to the same cast of characters that appeared on Fox News broadcast.  The same leverage and pressure points apply, albeit with a plausible deniability in order to push a false claim of independence in order to manufacture the optics of credibility.

You can explore Red Seat Ventures here, overlay the intention as expressed by Fox Corporation here, and see exactly how this internecine system is connected.

When you hear people say, “I no longer watch Fox News,” yet they still watch Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Piers Morgan, Dana Loesch, Bill O’Reilly, Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Kelly, etc., you might take note those people probably don’t realize they are just watching a different version of the Fox Corporation.

This is why none of the former pundits, now part of Red Seat, will say anything critical of Fox Corp.  They are still beholden to the control masters.  Many people are unaware of this reality in the background.

♦ There is also the Red Apple Podcast Network, another corporate conglomerate of well-known pundits like Larry Kudlow, Roger Stone, Greg Kelly, Sean Spicer and many more.  Again, these are not ‘independent’ per se’, they are part of a corporate commercial system with terms and conditions that apply to the employees, the podcasters.

♦ Then you have Westwood One, (aka Cumulus) another corporate media conglomerate which includes popular names like Benny Johnson, Mark Levin and Dan Bongino.  Again, these are not independent voices per se’ – they are contract agents with financial relationships to the mothership, the corporation.  Again, terms and conditions apply.

What you will notice in all of these enmeshments is a system of podcast tribalism, now captured within the corporate dynamic.  When a podcaster is interviewing a podcaster for podcast content, you are essentially watching a circle of narcissists discussing each other.  The watcher or listener is not receiving ‘information’, they are participating in the distribution of specific financially aligned narratives – albeit with an ‘independent’ flare.

If your participation in the podcast sphere is akin to watching WWE wrestling, then you have the appropriate filter for the performances within each broadcast.

However, if you participate from the perspective of information gathering; raw, researchable or cited information to expand objective knowledge; you might end up in a crazy matrix where you are led to believe that aliens are living down the street, black helicopters are following your every move, Melania is about to divorce Donald, the FBI is an honorable institution, or even that Reverend Franklin Graham is busy building a billionaire doomsday bunker in Alaska.

As the years were unfolding you likely recognized the Wall Street corporate media system was going to respond to the changed and collapsed credibility environment.  Well, podcasting is the 2026 iteration.

Artificial Intelligence is going to replace all of these ‘voices’ eventually, as government systems learn and adapt to the private sector information space.

Just something to keep in mind.

Question from Mail: It’s Been Two Weeks on the Atkinson Transcript, What’s the Holdup?


Posted originally on CTH on April 6, 2026 | Sundance 

Two weeks ago, after a lengthy back-and-forth process between the HPSCI and DNI offices, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) reported they released the transcript of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  No further information has surfaced following that announcement.

“The transcripts will be posted on the Committee website once they undergo the standard classification review with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”  (source)

It has been two-weeks.  The transcript is not public. In my estimation, this transcript could potentially be exceptionally revealing.  The background ‘delay’ is likely due to the significant revelations within it.   Also, this is a rather extensive stakeholder equity.

The declassification process involves having every equity stakeholder named in the deposition ¹agree to allowing the information, their information, to be released.

Ex. if Atkinson discussed the Senate Intel Committee, they (Cotton/Warner) would need to allow and/or demand redaction. If the CIA was discussed, again another stakeholder who needs to review and approve. If HPSCI, same/same. If any of the internal agencies were discussed by Atkinson, National Security Council (NSC, White House, Rubio), National Intelligence Council (NIC, in CIA at the time), the same process has to flow through each agency.  Also, this testimony is in 2019, making it possible contact with FBI or DOJ-NSD coconspirators (Mueller Inc.) may have taken place; the same would apply.

Each stakeholder gets to review the transcript content that applies to their mention and determine if they ¹approve the declassification process.

This is how the silo defense mechanisms work.  You can see how convoluted these systems have become.

According to the originating HPSCI public release, remember, they are the originating stakeholder of the classified information; well, the transcript is then returned to the House Intelligence Committee for publication.

[¹If they don’t agree, a battle begins. Remember the battle over the Nunes memo?]

What would all these equity stakeholders be hoping to conceal?  That’s where things get interesting.

CONTEXT: In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.

Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan; ultimately it was constructed by Julia Gurganus.

Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.

You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump.  However, in 2016 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.

♦ The key point to remember here is that Eric Ciaramella was one of the fabricators of the fraudulent ICA; constructed late December 2016 and presented in January 2017 as part of the foundation for the Trump-Russia narrative.

Earlier in 2025, DNI Tulsi Gabbard began to drill down onto the issue of the fraudulent ICA and how it was constructed.  Current CIA analysts within the former National Intelligence Council (NIC) and CIA Directorate of Analysis began to notice Tulsi was going to declassify background documents, including the two-year House Intelligence Committee report revealing the fraud.  Tulsi Gabbard became a target.

Julia Gurganus was an active government employee at the time Tulsi Gabbard began making inquiries.  The CIA (NIC) changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025 to that of a “covert” operative, in an effort to protect Gurganus.

The CIA changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025, reclassifying her as ‘covert’, specifically because of the ODNI’s intent to reveal the fraud within the 2016 Russia election investigation.  This, the CIA thought, would forcibly stop DNI Gabbard from exposing Ms. Gurganus and taking action.  The 2025 CIA effort did not work.

In late July of this 2025, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA. On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.

In August 2025, DNI Gabbard then declassified and released the CIA work product, and then later removed Julia Gurganus security clearance.

The CIA embeds at the NIC and directorate of analysis were furious, and subsequently leaked a false story to the Wall Street Journal saying DNI Gabbard had compromised a covert CIA operative working in government – a familiar ploy that had worked for them in the past.  However, this time it did not work, because her work history clearly showed Julia Gurganus was a known CIA employee.

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016. Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of 2025.

Back to Ciaramella…

In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman also responsible for Ukraine, Russia Eurasia affairs, told CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella a fictional narrative about President Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to provide dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election.

Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.  You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.

Facebook, Google, META, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter all deleted any mention of Eric Ciaramella as the anonymous whistleblower, and banned any account that posted the name.  However, something else was always sketchy about this.

As the story was told, Ciaramella blew the whistle to Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. It was further said that Atkinson “changed the CIA whistleblower rules” to permit an “anonymous” allegation; thereby protecting Eric Ciaramella.

Knowing, in hindsight, that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was one of the main people who constructed the 2016 fraudulent ICA, suddenly the motive to make him “anonymous” a few years later in 2019 for another stop-Trump effort makes sense.

Until today, the commonly accepted narrative was that ICIG Atkinson changed the CIA rules arbitrarily.  This is the main narrative as pushed by the media, allowed to permeate by the larger Intelligence Community, and supported by the willful blindness of a complicit Congress.

It never made sense how an IC Inspector General, especially one that involves review of CIA employees/operations, could make such a substantive change in rules for an agency that is opaque by design. There is just no way any IG can make that kind of decision about the CIA without the Director, the Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel being involved.

Either someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint”, or some mechanism was triggered that permitted the ICIG to operate using a legislative oversight method.

♦ Now, things are going to start getting a little dark here, because the implications are serious, and the aspect of ICIG Atkinson’s testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) being sealed is a little more than alarming when you consider what they were trying to do – impeach a sitting USA President on a fabricated issue.

Some context is needed.

Inspectors General do not operate in a vacuum.  They are authorized to conduct investigative oversight, as an outcome of permissions from the cabinet agency heads themselves.  The ICIG office, formerly headed by Michael Atkinson, falls under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

As the Inspector General of the Dept of Justice does not operate without the expressed permission of the U.S. Attorney General, so too is it required for the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to have permission to operate in CIA functions with the expressed permission of the CIA Director.

To give you an example: You might remember when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder created the Dept of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), they did not permit the DOJ Inspector General to have any oversight or review.

The 2009-2017 public reasoning was “national security interests,” as the DOJ-NSD was in charge of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC) operations as well as Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) reviews and investigations.  The factual, evidence-based reason was the DOJ-NSD running political surveillance operations using FISA and FARA as weaponized targeting mechanisms to keep track of their political opposition, ie Lawfare. [But that’s another story]

In fact, in 2015 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

You see, the Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) was not allowed to investigate anything that happened within the NSD agency of the Department of Justice. See the ‘useful arrangement‘?  Yeah, Funny that.

It was not until 2018, when the OIG was tasked by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump to look into the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page, when the OIG was finally given authority to review activity within the Dept of Justice National Security Division.

♦ The two key points here are: #1) ICIG Michael Atkinson does not make unilateral decisions to change the internal rules within the CIA, without the expressed permission of the CIA Director, CIA Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel. #2) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would also know of the changed rules and arrangement therein.

At the time of the impeachment allegation and investigation by the House (Aug to Dec 18, 2019), the CIA Director was Gina Haspel (May 21, 2018, to January 20, 2021). The CIA Deputy Director was Vaughn Bishop, and the CIA General Counsel was Courtney Simmons Elwood.  In addition, the Acting DNI was Joseph Maguire.

We can reasonably be certain that CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood and Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not sign-off on changing the CIA rules permitting an anonymous whistleblower, because published media reports at the time outline both offices as NOT supporting the effort of ICIG Atkinson.

In fact, as the story is told (and investigatively affirmed) CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was frustrated because he talked to CIA General Counsel Elwood about the leak from Alexander Vindman, and Elwood did not respond to his claims.

Instead, of following chain-of-command, CIA Analyst Ciaramella went to the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and relayed the story as told to him by Vindman.  The 2019 conversation between Ciaramella, the CIA analyst who previously fabricated the fraudulent Russia ICA in 2017, and Adam Schiff who fraudulently pushed the Trump-Russia narrative in 2017, took place prior to the CIA whistleblower complaint being filed.

Now we get to the crux of the story.

♦ On October 4, 2019, ICIG Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation.  One of the key questions to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.

That Atkinson testimony was then “classified” and sealed under the auspices of “national security” by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, the same guy who Ciaramella talked to before filing the complaint.

If congress, or more importantly the American public, had known CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was both the key author of the fraudulent 2016 ICA and the later 2019 CIA complaint, it’s doubtful any impeachment effort would have moved forward.

From within the CIA, Eric Ciaramella was the impeachment narrative creator and the Russian interference narrative creator.  In short, a political fabricator of intelligence within the CIA.

Again, ICIG Atkinson could not change the ‘whistleblower’ regulations on his own.  Someone had to sign-off on that, giving him the authority. Additionally, Atkinson a former legal counsel to the Deputy Asst Attorney General within the DOJ-NSD, is not going to go out on such a limb without a cya to protect himself.

The only person likely to give that authority within the structures and confines that operate inside our government was then CIA Director, Gina Haspel.  The Deputy CIA Director is not going to make that kind of a decision, especially given the circumstances, and the CIA General Counsel was not touching it.

That outline of events means the 2016/2017 CIA ‘stop-Trump’ operation under CIA Director John Brennan, was effectively continued by CIA Director Gina Haspel in 2019/2020.

[SIDENOTE: Now, does the 2020 CIA operation known as the “51 Intelligence Experts’ who denied the Hunter Biden laptop story take on context?  Now does the recent reaction, the angry outburst by former CIA Director John Brennan about the ICA construct take on some context?]

This is where doors slam and DC officials run out of the room.

This is where ‘pretending not to know‘ takes on another meaning entirely.

♦ IMPLICATIONS: CIA Director Gina Haspel had no way to know if the 2019 impeachment of President Trump was going to be successful.  Just as the ICIG needed a CYA to protect himself, so too would Director Haspel want a legal defense mechanism in case the entire fiasco blew up.  Enter the only oversight agency that can provide Haspel cover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Underneath all of these machinations, there’s no other way for Director Haspel to protect herself other than to use the primary mechanism within the functions of IC oversight, inform the SSCI chair and vice-chair of her changed rule guidance to ICIG Atkinson.

That Occam’s Razor scenario puts SSCI chairman ¹Richard Burr and SSCI vice-chair Mark Warner in the silo-system loop.  If things blew up, Haspel could always defend herself by pointing to her informing the mechanism for CIA oversight, the SSCI.

• DNI Dan Coats resigned from office when the Trump impeachment effort was announced, August 2019.

• Acting DNI Joseph Maguire was appointed by President Trump to replace Dan Coats.

• Following the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 5th, 2020.

• On Feb 20, 2020, President Trump replaced acting DNI Joseph Maguire with acting DNI Ric Grenell.

• On February 28, 2020, President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe to be DNI.

• Ratcliffe was confirmed May 26, 2020, and took office.

Before the impeachment effort began, Congressman John Ratcliffe was President Trump’s first choice to replace outgoing DNI Dan Coats in 2019. However, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said they would not confirm John Ratcliffe.  President Trump was forced to appoint “acting DNIs.”

Somehow, within an unexplained reversal, after the impeachment effort ended, the SSCI had a change of position and agreed to confirm John Ratcliffe.

As the fully confirmed DNI, in 2020 John Ratcliffe would have full control of the ICIG, including an understanding of what took place within the CIA that led to the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.

As Chair of the SSCI in 2019, it is highly likely that CIA Director Gina Haspel informed Richard Burr of the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.  ¹Richard Burr was replaced by Marco Rubio in May 2020.

John Ratcliffe is now CIA Director.  Marco Rubio is now National Security Advisor.

Adam Schiff was not stupid.

He knew what he was doing and how to use the separation of powers for his purposes.  He also knew that each stakeholder could be counted on to keep secrets.

The executive branch would not easily be able to reach into the legislative branch and extract information.

That’s why then HPSCI Chairman, Impeachment Chairman and now Senator Adam Schiff buried the Atkinson transcript in the vault of the House Intelligence Committee.

The process.

♦ First, you need a republican President in the White House √. Second, you need an aligned Intelligence Community DNI √, and third you need a Republican controlled HPSCI √:

[¹] • To extract the transcript the Executive would first need to understand its value. • Then the Executive would need to know where it was. • Then the Executive would need a qualified stakeholder, with appropriate clearances, to request to review the transcript in the HPSCI secure compartmented intelligence facility (scif).  • If the HPSCI approved, the Executive would be given an appointment date to read it (no notes, no copying, just reading).  • Then, after reading, the Executive stakeholder would then need to request the HPSCI Chair and Ranking Member for a classified copy.  • The Chair and Ranking Member would need to agree to the value of the sunlight on the Legislative Branch controlled information. • To get a copy the entire House Intelligence Committee would need to vote on the release to the Executive.  • The vote would need to be scheduled on the committee calendar.  • A HPSCI vote would then take place:

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a business meeting to consider multiple Committee actions. During the business meeting, the Committee voted in favor of releasing two transcripts from 2019 hearings with the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. The hearings were held to examine Atkinson’s role in an alleged whistleblower complaint, which ultimately led to Democrats’ first impeachment efforts against President Trump in December 2019. One transcript would be released to the ODNI for classification review, and then subsequently released to the public by the Committee with the second unclassified transcript.

“The great deal of widespread speculation about the Atkinson classified hearing transcript is indicative of the American people’s complete and warranted mistrust of the Intelligence Community,” said Chairman Crawford. “In far too many instances, the IC hides behind the veil of overclassification. Sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant. As part of the Committee’s continued effort to balance the transparency the American people deserve and the need to protect sensitive national security information, we hope that the release of these transcripts allows the American people to make their own determinations. As Chairman, I remain committed to ensuring this Committee, where possible, is transparent as the IC works to rebuild trust with the American people.”

The transcripts will be posted on the Committee website once they undergo the standard classification review with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  (source)

The HPSCI has given the transcript to Tulsi Gabbard, but I guarantee you the public release is against the interests of the entire intelligence apparatus.

Folks, this is a fight… and it’s ugly because the stakes are big.

If it sounds like hitting an anvil with a pickaxe, that’s because fighting the IC is like hitting an anvil with a pickaxe.

The truth has no agenda.

We have one ally.

I’m doing all I can…

SUPPORT CTH RESEARCH HERE ~

New York Times Reports the Primary Fundraising Mechanism of Democrats Willfully Accepted Foreign Donations


Posted originally on CTH on April 3, 2026 | Sundance 

ActBlue is to the Democrat party fundraising machine as WinRed is to the Republican side of the equation.

In a rather stunning outline by the New York Times [SEE HERE] the progressive outlet is reporting of serious concerns within the leadership of ActBlue related to their willfully blind reception of foreign sources of money to fund Democrat candidates.

The remarkable aspect is not just that ActBlue takes foreign funds, but rather the New York Times revealing internal legal discussions about it.  According to the Times reporting, the Eric Holder law firm Covington & Burling, the primary legal mechanism for the ActBlue/DNC machinery, lies at the heart of the matter.

(NYT) […] The firm concluded that ActBlue’s chief executive had given a potentially misleading response to congressional Republican investigators in a 2023 letter explaining how the organization vetted donations to ensure that they were not illegally coming from foreign citizens.

The letter from the chief executive, Regina Wallace-Jones, said ActBlue carried out “multilayered” screenings of contributions that helped “root out” those from overseas. In fact, the law firm found, some of the steps she had described were not always followed.

“This presents a substantial risk for ActBlue,” the law firm, Covington & Burling, wrote in one of two memos expressing legal concerns. One memo raised the specter of a criminal investigation if prosecutors believed that ActBlue had tried to conceal facts about its efforts to prevent foreign contributions. (source)

To really appreciate the scheme that seems to be outlined by the internal documents, it is worth remembering that James O’Keefe previously did some boots on the ground research into ActBlue [SEE HERE – 2023] and found that multiple, perhaps thousands, of “donor” names and addresses were assigned to contributions the donors said they never made.

Put the two issues together and it appears that ActBlue may have been laundering foreign money into the DNC by using donor identities to cover the funding mechanism.  Foreign funds, broken up into separate, smaller components and then attributed to Smurf donor identities.

As many surmised at the time, the donor IDs would be useful – only to launder the funds. That would explain why thousands of donors denied making contributions, yet FEC reports filed by ActBlue officials assign, falsely, their identity to donations.

Shortly before the 2024 federal election, on October 24th, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also submitted a criminal referral to the DOJ following his own investigation of this activity [SEE HERE].

TEXAS – Attorney General Ken Paxton made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) detailing the results of an investigation that revealed how suspicious actors seemingly use ActBlue’s political fundraising platform to make illegal straw donations. – SOURCE

Put the New York Times story together with the James O’Keefe investigation, and then overlay the Texas AG investigation and criminal referral, and there’s not just smoke -or fire- there’s an inferno ablaze.

[…] ActBlue is now all but declaring war on its own past lawyers, an extraordinary turn of events at a moment when President Trump has already ordered a Justice Department investigation into the organization. Democrats are nervous that any additional upheaval at ActBlue could destabilize the party’s critical fund-raising apparatus ahead of the midterm elections.

All levels of Democratic candidates, from incumbent presidents to school board aspirants, use ActBlue to raise campaign money from online donors. The platform has processed nearly $19 billion in contributions since its founding in 2004, building a donor database with millions of credit card numbers that is unmatched in American politics. Nearly 23,000 candidates and groups used the site in 2025, ActBlue has said, raising almost $1.8 billion from 52 million contributions, some of which recur every month.

[…] “It can be alleged that ActBlue accepted and/or facilitated the acceptance of foreign-national contributions into American elections,” one memo states. “In addition, because ActBlue’s staff was aware that its system was not as robust as necessary, it could be alleged that these violations were ‘knowing and willful,’ a standard that both increases the penalties the F.E.C. might seek and gives the Justice Department jurisdiction for a potential criminal investigation.” (more)

It’s called, Money Laundering.

Bondi’s Replacement is Important, But Not as Important as Perceived


Posted originally on CTH on April 2, 2026 | Sundance

In a two-week period right after the 2024 election, the most energy expended by the transition team putting a cabinet together was toward Main Justice or the Dept of Justice.  As a consequence, those around Lutnick and Wiles spent an incredible amount of time thinking about the Attorney General pick.

Following an insider discussion, I spoke with several people about positions and appointments, focused on pointing out that the transition’s priorities were misplaced. The AG needed to be someone with exceptional moral character, capable of gathering information and presenting it for public consumption, with the option of supporting criminal referrals if necessary.

The Attorney General wasn’t going to be the tip of the spear in any operation to confront the Deep State, because if Main Justice wanted to confront Lawfare they needed to confront the Intelligence Community first.  The IC controls all of the activity within the Dept of Justice.

Read that again for emphasis.  For the issues of greatest importance, the Intelligence Community controls all of the activity within Main Justice.  The IC is in control of the source material.  The IC is above the DOJ.  If you don’t strategize a confrontation with the IC first, it doesn’t matter what you do with the Dept of Justice.

The best example I could reference at the time was the Mar-a-Lago documents case and Judge Aileen Cannon.  In that example the Executive branch was targeting Trump through the DOJ/FBI, and representing the Judicial branch Judge Cannon was the firewall ensuring the appropriate administration of justice.

Trump’s defense, through Cannon, pushed back against the DOJ (Jack Smith) while Smith leveraged all his Lawfare tools back against Cannon.  You might remember the “classified document” issue went to the 11th CCA.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government position that any documents defined as “classified” by the executive branch that claimed, “national security,” should not be disclosed to the defendant, Trump.  The 11th CCA said when it comes to matters of national security, the judicial branch must defer to the determinations of the executive.

Basically, if the intelligence community decides certain information is tied to national security and labels it as classified for the DOJ, that decision can’t be challenged. The U.S. Supreme Court has backed this view. As a result, when it comes to national security issues, the judicial branch has to defer to the executive, giving the IC significant control over the DOJ.

If you drag former CIA Director John Brennan into court and Brennan’s lawyers argue ‘national security’ as a defense against indictment, inquiry or questioning, it’s not the DOJ (Attorney General) who matters – it’s the ‘national security’ determination of the Intelligence Community (Tulsi Gabbard) who controls the outcome.

Over and over, I kept emphasizing this point.  If you want to hold the Spygate/Russiagate folks accountable, it’s not going to be the DOJ who matter; not directly.  It is the Intelligence Community that matters.

If you seek accountability, and if you want to stop Lawfare from exploiting the silo defenses, it’s the IC that matters; not the Dept of Justice.  The transition team was putting emphasis on the wrong syllable.  Remember, my emphasis was on the need for institutional accountability on Spygate and Russiagate, and the DOJ is a tool toward the goal but not the ultimate weapon.

♦ Secondly, and specifically because of this issue, if you don’t confront the IC bad actors directly, if you don’t disassemble their power structures, you are going to end up with Main Justice in a constant position of defense, because the DOJ is downstream from the determinations of the Intelligence Community.

Yes, it’s a screwed-up system.  Yes, it’s entirely part of the built-out silo defenses.  But also yes, if you don’t approach it by beginning with the end in mind, then you get into a battle with Lawfare without the correct strategy.  All of these accountability issues touch on ‘national security,’ and that national security will be weaponized as a defense.

Frustrated with my inability to convince, I wrote something in real time that I am going to repost below. Perhaps a revisit now will stimulate a new perspective.

The Attorney General and Main Justice are very important to the establishment of successful domestic policy, deportation objectives, immigration enforcement, criminal investigations, drug trafficking and human smuggling interdictions, election reform, law enforcement, civil order and constitutional protection.  But for the sake of accountability, it is the ODNI and CIA Director who really matters.

Nov 11, 2024 – Yes, folks in the transition, I get it.

I totally understand why you approach the weaponization of government as a cancer treatment, and the Dept of Justice is the silo of focus for you to target with the harshest Stage-4 metastatic chemo.

I completely understand why, during this phase, all of your efforts have to be on aggressive treatment.  Main Justice carries the badges, and it is only Main Justice that can prosecute corruption.  I get it. I understand.  However, the cancerous lesion, that first moment when the compromised cells began to die and replicate, will not lead to an origination in the DOJ.

So far, every pathologist who has reviewed the diagnostic biopsy has called this a ‘cancer of unknown primary origin’ or abbreviated a CUP. Having backlight this cell structure for many years, I call tell you with confidence the accurate origin is the United States Intelligence Community.

Please, begin all Term-2 treatment options with this diagnosis in mind.

Please pay attention to the silo structure.

Notice in this first short video how Mary McCord positions the power structure of the DOJ-NSD silo in deference to the Intelligence Community (IC).

This is a critical path within the next step to American’s “great awakening.” In the past we have outlined how the DOJ-NSD weaponizes their Lawfare by using “National Security Information,” or what the insiders call “NSI.”

As an outcome of the way our checks and balances have been modified against our interests, the judicial branch has repeatedly deferred to the DOJ around the issue of “national security.” In fact, if the DOJ labels any Lawfare approach as a national security matter the subsequent evidence therein, the NSI (even when not seen) is accepted by the judicial branch without question. The judicial branch defers to the executive on all matters defined by the executive as “national security.”

This is the area of exploit being discussed by Mary McCord in this segment below. However, PLEASE NOTICE there is an apparatus that can supersede the DOJ-NSD’s ability to weaponize Nat Sec Information, that’s the power of the intelligence apparatus. WATCH:

Do not brush off this important reveal by the foremost voice in exploiting the targeting systems granted by the Intelligence Community.

Mary McCord is telling us the IC is in charge of “the information” that is then weaponized in the lawfare approach.

McCord notes how she and Andrew Weissmann navigate through the process of using National Security Information (NSI) as they move toward their target; the most common reference is their political opposition, Donald J Trump.

The DOJ has to ask the IC for permission to engage.

The IC gives the DOJ-NSD the targeting system; without it, nothing happens.

If you remove Main Justice as a weapon, you are treating a symptom – not the disease itself.  You still have not removed the origin of the cancer, the Intelligence Community.

McCord background:

If there is one Lawfare operative who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord. More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts when the Dobbs decision was leaked.

When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’).  That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important.  It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.

When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin.  Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016).  John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.

♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents.  The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.

♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson.  In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ.  Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.

♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission.  Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint.  It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules.  Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General?  Michael Atkinson.

When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to?  Mary McCord.

Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment.   As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.

♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith.  Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.

When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.

♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith.  In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome.  Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.

As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.

Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus?  Mary McCord.

♦ SUMMARY:  Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier.  Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn.  Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee.  Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.

You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.

What happened next….

November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)

That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.

First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court?  ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application.  In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing.  See how that works?

Now, let’s go deeper….

When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.

The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.

Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?

This is where a big mental reset is needed.  Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue.  In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so.  There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.

So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?  Why did the DOJ-NSD even care?  This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle.  People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.

Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls.  They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.

After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked.  Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey.  Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.

Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor.

Obama’s plausible deniability of the Trump surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.

That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.

It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; the problem was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge.

The January 5th meeting documented by Susan Rice was quickly organized to mitigate this issue.

Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House.  [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]

So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.

But wait, there’s more…. 

Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.

Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.

In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.

At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states.  Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel.  By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.

After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened.  Sheldon Snook left his position.   If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.

Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility.  In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.

If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount.  Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly.  Which is exactly what happened.

The timeline holds the key.

Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff all going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump?   Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her background efforts continue today as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team that is still attacking Donald Trump.

To give you an idea of the scope of influence of Mary McCord as a key functionary, consider what we can document.

♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.

♦ McCord created the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.

♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler.

♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.

♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.

♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.

♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.

♦ McCord is working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.

In short, Mary McCord is the lawfare string that winds through every legal ‘stop Trump’ effort, and her primary partner in this endeavor is Andrew Weissmann.  In this next video segment, notice what the “how to use that” quote is referencing.

.

Mary McCord is telling us who orchestrates their efforts.

It’s not Jack Smith, any more than it was Robert Mueller.

Mary McCord, Jack Smith, Andrew Weissman, Robert Mueller, etc. are/were simply the front men.

♦ Who assembled the 2016 “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report”? […] “The US intelligence community has concluded that a hack-and-release of Democratic Party and Clinton staff emails was designed to put Trump — a political neophyte who has praised Putin — into the Oval Office.”

♦ Who were the heads of the 17 intelligence agencies who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016?

♦ Who were the 51 names from the IC who said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation in 2020?

♦ Who are the 60 IC professionals who said Kamala Harris was stronger for National Security?

There’s the backlight picture provided by an accurate pathological diagnosis.

I hope President Donald Trump uses the absolute power of his office to appoint key people who will carry his constitutional, plenary and absolute authority.

The National Security Advisor doesn’t need confirmation for a reason.  Use the NatSec Advisor to target the origin of the cancer. Use the DNI to deconstruct the Intelligence Community silo system.

You did not make Tom Homan DHS Secretary because you knew in that role, he would have been weaker on securing the border and carrying out deportations. Great call.  Now apply that same level of thinking to the National Security Advisor and ODNI.

Have the NatSec Advisor and Director of National Intelligence secure the Intelligence Community with the same level of ferocity you expect Homan to carry out on the border.  Have the NatSec Advisor and ODNI carry the same deportation expectation inwardly, into every silo that makes up the 17 intelligence agencies and purge them just like the criminal aliens.  The “Six Ways from Sunday” cartel are far more dangerous.

Destroy the lies.  Get rid of the liars.

Get rid of the system control agents who isolate the Office of the President.

Make the Office of the President Great Again.

John Solomon and Donald Trump Jr Discuss Solomon’s Report of Ukraine Plan to Fund Biden Campaign Through USAID Scheme


Posted originally on CTH on March 31, 2026 | Sundance 

To say this report has been widely shared on conservative media would be an understatement; but something just doesn’t sniff right.

[Tweet Below: Samantha Power in Ukraine, October 2, 2024]

The essence of the reports is that Ukraine officials discussed a scheme to receive money from USAID, essentially from the CIA, then launder the money through fake Ukraine ‘clean energy programs’ using various front groups, eventually culminating with the money being transferred to the Joe Biden reelection effort.  That’s the gist of the report.

However, as much as this story is of great interest to me, for reasons outlined below, there are multiple red flags which should indicate serious caution needs to be applied.

First red flag.  Every single report about the issue links back to the original John Solomon report, written mostly by Jerry Dunleavy. [SEE HERE].  There is no follow-up reporting from any other outlet or source on this exceptionally explosive claim.

Second red flag.  Despite the report centering around a “declassified intelligence intercept” under review by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, there is no citation for the interpretation of the information itself.  There is no visibility into a declassified report, which if genuinely declassified would be easy to share with readers.

The absence of citation for the core claim, while simultaneously stating the information has been declassified, is a significant flag.  This type of reporting relies on the reader accepting the interpretation of the author who chooses -without saying why- to keep it hidden.

Third red flag.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not commented on the declassified originating information, nor on the reporting or interpretation of it by Solomon.  This is not to say the reporting itself is inaccurate, but simply to note that no one is going on the record to substantiate it; and again, the information is hidden.

Fourth red flag.  If the core information was accurate, it would be attacked (spun and shaped) in a defensive posture by the leftist media who have direct contacts with allied intelligence officials who would know about it.  When an explosive IC claim is ignored by leftist media (NYT, WaPo, Politico, et al) generally that means they want to see the narrative advance or be emphasized.  This posture of advancement is generally made when information is being wrongly interpreted, and that plays positively toward their interests.

Fifth red flag.  The originator of the interpretation, in this case Solomon & Dunleavy, are careful in wording choices to leave as much deniability as possible for downstream discussion, questions and interpretations.  The infamous, ‘well we didn’t say that specifically’, when questioned later on.

This story is of great interest to me personally because in real time throughout 2024 I was tracking USAID Administrator Samantha Power, knowing full well she was an operative for the larger intelligence apparatus (CIA).

I wrote about Power’s real time travels to Georgia (Tbilisi), Slovenia, Moldova, Romania, Poland and Hungary, as she was setting up election interference operations in each of the countries.

What do Georgia, Moldova, Slovenia, Romania, Poland and Hungary have in common?  They were/are the site of very important election and/or referendum outcomes for the EU/U.S. State Department and EU/U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.

Controlling election outcomes was the entire reason Samantha Power was involved in those countries. USAID was funding the groups in each country that were in alignment with the Dept of State/EU/CIA outlook.

In support of what Solomon/Dunleavy have outlined, the possibility of corrupt Ukraine officials working with USAID to launder funds back to the 2024 U.S. election just makes buckets of Occam’s Razor sense.

Additionally, against the backdrop that multiple Ukraine energy sector officials have been charged with corruption, and the fact that the scheme outlined by Solomon involves the Ukraine energy sector – again, it just makes sense.

All of the elements for an outline of a Ukraine/USAID partnership toward shaping the U.S. presidential election outcome simply aligns with a lot of facts and circumstantial evidence that is very visible.  However, the red flags cannot be easily ignored.

Bottom Line: There is a lot of ancillary information and circumstantial evidence supporting what John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy have outlined.  However, if the information is indeed “declassified”, then why is it kept secret without explanation?   Therefore, the premise is tantalizing, perhaps exceptionally explosive, but proceed with caution.

Following the Ukraine Fraud Trail, Interview with John Solomon | Triggered Ep.329

Lyndon LaRouche PAC Notes Importance of Trump Position Toward NATO and Upcoming Xi Summit


Posted originally on CTH on March 29, 2026 | sundance

Three days ago, the Financial Times wrote an article framed around the central thesis of the LaRouche PAC, now branded as Promethean Action PAC.  The FT article accused Treasury Secretary Bessent of structuring a U.S. Federal Reserve policy disconnected from the framework of the U.K banking and finance model; essentially the article said what Promethean has been claiming about the British banking system and President Trump’s intent.

Treasury Secretary Bessent immediately responded saying the article and its claims were false, “There is much to be said about the storied Bank of England, but any recreation of its operating framework on this side of the Atlantic has never been contemplated.”  CTH was waiting to see how the Lyndon LaRouche PAC would react to the Trump administration denial of their central thesis.  As expected, the LaRouche group ignored it.

That said, Barbara Boyd, former organizer of “Students for LaRouche” (SLR), put together a video highlighting some of the recent remarks by Secretary Rubio, Secretary Bessent and President Trump that accurately point out how the U.S. is disconnecting America First policy from the European Union/NATO perspective.   The upcoming summit between President Trump and Chairman Xi will be very interesting to watch:

While the LaRouche team at Promethean Action PAC are good at following the Trump America-First policy outcomes, the LaRouche team are British-centric in all things related to it.   Decoupling the USA from the “special relationship” with the U.K is an outcome of a pragmatic approach toward America First; it is not the intention of the policy.

Lastly, each time a LaRouche PAC video is shared, the promoters of Promethean Action PAC try to obfuscate the relationship.  It is a fact that Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd are life-long LaRouche followers and organizers.  A recent tweet shared below will hopefully put this pretending (willful blindness) to rest.

[Twitter SOURCE and Internal Link Source]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a shell of its former self.  The City of London no longer has anywhere near the influence being attributed to it and the British monarchy is in a state of freefall.

The bloom is off the ruse.

Perhaps that’s why the PAC had to change vehicles.

However, all of that said, I’m not sure MAGA is prepared to shift support toward Beijing and Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.  Then again, as long as it’s not the British crown, that’s LaRouche for ya.

Take from the information buffet all the stuff that provides value and simultaneously ignore the stuff that will have you seeing black helicopters following your car every day.

Remember, ultimately a Political Action Committee (PAC) is a fundraising vehicle.