Tag Archives: Deep state

Apr 10 2026

Susan Kokinda on Trump’s Gambit: Civilizational Expansion or Nihilistic Western Decline


Posted originally on CTH on April 9, 2026 | Sundance |

Susan Kokinda from Promethean Action gives her perspective on the negotiated ceasefire with Iran.  Kokinda notes the key players were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey (she missed China).

In a lesser reported part of the background, Chairman Xi Jinping summoned the Pakistani negotiators to Beijing prior to the terms of agreement with Trump.  The summoning happened right after Trump said he was going to target the full force of the U.S. military against Iranian infrastructure.

Why does that matter to China?  Belt and Road.  Beijing has built a railway from China into Iran for the transport of goods and raw materials (including energy products) out of Iran (sanctions avoidance) in exchange for shipments of weapons. If President Trump targeted the railway infrastructure, in combination with the oil shipments being hampered, ¹China would be in a very bad place.  Hence the summoning to get a ceasefire.

Focusing too narrowly on the British Empire as the source of all problems and you miss things.  Mrs Kokinda missed this:

[SOURCE]

¹China in a bad place due to the middle east in crisis, means China becomes more dependent on Russia for oil, gas and ultimately fuel.  Internally, Russia isn’t a big fan of their Chinese dependencies.

If FUBAR in Iran remained the statis, the two countries not in any crisis would be the USA and Russia, both with oil/gas and extra refining capacity.  The countries/regions in biggest crisis would be China, Europe and Southeast Asia.

The U.S. and Russia less affected.  China and the EU more affected.  A significant geopolitical paradigm shift, all things considered…. and it appears that Beijing saw it coming.

Apr 10 2026

President Trump Blasts the Grifters, Blackpillers and Anti-MAGA Podcasters


Posted originally on CTH on April 9, 2026 | Sundance |

I’m really glad to see this from President Trump, because it clears up the big question of whether he recognized what the blackpill/grifter crowd was doing to split the larger MAGA coalition. Turns out, yes—he definitely sees it.

Not only does he see it, but he takes the issue head-on. Very nice to see.

[Via Truth Social] – “I know why Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon — Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs.

They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don’t have what it takes, and they never did! They’ve all been thrown off Television, lost their Shows, and aren’t even invited on TV because nobody cares about them, they’re NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, and will say anything necessary for some “free” and cheap publicity.

Now they think they get some “clicks” because they have Third Rate Podcasts, but nobody’s talking about them, and their views are the opposite of MAGA — Or I wouldn’t have won the Presidential Election in a LANDSLIDE.

MAGA agrees with me, and just gave CNN a 100% Approval Rating of “TRUMP,” not Hand Flailing Fools like Tucker Carlson, who couldn’t even finish College, he was a broken man when he got fired from Fox, and he’s never been the same — Perhaps he should see a good psychiatrist! Or Megyn Kelly, who nastily asked me the now famous, “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” question, or “Crazy” Candace Owens, who accuses the Highly Respected First Lady of France of being a man, when she is not, and will hopefully win lots of money in the ongoing lawsuit.

Actually, to me, the First Lady of France is a far more beautiful woman than Candace, in fact, it’s not even close! Or Bankrupt Alex Jones, who says some of the dumbest things, and lost his entire fortune, as he should have, for his horrendous attack on the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, ridiculously claiming it was a hoax.

These so-called “pundits” are LOSERS, and they always will be! Now Fake News CNN, The Failing New York Times, and all of the other Radical Left “News” Organizations, are “hailing” them, and giving them “positive” press for the first time in their lives. They’re not “MAGA,” they’re losers, just trying to latch on to MAGA.

As President, I could get them on my side anytime I want to, but when they call, I don’t return their calls because I’m too busy on World and Country Affairs and, after a few times, they go “nasty,” just like Marjorie “Traitor” Brown, but I no longer care about that stuff, I only care about doing right for our Country.

MAGA is about WINNING and STRENGTH in not allowing Iran to have Nuclear Weapons. MAGA is about MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and these people have no idea how to do that, BUT I DO, because THE UNITED STATES IS NOW THE “HOTTEST” COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!”

~ President DONALD J. TRUMP

 

Apr 7 2026

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 ~

Apr 7 2026

CIA Director John Ratcliffe Discusses Covert Intel Role During Iran Rescue Operation


Posted originally on CTH on April 6, 2026 | Sundance

CIA Director John Ratcliffe gets a lot of flak for his general invisibility during the Trump administration.  Historically, the entire CIA apparatus has held dual missions, one domestic (hidden) and one foreign (opaque).

There is no reasonable person who would hold confidence in the fidelity of the CIA regarding their influence agenda on domestic politics.  However, it does seem clear that CIA Director Ratcliffe has been trying to eliminate the mechanisms within the CIA who have operated that influence campaign.

Shifting the assembly of the Presidential Daily Briefing to the ODNI, the real assembly – not the optics therein, is one facet. Taking the National Intelligence Council (ie. the Ciaramella, Gurganus, NIC) intelligence manipulation system out of the CIA and under the ODNI is another visible facet.  Additionally, substantively moving CIA operations away from the State Dept., and refocusing the majority of operations back toward the Pentagon is another example.

In the briefing with President Trump on the Iran rescue operations, Director Ratcliffe notes the removal of politics from CIA operations is ongoing.  WATCH:

Restructuring a covert institution is a daunting task, made particularly difficult given the cornerstones of the institution were founded as a domestic influence operation.   It may well be said the objective is impossible; indeed, there is slight chance of success given the background we all know too well.

That said, at least on the visible face of what can be seen within an agency whose legislative mandate includes the demand that all activity remain hidden from public review, Ratcliffe does seem to be making an earnest effort to restrain the control mechanisms.

Apr 4 2026

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.

Apr 3 2026

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.

Apr 3 2026

No, Bondi Was Not Fired for Leaking to Swalwell


Posted originally on CTH on April 2, 2026 | Sundance

The Daily Mail has written a rather explosive story saying Attorney General Pam Bondi was fired because she leaked or gave a heads up to Eric Swalwell about the FBI re-reviewing the investigative files about him [STORY HERE].

Without discussing the motive or background, the story itself just doesn’t make sense.

What most people probably don’t know is that former FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Counterintelligence Division, Joseph Pientka III, currently works for Congressman Swalwell [CITATION].

FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former partner, Joe Pientka, works for Eric Swalwell.  Now, remember Joe Pientka’s very high security job inside the FBI Counterintelligence office? [REMINDER]

Because of his former role, Joe Pientka has deep ties to senior agents inside the current FBI, the type of agents who would know the inside details of any Swalwell investigative activity.

[SIDENOTE: Following the ridiculous Russiagate, and after the hand-off to Robert Mueller, Joe Pientka was transferred to the FBI San Francisco field office; hence, the regional alignment with Swalwell [CITATION].  Sometime in mid 2019, Joseph Pientka was promoted by FBI Director Christopher Wray and transferred to the San Francisco FBI Field Office where he showed up on their web page. END SIDENOTE]

Bondi wouldn’t need to tip off Swalwell. Pientka, currently working for Swalwell, would already know the ins/outs of every detail therein. [It’s a red herring]

FBI Director Kash Patel couldn’t start to review (or re-review) Swalwell activity without triggering one of those inside contacts aligned with Pientka.

If Trump was shaped to think Bondi had something to do with an FBI leak about Swalwell, (which I doubt), the shaping would be an intel operation to manufacture that narrative, (which I still doubt).

Learn the networks, then see with clear eyes.

The same intel networks which would, if accurate, stimulate such shaping, are the same intel networks who would posit shaping with The Guardian, using allies in GCHQ to create plausible deniability for a domestic narrative engineering effort, to remove DNI Tulsi Gabbard.  That’s how they roll.

Don’t worry. DNI Tulsi Gabbard has an angel on her shoulder.

The Guardian is to the British GCHQ (Govt Communication Headquarters) as the Washington Post is to the CIA.

So, in summary: With Joe Pientka currently working for Eric Swalwell, there’s a direct FBI pipeline through Pientka to Swalwell, and subsequently no need for Bondi to leak or share anything.

FBI Director Kash Patel still doesn’t have his arms around this agency.

Moving on….

Apr 3 2026

Bondi Out


Posted originally on CTH on April 2, 2026 | Sundance 

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been relieved of her duties as United States Attorney General.

[SOURCE]

Readers of CTH will likely not see this as a surprise. {Go Deep}

Pam Bondi was the second sequential cabinet level removal prediction we made after she was announced.  {GO DEEP} The first person we predicted to be removed was National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

Susie Wiles should be embarrassed {GO DEEP}.

I will share more later….

Apr 2 2026

President Trump, Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune Organize Legislation to Fund Border Patrol and ICE for Three Years


Posted originally on CTH on April 1, 2026 | Sundance |

Democrat party leadership, bowing to pressure from their base of supporters, have previously announced their plan to reopen the border, dismantle Customs and Border Patrol and completely defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of the larger strategy to maintain the maximum number of illegal aliens as possible.

According to the Democrat plan, this approach has the support of the majority of Americans. However, President Trump, Speaker Johnson and Senate Leader Thune are working together on another approach.

[Via Truth Social] – “Republicans fully support our Great Men and Women of Law Enforcement, maybe the word should be, LOVE! America thanks each and every one of our wonderful Police, Border Patrol, ICE, and others, for their work to protect our Cities, Towns, Streets and, indeed, our Country itself.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats want to DEFUND the Police, Border Patrol, and all Immigration Enforcement. They want to allow Criminals, the Mentally Insane, and Lunatics from all over the World to come into our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, putting Americans in serious danger.

That’s why we are going forward to fund our incredible ICE Agents and Border Patrol through a process that doesn’t need Radical Left Democrat votes, and bypasses the Senate Filibuster (which should be repealed, IMMEDIATELY!), working in close conjunction with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune. We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us.

We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st. Our Law Enforcement Officers and the American People should not have to wait until the Democrats see reason or, learn the hard way through the Polls. Hopefully, everyone will be voting REPUBLICAN for the Midterms. Through simple unification, Republicans can do this without the Democrats!

In the meantime, we will continue to use funding from THE GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL, which is giving Record Tax Rebates to Citizens all over the Country, to ensure that ICE and Border Patrol Agents are paid ON TIME, and IN FULL, as we have been doing for them throughout the Democrat Shutdown. Immigration Enforcement will continue, and our Border will remain secure, with no Murderers, Drug Dealers, or Criminals of any kind entering our Country.

The American People should use this opportunity to reflect on the tens of millions of Illegal Aliens, including many Violent Criminals such as Murderers, Rapists, Human Traffickers, Child Molesters, and more, that Joe Biden and his Far Left Liberal Democrat Cronies in Congress (led by Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer) invited and allowed into our Country for the four years before I took office.

These Radical, Weak, and Incompetent Democrats have made clear that if they resume power, they will never again provide funding to secure our Border or enforce our Immigration Laws. The Democrats are the Party of Open Borders for Criminals, Crime, Zero Immigration Enforcement, Defunding the Police, and Allowing the Worst of the Worst to have “Get Out of Jail Free” Cards. They want America to be OPEN AND AVAILABLE to Violent Criminals, Thugs, and Lowlifes, not our Great and Loving American Patriots. Don’t forget that in November. WIN THE MIDTERMS! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” ~ President DONALD J. TRUMP

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson released the following statement:

WASHINGTON — “This afternoon, Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson released a joint statement announcing a path forward to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security – including CBP and ICE – and end the record-long Democrat shutdown.

“We appreciate and share the President’s determination to once and for all bring an end to the Democrat DHS shutdown.

“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the President’s directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process.

“We appreciate that Senator Graham and the Senate Budget Committee have already initiated the process of developing a budget resolution that will ensure border security and immigration enforcement will be funded for the balance of the Trump Administration and insulated from future attempts by the Democrats to defund those agencies.

“We operated under a belief that while our country is in the midst of an international armed conflict, Democrats might finally come to their senses and understand that defunding our homeland security agencies is beyond reckless and very dangerous. While we hoped they would accept the 60-day CR to fund the Department entirely so that bipartisan negotiations could continue, it is now abundantly clear that Democrats place allegiance to their radical left-wing base above all else — including their own power of the purse — which means open borders and protecting criminal illegal aliens. That is not acceptable to Republicans in Congress, nor is it to the American people. We cannot allow Democrats to any longer put the safety of the American public at risk through their open border policies, so we are taking that off the table.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited. In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.” (source)

Apr 2 2026

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Gives a National Address – Things Will Never Be the Same Again


Posted originally on CTH on April 1, 2026 | Sundance

Against the backdrop of the Iran conflict, crisis in the Middle East and the disruption of energy supplies due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, U.K Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an urgent meeting with British business leaders, finance and bankers as well as U.K insurance leaders.  At the conclusion of that meeting, he informed media of a national address.

During the national address to the people of Great Britain, Prime Minister Starmer emphasized that events in the Middle East have forever changed the landscape of U.K. economic and geopolitical policy.  Signaling an inflection point crossed, the British prime minister announced that urgent actions were being taken to mitigate a national crisis.

Additionally, accepting the U.S. position toward NATO, and the U.K appears to be permanently shifted, Starmer said the British relationship with Europe now becomes critical to their vital national security interests.  Against the backdrop of an end to the “special relationship” with America, the Brexit independence from the European Union is now a threat.

The United Kingdom must find a way to reunite with the European Union, because if it remains alone, without key support and protection from the USA, the British Empire is at risk of collapse.  WATCH: 

.

President Trump is also scheduled to deliver a national address at 9:00pm Wednesday.  Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview with Fox News last night specifically centered around a changed U.S.-NATO relationship (that interview coming next).