Tag Archives: Fourth Branch of Govt

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.

Feb 20 2026

President Trump Holds Impromptu Presser Aboard Airforce One – Obama Released Classified Information


Posted originally on CTH on February 19, 2026 | Sundance 

Apparently when President Barack H Obama said that Aliens were real, his opinion was party based on classified “classified intelligence material.”  As noted by President Trump earlier today, he may have to declassify material related to the statements of Obama in order to protect him from prosecution…

.

Feb 18 2026

Disinformation Board Member Jennifer Daskal Appointed as FISA Court Advisor


Posted originally on CTH on February 17, 2026 | Sundance 

A good catch by Chuck Ross at WFB drawing attention to the latest Amici curiae appointed to the FISA Court.

Adding to a string of leftist ‘advisors to the court’ Jennifer Daskal has been appointed by FISA Court Presiding Judge Anthony Trenga.

Daskal was the Biden administration principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security who launched the Disinformation Governance Board (Ministry of Truth) ultimately led by Nina Jankowicz.

Jennifer Daskal’s career has centers around controlling information from a leftist perspective and was one of the core officials who used the term dis-mis-mal-information to censor speech on social media platforms around COVID-19 and the vaccination protocol.

Daskal’s reach and control into big tech and social media is well documented. Appointing her as an advisor to the FISA court is troubling as she has joined Amy Jeffress, appointed amicus curiae in 2015 (Biden’s personal attorney), David Kris, a 2016 amicus curiae selection (denied Carter Page FISA application contained fabrications), and the infamous Mary McCord appointed amicus curiae in 2021 (sits at the center of every stop-Trump operation).

Washington Free Beacon – A Biden administration official who launched the Disinformation Governance Board and served as co-chair of the so-called Ministry of Truth has been appointed to advise the powerful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prompting concerns from some Republican lawmakers.

The presiding judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review appointed Jennifer Daskal on Feb. 1 to serve as amicus curiae for the court. Amici curiae, known as “friends of the court,” advise judges on legal issues related to foreign surveillance warrants in national security cases. Daskal served as acting principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. In that role, she drafted the charter for the Disinformation Governance Board, according to a Jan. 31, 2022 memo. (read more)

[SOURCE]

Feb 6 2026

Why is the Deep State Targeting DNI Tulsi Gabbard with Such Ferocity?


Posted originally on CTH on February 6, 2026 | Sundance

Each day more and more people are starting to realize/notice there are elements of the United States intelligence apparatus that are targeting Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.  The need for control is a reaction to fear, and Tulsi Gabbard has the DC Intelligence Community very worried.

What you will read below is something that was written back in 2024 about the potential for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), if President Trump were to win the election.  Subsequently, he did win; and while we are not saying this is the exact ODNI script that is being followed, we are certainly not disputing that either.

Read the roadmap below –Written in 2024– compare it to current events and decide for yourself if this is something that rings a bell and may explain the IC apoplexy.

The ODNI was created as an outcome of the 9-11 Commission recommendations.  In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. 

When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

Here is the weird part.  The ODNI was formed in 2004, with the intent for the office to be the pivot point of a national security radar.   The DNI was intended to provide information to domestic agencies about foreign terror networks that would prevent something like 9-11 from happening again.  However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has never, not for one day, operated on this intent.   This is why they are such a critical position from my perspective.

The office was new, not established yet as a functioning silo, when Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived in 2009.  They quickly dispatched an idiot, James Clapper, into the operation so they could weaponize around the offices’ fulcrum point.

Prior to the DNI office existing, the CIA radar would sweep externally and then report to the Office of the President. The DNI was intended to take external radar sweep (CIA) and make it a full 360° circle, adding a sweep inside the USA that would be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security.

The DHS sweep and the CIA sweep would then be combined into a central collection hub called the ODNI.  Everyone with responsibility for “national security” could access the ODNI material. Essentially and presumably, post 9-11 nothing like jihadists practicing to fly airplanes would be missed again; at least that was the intent.

The weird part is that because the DNI was immediately weaponized, the office has never functioned to the purpose of its intent.

No one truly knows what the office possibilities consist of because no one has ever seen anyone try to functionally control the hub.  If you think I’m joking about the intent of Obama and John Brennan using the DNI watch this video. This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place.

For the intents of this outline the takeaway is how the DNI office has never been used for good.  In a strategic way, that can be used to our advantage if you are talking about leveraging silos against each other.

Example:  The DNI can assemble material from any silo.  Meaning the DNI can reach into any IC silo and extract anything they want.  Under the original authorities given to the DNI, this authority exists.  So, let’s spread the wings on this office and do exactly what it is permitted to do, only this time extract for the purpose of showing the President what is happening in every silo.

In essence, the DNI *CAN BE* deployed like a super strong cross-silo inspector general’s office.  Force the other IC silos to comply with the demands of the DNI.  This has never been done. But the DNI has this unique power.

The DNI can make the FBI, DOJ, DOJ-NSD, DoD, DoS and CIA provide anything and everything they demand.  Instead of the other silos using blocks and threats against the office of the President, use the authority of the DNI to get them without confrontation.   Then use the DNI to declassify the documents (if requested by potus), instead of the originating silo.

Can you see how the DNI office can be repurposed to be a seriously strong weapon in the toolbox of the President, against the schemes of those inside the various IC silos.

The DNI becomes much more important than the CIA Director, NSA Director, FBI Director, Attorney General, etc, because the DNI can just show up and say, “give me this.”  That’s the functional purpose of the DNI office that has never been exerted; let’s flippin’ use it.

Let’s use the office of the DNI as the central information hub that takes information from inside the corrupt silos, then provides that information to the President who puts sunlight upon it.  Each corrupt silo penetrated with disinfectant.  This could begin a process to pull down the shadow operations and let the American public see what has been happening inside our IC apparatus.

To accomplish this approach the National Security Advisor to the President (NSA) [currently Marco Rubio], would be the person who tells the DNI what they are looking for. How does the NSA know what to look for?  Because the National Security Advisor is the head of the National Security Council (NSC).

Let the NSC monitor the silos with specific intent, perhaps with assistance from open-source research, then provide Trump’s NatSec Advisor with details on what appears to be happening and where.   With the approval of the President, the NSA [Rubio], then turns to the DNI [Gabbard] and says, “POTUS wants this, go get this.”

Raw, unfiltered, unredacted information.   The silo administrators end up in a fight with the ODNI, not the office of President Trump.  President Trump then uses the power of his office to support the demands of the DNI.

Under this approach the DNI has a lot more power; yet funnily, it’s power they already have – yet have never utilized.

[END of Prior Outline]

Does any of that track with what we are currently experiencing?

With DNI Tulsi Gabbard putting strategic pressure from the inside, and We The People putting accountability pressure from the outside, this Deep State intelligence nut just might begin to crack.

In fact, I might even argue that cracking is exactly what we are starting to see.

Dec 16 2025

JD Vance Points Out the Consequence of the Senate “Blue Slip” Veto of Judicial Nominees


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance 

The blue slip process has been a part of the Senate’s judicial nomination procedure since at least 1917. When a President nominates an individual for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip —a form colored blue— to the two Senators representing the nominee’s home state. This form allows the Senators to express their opinions about the nominee.

Positive Response: If a home-state Senator has no objections, they return the blue slip with a positive response, indicating support for the nominee. Negative Response or Withholding: If a Senator objects, they may either return the slip with a negative response or choose not to return it at all. In both cases, this is treated as a lack of support for the nominee, which halts the nomination process.

JD Vance notes this process is being used to manipulate the appointments of Judges in leftist states.  This creates a dual justice system; one of the core issues within our extremely divided nation.

[SOURCE]

JD Vance is not wrong.  However, as with all things corrupted within the state of our Republic, if the blue slip process is removed the next leftist President can corrupt the judiciary within Republican states.

Of course, all of this is an outcome of the 17th Amendment, which stopped the state legislatures from having control over their senators.  Under the original constitutional framework, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the state, as the Senators were appointed by state legislature, not popular votes.  The Sea Island assembly destroyed this cornerstone when they triggered the 17th Amendment.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and just about everything in federal government changes.

Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”  A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.

When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states.  Over time, those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power.  One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th Amendment.

Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  In this original system, the Senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states.  Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.

The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate.   The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.

The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government.  However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials.  We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem.  At least we admit the Senate exists.

All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate.  If we correct the problems with the Senate, and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change.  However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.

When the 17th Amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed.  The Senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.

Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government.  The Senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.

In essence, the 17th Amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.

Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th Amendment.

Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber.  Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us.   When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.

It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th Amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen.  Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th Amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature.  [Common Explainer Here]

Seventeenth Amendment- “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” (link)

Prior to the 17th Amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests, and Senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position.  Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.

The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate.   Get the right people in the State legislature, and you can get the Senator appointed.

Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th Amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC.   [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.]  Additionally, prior to the 17th Amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.

The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th Amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state.  Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.

A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years.  The 17th Amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the Congress, as it was written by the founders.

Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch.  The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?”

The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them.  Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch.   The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.

If we could repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance.   [NOTE: Within the repeal effort, we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]

◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th Amendment “.  This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.

This approach gives a presidential candidate the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election.  We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude.

◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.

Obviously, this would be an ugly battle.   The second path is a convention of states. 

The ‘convention of states‘ would need to be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins).   That way, if Congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th Amendment “.  That’s it. Full Stop.  Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.

There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this.  However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government.   The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th Amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.

The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative.  In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest.  This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.

The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.”  However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making.  The 17th Amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.

Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.

Nov 22 2025

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller Discusses the Consequences of Sedition


Posted originally on CTH on November 21, 2025 | Sundance 

Senator Elissa Slotkin (Mich), a former CIA analyst who worked in the State Department and Pentagon during the Obama administration, organized a viral video with Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado.

The six congressional representatives directed their coordinated communication to members of the military and intelligence community. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders … you must refuse illegal orders,” they asserted.

However, when questioned about what “illegal orders” President Trump has created, the six members are suddenly very quiet.  White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller responds:

.

Ultimately, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi could easily assign an FBI agent and U.S attorney to question the six members about the “illegal orders” they are telling the military and intelligence community to defy.

If Slotkin, Kelly and the rest cannot present evidence of an illegal order they are referring to, that would be a qualification that should presumably invoke a First Amendment defense claim, then charge them with simple sedition as defined in statute.

Oct 30 2025

FBI Leadership Stakes a Position in Opposition to Expanded Authority of Director of National Intelligence


Posted originally on CTH on October 29, 2025 | Sundance 

It has often been said that a person cannot serve two masters.  Throughout years of reviewing the activity of the FBI, one larger picture is clear; the primary mission of the FBI is to protect the interests of Washington, DC – not to protect the interests of truth.

There are two recent sub-contexts for an internal conflict taking place between the Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, and the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

♦ The first issue surfaces from the ODNI’s office investigating the potential for foreign intelligence to have participated in the background of the Charlie Kirk assassination.  The director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Joe Kent, has been reviewing the potential for Charlie Kirk’s assassin to have received influence or support from foreign interests, specifically foreign intelligence.

FBI Director Kash Patel is not happy that NCTC Director Joe Kent reviewed the investigative case file of Tyler Robinson as part of the NCTC review.  Presumably, Patel is worried that any investigation of potential support for the assassination may create reasonable doubt for a jury in the case against Robinson. {STORY HERE}

On one-hand the issue is somewhat territorial, with the FBI guarding their investigation in order to ensure a successful prosecution.  However, on the other hand, if the investigation is to find the truth of the issues behind the murder, then why would the FBI be concerned about the NCTC checking to see if associations in/around Tyler Robinson may have contributed to the assassination?  The truth should have no agenda.

♦ The second issue is even more concerning.  Congress is currently debating the final version of an intelligence policy bill, known as the 2026 Intelligence Authorization Act, and possible amendments to the structure of the counterintelligence systems and processes as carried out.  [Legislative Link Here] At issue is whether to put intelligence and counterintelligence operations under the purview of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. {STORY HERE}

Currently, the counterintelligence operations of the U.S. Intelligence Community are carried out by the sub-silo within the FBI, the FBI counterintelligence division.  However, as documented in the weaponized use of the FBI counterintelligence organization against President Donald Trump, there is a push to change the system to create oversight, insurance the FBI cannot politically weaponize this agency again.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard has said her goal is to chase down the exact origin of the FBI’s weaponized authority in the Crossfire Hurricane targeting operation and take measures to ensure such gross abuses of power do not happen again.  Many in Congress have been alarmed at how the FBI used the counterintelligence agency as an isolation silo to stop oversight, even their own leadership, from knowing what they were doing as they weaponized their authority.  Gabbard is seeking structural changes to make sure it can never happen again.  Kash Patel is against this change.

♦ Readers and online researchers who have used the CTH research library on these issues will note our continued position, proven by decades of evidence, that shows the FBI as a structural agency is compromised from top to bottom with “institutional corruption,” as confirmed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Decades of examples of FBI political motivation, including the recently discussed “Arctic Frost” operation, simply prove the FBI is a political agency akin to the Soviet era FSB.  The FBI targets any individual, group or entity, who would represent a threat to Washington, DC.  This is their primary mission and the reason why so many domestic terror threats were unnoticed.

The FBI is primarily focused on threats to the U.S. system of government, not to threats against the citizens of the nation.  At this point in our history, with hundreds of specific examples for citation, this outlook, opinion or view is no longer arguable.

Despite FBI Director Kash Patel continuing to deny the ‘institutional corruption’ of his agency, the corruption exists.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was also accurate in saying from her experience with the FBI tipping off drug cartels, money launderers and human trafficking operations targeted by CBP/ICE officials, the FBI is corrupt.

We are approaching an inflection point.

President Trump is demanding the institutions of Law and Order must be purged of corrupt actors and the institutions themselves must be cleaned up.  DNI Tulsi Gabbard is working through the process of identifying how the various govt silos were weaponized, who weaponized them, what role the intelligence community played in the targeting, and she is taking direct action to change the systems in place in order to take away their capability of doing harm.

FBI Director Kash Patel stands with one foot in agreement with the goals of DNI Gabbard, but also with one foot to maintain institutional power of the FBI while underneath him remains an entire operational system against the goals of Gabbard.  Again, in short, Director Kash Patel is trying to serve two masters.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is not beholden to the retention of any silo agency, even her own office.  So far, she has been a steward on a mission for the truth regardless of how ugly that truth might appear.  This puts a big DC target on the back of Mrs. Gabbard, as the entire DC system is dependent on retention of a very corrupt intelligence information control and operational targeting system.

In examples we have already documented, the CIA (Directorate of Analysis), the DoD (Defense Intelligence Agency), and the Lawfare operatives within the DOJ have all targeted Tulsi Gabbard using DC schemes and manipulative leaks to media in an effort to undermine her and get her removed – they failed.  However, now the FBI is participating in the same risk avoidance measures.

DNI Gabbard represents a threat to the operational mission of an institutionally corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.

― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

[SOURCE]