Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel will be holding a joint press conference today at 5:30pm ET. Livestream link below:
.
.
In the next few days, much more about the overall investigative review underway in Florida will likely begin to surface. The review has been led by USAO Jason A. Reding Quiñones, a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of Florida. Quinones is now supported by Counsel to the AG, Joe diGenova.
As with all investigations containing multiple players and actors, the first investigative information is extracted from testimony by those furthest away from the principals, yet closest to the granular details of the events being reviewed. The questioning then goes upstream, using information collected to assemble more specific questions as the principal players are approached.
The widest concentric circles are questioned first. Then, using the responses and investigative information from that circle, the questioning and inquiry goes to the next inner circle of participants. The information is assembled, and more pointed questions are then targeted to the next inner circle; the process continues until the core is questioned.
Beginning with the end in mind, the biggest challenge is knowing what the correct questions are to ask of those who were closest to the corrupt activity (the outer circle).
Background research then becomes critical. From those pointed questions you get answers. Then, next level of more specific questions get focus, and so on, and so on.
On March 20, 2026, James Comey was subpoenaed.
Also remember, there are two distinct and different aspects to the overall conspiracy and timeline.
There was surveillance of the 2016 Republican candidates by contractors working on behalf of the FBI who was institutionally collaborating with the Clinton campaign; that is known as “Spygate.” There was then an FBI operation to target and eliminate the threat represented by the 2016 GOP primary winner, Donald Trump; that is known as “Russiagate.”
‘Spygate’ and ‘Russiagate’ are two distinctly different corrupt pathways that eventually merged due to common interests.
The Mueller investigation, an extension of Crossfire Hurricane (Russiagate) was used by Obama-era politicians and internal government officials as a mechanism to block President Trump from executing a divergent foreign policy. The primary policy of focus was to protect the Obama era operations, including the Iran deal.
Based on mounting evidence, a pattern in other international activities and U.S. participants, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry Iranian deal likely included a mechanism for return payments to U.S. officials following the release of billions in frozen Iranian asset funds and the loosening of sanctions – (ie. pallets of cash). Qatar was the mediator/broker.
However, it is speculated, perhaps being evidenced, that return payments to the Obama team contained a timing mechanism, and the quid-pro-quo payments were stopped after President Trump withdrew from the Iran deal and re-instituted sanctions.
Thus, a much larger background context exists for why the totality of the U.S. government and Intelligence Community opposed President Donald Trump. Is it all about the money? Time will tell. Current events may not be coincidental.
♦ Washington DC uses a system of decades-long constructed silos to control and ultimately hide information adverse to the interests of the DC system itself. Put another way, people within our government have constructed layers of systems to hide the corruption that takes place.
This silo system is challenging to understand; but thankfully many more people have started to comprehend how it works. The constitutional separation of power mechanisms has been weaponized by the corrupt actors, as we outlined in the example of Adam Schiff hiding the transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson.
All of us have been frustrated to hear politicians in the legislative branch talk about “sending criminal referrals” to the Dept of Justice, and yet nothing happens. Part of this is created by ‘stakeholder equities’, specific ownership of the underlying documents that do not accompany the referral (locked in a non-compliant silo). The intelligence community is notorious for classifying and hiding the evidence of wrongdoing.
Without the direct and specific evidence, and without an aligned intent from the receiver, the referral itself is more of a legislative fundraising narrative than an actionable event. A pitch without a catcher, and sometimes even without a ball.
You are not alone in your frustration. However, you might remember CTH providing a very specific outline of how a key position within government could be used to change things. {GO DEEP} The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, shutting down the IC from hiding evidence is key. An honest and truthful arbiter of intelligence is a paradigm shift in the DC system; it is also a threat.
With Executive Branch DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassifying purposefully hidden intelligence equities, in combination with the Legislative Branch providing source material from their own silo equities, what you get is an unimpeded flow of information to the Dept of Justice.
Two pipes of information, legislatively authorized and intelligence declassified, joining together in a single stream of actionable evidence flowing unimpeded to the DOJ. This is the worst-case scenario for corrupt DC entities who hide within the silo system. From my perspective, this information flow is now in place.
A review of historic ‘Spygate and Russiagate’ activity is taking place in Florida with a grand jury led by U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones. We are now seeing reports of information flows in both directions from DC to Florida, and from Florida to DC. Quinones is now supplemented with Joe diGenova.
Requests from Quinones, intermediate transfers at DOJ, prompt responses from legislative silos and returns after review -if needed- from DNI.
This is a very positive indication toward some form of accountability. However, there is also an institutional muscle memory that is annoying. It would be better overall if politicians in DC just kept their mouth shut. On the topic of prior targeting of Donald Trump, when we hear the term “sent to the DOJ” we can reasonably be certain that means sent to Florida and sent to USAO Jason Quinones along with Joe diGenova.
There is a very small reliable group of lawyers within the Dept of Justice, when considering the scale and scope of the challenges and cases they are assigned. Obama and Biden had 12 years of importing ideological lawyers into Main Justice and the various U.S. Attorney Offices. None of their lawyers are reliable.
The blue state fraud investigations were obviously starting to bog down the limited resources of the DOJ. Division of labor introduces Vice-President JD Vance to act as a subject-matter-specific Attorney General and USAO Colin Macdonald on fraud enforcement/prosecution.
Treasury Dept financial crimes lawyers are tracing money, domestic and foreign, while supporting both Main Justice and the Fraud Task Force.
This keeps A-DAG Todd Blanche focused on defending Trump policy, deportation and immigration removal efforts, election integrity issues and matters of national security (criminal gang elements).
Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones remains unaffected and on task in Florida.
♦ The silo system is made up, in part, of: The National Security Council (10+ desks, 15 staff/analysts per), the National Security Advisor to the Office of the President, the Dept of Justice National Security Division [DOJ-NSD (foreign review section, counterintelligence export control section, cyber section, counterterrorism section)], Central Intelligence Agency [(CIA), National Intelligence Council, Directorate of Analysis], Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI (Counterintelligence, Counterterrorism, WMD Directorate, Directorate of Intelligence, Cyber)], the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [ODNI (Requirements, Analysis, Collection, National Counterterrorism Center, Mission Managers)], the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Dept of Defense [DoD, (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Industrial, International)], the National Security Agency [NSA (Operations, Technology, Cyber], and many more.
Each agency/office a silo, with distinct sub-silos; each with equity stakes in the information they gather, review and analyze; ultimately attributing classification level and intersecting analysis with each other agency as mission aligned.
Sound ridiculous? It probably is, yet we’ve merely scratched the surface of the IC networks and information flows that swirl around the Office of the President.
Now do you see why DNI Tulsi Gabbard is important?
Literally hundreds of embeds -across multiple silos- have been removed from the aggregate apparatus. The National Security Council has been taken apart, staff removed, desks shuttered. The National Intelligence Council was removed from the CIA with personnel fired. The Directorate of Analysis is now openly confronted. The ICIG is once again a watchdog, and criminal referrals for former ICIG Michael Atkinson and former CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella have been submitted.
These actions create optimism that substantive change is possible. Simultaneously, with the corrupt behavior removed from the system, these actions lay the groundwork for honest and deliberate cross-silo information sharing. However, much more work lies ahead.
♦ The U.S. government, under the President Obama administration, was spying on American citizens.
It started with Barack Obama and AG Eric Holder’s use of the IRS database in the 2010 midterm, against the primary threat of the Tea Party movement. However, an IRS whistleblower from the Cincinnati field office took the continued use of the IRS off the table.
From the period of mid-2012 to April-2016, the administration factually and demonstrably shifted to using the power of electronic surveillance to conduct political spying operations using the NSA database and the metadata captures within it.
However, once that NSA surveillance and spying was identified in April 2016, President Obama had a problem. That’s where the Obama alignment with the Clinton ‘dirty trick’ comes into play. After May 2016, Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the election. The rest is “Russiagate” history.
There is a distinct timeline shift during this period that most seem to overlook, because “Russiagate” was/is easily the shiniest thing for people to follow. However, it was the precursor scandal, ‘spygate’, that is more critical yet gets almost no attention.
Here it becomes critical for people to understand exactly what was taking place. Absolutely nothing had anything to do with: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, aka FISA – surveillance impacting Americans (FISA-702), the FISA Court, masking, minimizing or unmasking. None of those terms apply. What the Obama administration was doing was simply spying.
The only reason the aforementioned terms enter the discussion is through the method used by the NSA compliance officer to reveal the nature of how the database was being compromised. The only tool for the NSA to reveal the spying was to report it to the FISA Court which holds jurisdiction over the use of the database.
When FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer was made aware of the spying, in October 2016 by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, she then interpreted the NSA admissions through the language of the FISA Court.
When Judge Collyer released her report in March 2017 [SOURCE], that’s how the FISA terminology entered the discussion. However, nothing about the use of the NSA database to conduct political surveillance or spying had anything to do with the Obama administration using the FISA-702 authority to exploit the system.
Collyer noted that 85% of the Obama administration’s searches of the database, from 2012 to 2016, had nothing to do with FISA inquires. No attempt at minimization or justification was being done, and further, only 15% of the use of the database was being done in compliance with the rules governing the use of the database.
Tens of thousands of searches were conducted by the Obama administration, as they used their access to the NSA database to spy on their targets. The NSA identified the spying culprits colloquially as “FBI Contractors,” but factually nothing was ever provided to verify that assertion.
In fact, the only attribution that could be associated with the “contractor” claim, is the workstations and user access IDs deployed to search the database. To this day, we do not know where those workstations were located, or who was behind the user IDs operating the searches.
What we do know is that massive spying operations were undertaken during the period from 2012 to 2016, and many of those searches were for the same people repeatedly; meaning the same people were under constant illegal surveillance and all of their electronic information was being reviewed by the Obama administration.
♦ Again, just for emphasis, the Obama administration was spying on targeted Americans repeatedly, and absolutely none of the activity had anything to do with FISA authorities. It was the existence of the NSA captures, the database itself, which brought the Obama administration to a place where it became useful for their spying operation.
The use of the NSA database for domestic spying operations followed the moment when the use of the IRS database was no longer feasible. Once congress and the American people became aware of the IRS and DOJ’s collaborative “special research project,” a targeted surveillance mechanism that culminated in the IRS/DOJ agreeing to settle a class-action lawsuit, the Obama administration switched from using the IRS data to using the NSA data. It really is that simple.
The overwhelming amount of activity that takes place within the NSA database, is simply the U.S. government conducting electronic surveillance. That’s the issue highlighted by “Spygate,” President Barack Obama’s unlawful use of the data captures to monitor targets identified by the administration.
Just like the Cincinnati IRS whistleblower (’12), once the NSA compliance officer noticed what was happening (March ’16), the trail of spying became a risk to the Obama administration. That’s the moment when Hillary Clinton’s planned deployment of the vast Russian conspiracy became of value to Obama and the surveillance perpetrators.
The Clinton campaign had been planning to use Russia as a dirty trick tool against the winner of the GOP nomination. The testimony of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, Robby Mook, even admitted it.
John Durham – Q: In the Summer of 2016, was Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia something that the campaign focused on?
Robby Mook – A: Yes. I mean, it was frankly something we were focused on before that time. But absolutely.
Q: Mr. Mook, before the break you had testified that there was a conversation in which you told Ms. Clinton about the proposed plan to provide the Alfa-Bank allegations to the media; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And what was her response?
A: All I remember is that she agreed with the decision.
[SOURCE]
What became known as “Russiagate” was the 2016 Clinton campaign smear that was directed at Republican candidate Donald Trump. However, “Spygate” preceded the deployment of the smear.
The Obama administration used Clinton’s Russiagate to hide Obama’s Spygate.
President Obama’s support for the dirty trick Hillary Clinton created, starts with his motive to hide the spying.
♦ September 2015 – Billionaire Paul Singer contracts with Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS for opposition research on candidate Donald Trump during 2016 GOP presidential primary. Simpson prior work during time at Wall Street journal serves as reference.
♦ November 2015 – Simpson hires Nellie Ohr to assist on Trump project. Ohr was CIA open-source analyst. Revelations by NSA compliance officer in April 2016 point to November 2015 as origin of multiple unauthorized searches of NSA database.
♦ December 2015 – Mrs. Ohr contacts Christopher Steele, submitting data for cross-reference with sources and seeking collaboration on Trump project. Ohr using ham radio license as independent operator.
♦ January – March 2016 – GOP Presidential primary ongoing. Candidate Donald Trump wins majority of primary delegates from all early state contests. Momentum for Donald Trump becomes significant. Cruz, Kasich, Rubio final group along with Trump. Late March, Paul Singer contacts Glenn Simpson to cancel opposition research. NSA compliance officer notifies NSA Director Mike Rogers about unauthorized use of database by “contractors.” Rogers asks for full review.
♦ April 2016 – April 16, 2016, NSA compliance officer reports to Director Rogers of approximately 10,000 database searches, using “same identifiers” over “multiple dates.” Rogers responds by shutting down contractor access and blocking all FISA-702(17) “about” queries. April 17, 2016, Glenn Simpson wife, Mary Jacoby, visits White House. Glenn Simpson pitches preassembled oppo-research file on Trump to Clinton Team. Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann takes over payments and signs contract with Fusion for continued work.
♦ May/June 2016 – Chris Steele constructing dossier on Donald Trump, submissions returned to Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr and husband Bruce Ohr, #4 in DOJ-NSD. External contacts made to Trump orbit by foreign officials from Australia (Downer), U.K (Mifsud) and Cyprus. Trump campaign continues presidential primary victories. Trump enlists Paul Manafort as delegate manager for upcoming RNC convention.
♦ July 2016 – FBI opens official investigation of Trump for Russia collusion, predicated on contact from Australian Ambassador about non-existent claim Trump group receiving Clinton/DNC emails from Russian hackers. Attempted FISA application rejected.
♦ August 2016 – CIA Director John Brennan informs Harry Reid of Clinton oppo-research effort known colloquially as Trump-Russia. Former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell, long time Clinton ally, publishes article in New York Times claiming Russians want Trump victory. Hillary proclaims vast Russian conspiracy theory.
♦ September 2016 – Director Brennan directly informs White House, President Obama, Susan Rice, Lisa Monaco of Clinton oppo-research effort known colloquially as Trump-Russia. Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Michael Sussmann identified as sources for organizing oppo-research Steele Dossier.
♦ October 2016 – Steele Dossier assembly used by DOJ-NSD in FISA application against Trump campaign official Carter Page. Through April 2016, FBI used Carter Page as undercover employee in case against Russian Evgeny Buryakov; now October 2016, FBI claims Carter Page is official “agent of a foreign government” to gain FISA warrant. Steele Dossier serves as replacement for Woods File supporting Title-1 search warrant.
♦ November 2016 – Donald Trump wins 2016 presidential election defeating Hillary Clinton and stunning world. Clinton campaign blames Russians for her loss. Accuses Trump of colluding with Russia. Trump campaign and transition team now under Title-1 full counterintelligence surveillance by FBI via Page FISA warrant.
♦ December 2016 – Joint Analysis Report released by intelligence community, claiming Russians were involved in attempting to influence 2016 election. All Trump campaign and transition members under full physical and electronic surveillance. All communication intercepted. Officially FBI Director James Comey denies President-elect Trump under investigation.
♦ January 2017 – Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) released by Obama administration claiming confidence Russia had attempted to interfere in the 2016 election. Sanctions imposed by Obama; Russian diplomatic corps expelled. FISA surveillance warrant resubmitted with no new context and renewed by FISC without question.
♦ February 2017 – National Security Advisor Michael Flynn under fire for talking to Russian ambassador in December during Christmas holiday. Flynn wrongly accused of discussing possible policy changes and not to worry about Obama sanctions. Full court press by FBI and DOJ to leak information to media about Trump under FBI counterintelligence investigation. James Comey leaks information to friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman as intermediary to media. Washington Post publish article citing FBI intercept of Flynn-Kislyak phone call.
♦ March 2017 – • On 16th HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes releases information to public about Obama presidential daily briefing containing information about Trump-Russia collusion investigation and surveillance of Trump campaign by FBI. First public indications that “wires were actually tapped.” • On 17th copy of FISA application delivered from FISA Court to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice-Chairman Mark Warner. Shortly after 4pm, Warner instructs SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the FISA application to media. Wolfe transmits 82 pictures to Politico journalist Ali Watkins via encrypted phone images [FISA application 83 pages with one blank page]. FISA application returned to courier FBI Agent Brian Dugan. • March 20th, James Comey testifies to HPSCI during open hearing admitting for first time publicly that President Trump, and his entire administration, is under official FBI counterintelligence investigation. Comey claims no information previously given to congressional oversight due to “sensitivity of the matter.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions forced to recuse.
♦ April 2017 – Absent an AG, and without confirmed DAG, interim and acting DAG Dana Boente receives request for FISA renewal from FBI Director James Comey. On same day FISA application is renewed for second time, journalist Ali Watkins -having ownership of illegal and leaked unredacted FISA application- writes first details of FISA application, then transfers employment to New York Times for senior role in Trump-Russia reporting. FBI continues leaking details of investigation to media. Mid April Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arrives to take all responsibilities related to AG Sessions recusal.
♦ May 2017 – Early May, Deputy AG Rosenstein has phone call with FBI Director James Comey, “What do you want me to do – wear a wire?” Mid-May, Rosenstein takes former FBI Director Robert Mueller to White House for oval office meeting with President Trump. Next morning Mueller returns to White House to pick up cell phone he accidentally left in Oval Office. Later in afternoon, President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Following day Rosenstein talks to Mueller (3X) and coordinates meeting. Robert Mueller appointed Special Counsel; Mueller chief deputy Andrew Weissmann assumes organization of investigation.
♦ June 2017 – Weissmann assembles Crossfire Hurricane team into Special Counsel. WFO FBI Agent Brian Dugan begins to suspect SSCI leak of FISA application based on media reporting. Agent Dugan requests and receives first warrant for cell phone records of SSCI Security Director Wolfe and NYT journalist Ali Watkins. June 29th Andrew Weissmann requests renewal of Carter Page FISA warrant to continue surveillance of administration. Application renewed.
♦ July 2017 – While conducting investigation of internal FBI conduct during Clinton email investigation, Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovers inappropriate activity within FBI investigative team. Horowitz informs DAG Rosenstein and SC Robert Mueller about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok compromise. Weissmann removes Page and Strzok to avoid scrutiny by OIG of special counsel team. President Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn discovers all 2016/2017 transition team emails, phone records, electronic communications and devices have been given to Andrew Weissmann by General Services Administration as requested by the FISA authority carried by special counsel.
♦ August 2017 – DAG Rod Rosenstein officially expands Special Counsel investigative scope as requested by Andrew Weissmann to include five specific targets: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Walid Phares [targeting angle = FARA violations, per DOJ-NSD authority] Mr. Phares organized interview between Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abel Fattah al-Sisi during 2016 campaign. FISA surveillance authority used to collect evidence of financial transactions, banking records, travel, communication and full Title-1 counterintelligence operations deployed against targets.
♦ September 2017 – FBI Agent Brian Dugan conducting surveillance of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and communication between SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner and Chris Steele representative Adam Waldman. Dugan intercepts Waldman side of conversation for investigative file. Weissmann and 18 lawyers, 50 FBI agents and 200 staff continue Trump targeting operations, continue full Title-1 authorized FISA surveillance, and outline cases against Manafort (financial crimes/FARA), Flynn (FARA), and Papadopoulos (lying to investigators).
♦ October 2017 – FISA search warrant used by Mueller/Weissmann special counsel expires. Weissmann requests expanded scope memo from Rosenstein to target Michael Flynn Jr for use against his father, Michael Flynn. Cases against Manafort and Papadopoulos ongoing. Media 24/7 with Trump-Russia collusion. Meanwhile, FBI Agent Brian Dugan first approaches SSCI Security Director James Wolfe about FISA leak and media contacts. Agent Dugan forced by USAO Jessie Liu to inform SSCI Chair Burr and SSCI Vice-Chair Warner about ongoing leak investigation.
♦ November 2017 – All prior surveillance and assembled evidence used via Title-1 search warrant authority, in combination with FARA and threats against Mike Flynn Jr, used to coerce a guilty plea by Michael Flynn (Nov 31). House Intelligence Committee now seeking to review FISA warrant, DOJ and FBI denying access. Political debate between Chairman Devin Nunes and ranking member Adam Schiff ongoing.
♦ December 2017 – AFTER securing Flynn guilty plea, immediately first reports of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages released. Within days, Bruce Ohr identified, demoted twice, former Crossfire Hurricane investigation now being scrutinized. Nellie Ohr’s name surfaces. Chris Steele and Fusion GPS now being reviewed with increased suspicion. Testimony to Senate by Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson “accidentally” leaked by SSCI member Dianne Feinstein (keep stories straight, motive). Nunes memo -vs- Schiff memo battle for media narrative. Internal details of prior FBI targeting operation begin to surface with evidence showing sketchy behavior. FBI Agent Brian Dugan confronts SSCI Security Director James Wolfe with evidence against him, Wolfe admits to leaks. SSCI fire Wolfe.
♦ January 2018 – Apex for Special Counsel. Brian Dugan assembles file against Wolfe submits for grand jury indictment. Due to file touching on Trump-Russia issues, Wolfe criminal activity file submitted to Special Counsel Weissmann for review. Nunes memo released and discussed.
♦ February 2018 – Text messages between SSCI Vice-Chair Warner and Chris Steele layer Adam Waldman surface. Andrew Weissmann organizes a press conference for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to conduct, announcing indictments of 17 Russians and entities for 2016 election interference; this is timed as Trump departs for summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
♦ March 2018 – Public begins to absorb totality of FBI (mis)conduct in the Trump targeting operation. The information war is in full swing. Narrative battles are throughout media.
♦ April 2018 – Leaks of the FISA application against Carter Page now under scrutiny. A criminal referral from OIG toward FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks.
♦ June 2018 – The criminal indictment of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe unsealed and made public.
♦ July 2018 – The DOJ informs the FISC that despite issues surfacing about the predicate of the FISA warrant they authorized against Carter Page for being an agent of a foreign power, everything was ok. A week later, the DOJ then releases to the public the first FISA Title-1 search warrant ever seen, …
♦ December 2018 – Despite the DOJ refusing to indict James Wolfe for leaking the Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence Carter Page FISA application, and after the guilty plea was entered for lying to investigators, and while the Judge was considering Wolfe’s sentencing, in December of 2018, after the midterm election and under penalty of perjury, the USAO in Washington DC swears to the Judge in the case that James Wolfe leaked the FISA application.
Leaks, probably from individuals just starting to receive subpoenas, are now quickly making their way to the media. The goal seems to be to rally as much corporate media support as possible, with a subtle push to initiate an Alinsky process.
The media’s formerly predictable compliance toward generating a needed Alinsky lawfare strategy is, however, made more complicated by the recent purchases of several major corporate media conglomerates by Larry and David Ellison. A shifted tone, that can be noted, is in the responsive outcome of the leak received by CBS News:
(Via CBS) – Former senior intelligence and FBI officials who are cooperating with the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal probe into whether former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress were subpoenaed over the weekend to testify before a grand jury in Washington, D.C., multiple sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.
The subpoenas went out shortly after the Justice Department appointed conservative Trump ally Joe DiGenova to formally take over the criminal investigation into Brennan after the career prosecutor handling the case was removed late last week, CBS previously reported.
DiGenova is a staunch loyalist of President Trump who previously represented his campaign in its failed efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The cooperating witnesses are scheduled to appear before the grand jury as soon as this week, sources said. Many of them have been cooperating with the probe and were already scheduled to sit down for interviews with FBI agents and prosecutors before the new grand jury subpoenas came out over the weekend.
The decision to abruptly reschedule the voluntary interviews from cooperators and ask for in-person grand jury testimony is unusual, legal experts told CBS. Customarily such interviews are conducted outside of the grand jury, and agents later provide details from them to grand jurors about what the witnesses told them under oath.
The move could be an effort by DiGenova to use every avenue possible, after grand jurors in Washington D.C. have increasingly declined to indict targets in cases that were widely perceived as politically motivated. (read more)
“Joseph E. diGenova has been sworn in as Counselor to the Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, stepping into a senior advisory role on key legal, policy, and enforcement matters. With decades of experience—including serving as U.S. Attorney for D.C. under Ronald Reagan—diGenova brings deep expertise in federal prosecution and high-stakes investigations. Praised by U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones for his leadership and judgment, he will help advance the Department’s mission to protect Americans, enforce the rule of law, and ensure impartial justice.” (SOURCE)
Heavenly Father, grant those who lead this charge with wisdom in every decision they face. Help them discern the right path, avoid harmful choices, and act with clarity and confidence. Guide their minds and hearts to align every decision with Your will. Remove confusion, fear, and doubt, and replace them with insight, patience, and understanding. Let Your wisdom shape their actions, ensuring that each step leads to success, truthfulness and clarity. May all their choices honor Your presence as the one, true guide through the challenges ahead. ~ Amen
A formal announcement is likely tomorrow; however, leading information now affirms Acting AG Todd Blanche is moving Joe DiGenova and Christopher-James DeLorenz into positions in South Florida to assist U.S. Attorney Jason Quiñones in ongoing investigation of the Donald Trump targeting. The venue puts any grand jury information in the court orbit of Judge Aileen Cannon.
Before getting into the substance, the alignment here is critical to understand. Judge Cannon saw firsthand exactly what the Lawfare constructs consist of when she had the Jack Smith operation in her court during the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Judge Cannon knows the context of weaponized justice and saw the techniques through first-hand experience. This cannot be emphasized enough.
There are a lot of people who want to see some form of accountability finally delivered for the decade-long corrupt Lawfare operation that took place against Donald Trump before he took office (Spygate), during his administration (Russiagate, Mueller, Impeachment), after he left office took office (Jack Smith and Mar-a-Lago) and even through today (Judicial Intervention). Many of those voices have concerns about 81-year-old Joe diGenova, so let me address that first by pointing out how the issues that frame the criticism are also a valuable asset.
Joe diGenova has a very rare current perspective; he completely sees the timeline of Trump targeting for what it is. This is immensely valuable because not enough people understand the complex continuum enough to stand back and see the bigger picture. diGenova sees the bigger picture.
diGenova can see the 2015/2016 FBI contractor political spying operation (Spygate) and how it connects to the later Fusion GPS/Clinton construct of Russiagate. More importantly, diGenova sees the connective tissue -the actual characters- flowing from Spygate, through Russiagate, into the Mueller investigation, then into the impeachment effort and then into the Jack Smith operation. Seeing the big picture is the first step.
Now, critics point out that diGenova is a creature of DC. Yes, that is true. However, that’s also an asset given that he understands just how difficult it is to navigate through all of these ridiculous DC interests. diGenova is also a character, boisterous perhaps intemperate and easy to Alinsky (isolate, ridicule, marginalize). So what? It doesn’t matter who is involved in this effort, they are going to be Alinsky’d by the Lawfare operatives on the other side.
Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing see the big picture and have a skillset to tell the story. They can assist brilliantly and direct the telling of the story by connecting the lead prosecutors to the background script of how everything unfolded over the past decade. If Quiñones is researching a “conspiracy” case, it is the primary job of the investigative researchers to connect each of the evidence dots to the larger conspiracy. Sounds perfect for diGenova.
diGenova can put the prior weaponization into a timeline and from that timeline extract the step-by-step evidence that proves it. This timeline of targeting and how it is all connected has been missing in every investigative review up to now. That’s the value of diGenova.
This doesn’t mean diGenova is in the courtroom per se’, but rather he’s the one explaining the sequencing of witnesses for a grand jury and how the questioning of one might relate to the questioning of another.
Christopher-James DeLorenz has the skillset of knowing Judge Aileen Cannon and the internal machinery of a modern Main Justice. Put them together and the lead prosecutor in Florida has a formidable team putting the details onto the table in front of him/her.
This could have been done in DC years ago by the House Select Subcommittee on Weaponization; however, they did not have the skillset nor the operational strength to push through the DC politics as a group. Former Representative Dan Bishop is a current U.S. Attorney in North Carolina, and he said it wasn’t fear that screwed up the subcommittee effort as it was republican political leadership stopping the subcommittee from aggressively investigating the whole matter, the big picture.
There are rumors that Blanche has assigned diGenova because President Trump is frustrated with Main Justice on this issue. I don’t know if that is true, but jumping ju-ju-bones – could you blame Trump?
Remember, former AG Jeff Sessions ridiculously recused himself putting Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein responsible for all of the time during the Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann targeting. President Trump wanted to declassify records directly related to his targeting, but Rod Rosenstein kept telling White House lawyers that if Trump released anything Mueller would view that as “interference or obstruction.”
Even the memo written by Devin Nunes was considered ‘obstruction’ by the Mueller team, and that was simply Nunes sending Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe to read the Carter Page FISA warrant and write down their opinion of it. Remember that stupid battle with the DOJ/FBI and IC?
Then came Bill Barr who told President Trump not to declassify and release any information, or he would be interfering with Robert Mueller then ridiculously John Durham. Over and over again President Trump was told he could not declassify and release documents or he would be guilty of some form of obstruction.
To be fair, with the context of the impeachment evidence now at the forefront, it is obvious the end goal of the Mueller operation was to provoke Trump into doing something that could be classified as “obstruction” which would then kick-off an impeachment. That was the purpose of all Mueller and Weissmann’s effort.
The day after Mueller’s embarrassing testimony to congress, the Ukraine-centric impeachment effort was triggered. All of the tools and Lawfare operatives (McCord, Atkinson et al) were in position for an impeachment, regardless of what the angle was.
After years of wanting information released and being legally advised not to do it, the FBI then raided Mar-a-Lago to ensure no documents were ever released.
This is one long continuum of targeting, and I do believe Joe diGenova is one of the people who “gets it.” Whether all the evidence rises to the level of unlawful activity is yet unknown. Personally, I think there is enough substantive evidence to prove criminal conduct in court – and I am willing to work my ass off to assist helping to identify, locate and retrieve it. Which brings me to an important final point.
I’m saying this to all of the “Twitter Experts”. All of the researchers and who understand the material at a granular level, need to quit bitching about ‘nothing being done’ and start putting their energy into helping people in the Trump administration understand it and find it.
Instead of predicting failure, help Joe diGenova (or whomever) by telling him each part of the material that they know about. Once he is officially appointed to the role of assistant or advisor in this endeavor, diGenova will have a .gov email address. Send him the details.
If we listened to those who told us it was futile trying to get detailed information from two branches and seven isolation silos on the background of the fraudulent 2019 impeachment effort, we would never have seen the corrupt IC IG Atkinson material and transcripts to prove it. We now have that evidence because we figured out how to get it.
Considering the date today:
I absolutely hope Joe diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Christopher-James DeLorenz and U.S. Attorney Jason Quiñones succeed. I do everything in my power to support their efforts, and I will pray with intensity for their safety and success every single day.
The evidence has been released. {GO DEEP} The long-debated issue is no longer a matter of opinion or question.
The CIA tried to remove a President.
Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.
I see a lot of punditries missing the forest as they peer intently at the trees.
The CIA tried to remove a sitting President.
We now know the real reason CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella’s name was never ¹permitted to be mentioned. It’s not the name Eric Ciaramella that presented the issue, it’s the organization where he was working, the CIA – That’s what needed to be protected.
[¹The Biden administration created the Dept of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board to interact with Social media and create content controls. That’s where Nina Jankowicz comes in.]
There was/is documented evidence showing the CIA tried to remove a sitting President from office. CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’ worked with Joe Biden on Ukraine policy. Biden appointed DHS Nina Jankowicz worked inside Zelenskyy’s campaign HQ. Just a coincidence?
Don’t get lost in the details or the politics of this. When you peel back all the layers of DC, at its epicenter this was an operation to impeach a sitting President that came from within the CIA, and it almost succeeded. {GO DEEP}
In the details, an impeachment effort against President Trump was triggered when a member of the National Security Council named Alexander Vindman coordinated with a member of the CIA National Intelligence Council named Eric Ciaramella to fabricate a false claim that President Trump leveraged his power and authority to demand Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy release information on Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt financial dealings in Ukraine.
At the time of the 2019 impeachment construct Eric Ciaramella was working for the CIA as an analyst within the National Intelligence Council (NIC).
Two years prior to the 2019 impeachment construct, in January 2017, the same CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, had worked on the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the behest of CIA Director John Brennan.
Outlining Ciaramella’s activity not only hits CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper, but it also hits former President Barack Obama.
The National Intelligence Council was the internal sub-agency within the larger Intelligence Community, that was constructing all of the fraudulent analysis to support the 2016 Russian Election Interference narrative.
Ciaramella was doing what John Brennan, James Clapper and Barack Obama wanted him to do. That’s why his story is so much more important than just his fabrication and lying to ICIG Michael Atkinson, who was also a participant in the endeavor and the false construct of the 2019 impeachment effort.
Former DOJ-NSD lawyer Michael Atkinson and former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord were at the heart of the operations against Trump in 2017, and then both surface again against Trump in the 2019 impeachment effort. Mary McCord was working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler at the time of the impeachment in 2019.
Michael Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to the IC OIG specifically for this operation.
Before this operation in 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. The reasons are obvious. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached. Without anonymity, inside the Intelligence Community oversight system, the Ciaramella connection to both IC operations could have been made. His anonymity as a whistleblower served a purpose.
Having switched locations to IC IG, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson independently changed the ICIG rules permitting Ciaramella to remain anonymous and make an “urgent concern” claim that ultimately led to an impeachment effort.
Eric Ciaramella fabricated intelligence information. ICIG Atkinson shared it with Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Representatives of HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff met with Ciaramella and assisted him during the construct.
ICIG Michael Atkinson never even read the transcript of the call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy that formed the basis for the Ciaramella complaint. The complaint was also criminalized by Atkinson and sent to the Office of Inspector General for the DOJ for review. Unlike Atkinson, the DOJ reviewed the Trump-Zelenskyy transcript and said there was no issue.
On October 4, 2019, as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their pre-impeachment investigation. {Transcript Here}
One of the key questions to ICIG Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous. Atkinson had no reasonable explanation.
The Intelligence Community Office of Inspector General (Atkinson) also altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 Trump/Zelenskyy phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints.
This indicates forethought and specific intent. Michael Atkinson knew a ‘second-hand’ complaint was coming.
From all appearances, IC IG Atkinson was organizing the operation in advance. CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella provided the story. With Adam Schiff prepared to receive the complaint, and Mary McCord prepared to weaponize the complaint, collectively they ran the operation to impeach a sitting President on an entirely fraudulent basis.
[Executive] The CIA tried to impeach President Donald Trump; the aggregate Intelligence Community was there to assist.
[Legislative] The HPSCI and HJC, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler were prepared to organize the impeachment construct. Mary McCord working as staff.
[Judicial] Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not let Eric Ciaramella’s name be spoken at trial. Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, was working for John Roberts at the time.
This was a coordinated impeachment effort across all three branches of government.
The CIA tried to remove a President.
Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.
We have known this for all long time; what we lacked was the specific evidence.
Now, we see the evidence and yet it is almost more alarming to notice the silence than it is to absorb the reality of the events that evidence describes.
The CIA tried to remove a President!
The CIA Whistleblower Complaint and subsequent Intelligence Community Inspector General investigation and report, falls under the work product of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The IC IG is quasi-independent but works for the ODNI.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard is releasing direct stakeholder information from within the ODNI with the release as noted – SEE HERE. This is the background information that led to the impeachment effort. The DNI is the Executive Branch.
The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson was held within another branch of government, within the Legislative Branch, and as a consequence DNI Gabbard needed to gain permission from the House Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), another silo, in order to review the testimony that came as an outcome of the ICIG complaint and investigation. SEE HERE and SEE HERE.
DNI Gabbard then needed to request the release of the HPSCI transcripts [legislative branch] to her DNI office [executive branch] where all three aspects of the ICIG activity can then be examined and reviewed in full context.
The DNI then requests the HPSCI to permit declassification and public release. HPSCI reluctantly agrees. DNI declassifies then returns the transcripts to the HPSCI for public release – while simultaneously the DNI office declassifies and releases the baseline ICIG investigative material so the public can have context.
The resulting outcome is a combined work product from five silos (HPSCI, DNI, CIA, ICIG, NSC) along with a statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and a summary of what all the combined materials show:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard releases never-before-seen documents exposing a coordinated effort by elements within the Intelligence Community (IC), including a former Inspector General (IG), to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.
During his preliminary investigation into President Trump’s July 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, former IC IG Michael Atkinson did not follow standard IG procedures and relied upon politicized, manufactured narratives – only conducting interviews with four individuals: the Whistleblower, the Whistleblower’s friend who was a co-author of the January 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and close colleague of disgraced former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and two character references who had zero firsthand knowledge of the July 2019 phone call.
Despite a lack of any firsthand evidence, IC IG Atkinson proceeded to take actions to weaponize the Whistleblower process and exceed his statutory jurisdiction by ignoring Department of Justice guidance and relying on only second-hand testimony to ensure the whistleblower complaint was released to Congress, referred to the FBI, and leaked to the propaganda media.
Then-House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi used this false, second-hand narrative to create media intrigue and ultimately spark the basis to impeach President Trump in December of 2019.
“Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States,” said DNI Gabbard. “Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth. And this, along with the politicization of the whistleblower process by a former CIA employee who was working hand in glove with Democrats in Congress, are egregious examples of the deep state playbook on how to weaponize the Intelligence Community. Exposing these tactics and showing how they undermine the fabric of our democratic republic furthers the critical cause of transparency and accountability and will help prevent future abuse of power.”
Review the documents released here and see below for a summary of newly declassified materials:
Today’s release includes investigative materials used by then-IC IG Atkinson (here) and a review of two transcripts from IC IG Atkinson’s closed-door testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (here and here), which were withheld from the House Judiciary Committee during the sham impeachment trial and kept locked in a safe until House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford led the vote to release these transcripts on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
♦ NO FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE: The Intelligence Community Inspector General’s preliminary “investigation” into the whistleblower complaint relied on politicized actors and second-hand evidence. Newly declassified documents expose how IC IG Atkinson relied upon second-hand information from the self-declared “Democrat” whistleblower [Ciaramella] and two biased witnesses to justify his determination that the whistleblower compliant was of “urgent concern,” “appears credible,” and must be reported to Congress. IC IG Atkinson also ignored concerns by the whistleblower’s supervisor about a rushed complaint.
The Whistleblower [Eric Ciaramella] confirms he/she had no firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
In an initial form submitted by the Whistleblower, he/she claimed, “I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President.”
New witness interviews released today show that IC IG Atkinson’s public claim that “other information obtained during [his] preliminary review…supports the complainant’s allegation” was false and hid the fact that neither the Whistleblower’s nor the key witness’ allegations concerning the President’s phone call were informed by direct, firsthand knowledge.
WITNESS 2 admitted that upon reading the transcript of the call he/she “would not have been able to get from ‘point A to Z’ the way the Whistleblower did” and described that he/she lacked the “granular detail” that the Whistleblower had to justify filing the complaint.”
WITNESS 2 admitted that he/she had to “read between the lines” of what was being said, and that his/her perception of quid pro quo “became clear” only “in hindsight.”
The Whistleblower’s superior, a senior officer in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), told IC Inspector General investigators that he/she, “did not like how the [Whistleblower] handled the filing of the report,” saying that he/she felt that he/she was “looped in right at the time of the crash.”
IC IG Atkinson’s 14-day preliminary investigation was intended to assess apparent credibility, but instead became the basis of a flawed, mischaracterized account that House Democrats peddled to launch a sham impeachment, even though the IC IG never conducted a formal or complete investigation.
In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a “preliminary investigation,” noting that “I haven’t done an investigation to determine whether they actually, in fact, took place…that all of the alleged actions actually took place.”
♦ ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIA HOAX CO-AUTHOR AS KEY WITNESS: IC IG Atkinson relied on testimony from a co-author of the 2017 Russia Hoax ICA to support the Whistleblower’s allegations that there was some form of wrongdoing by President Trump.
Last year, DNI Gabbard revealed evidence that President Obama directed the creation of the January 2017 Russia Hoax ICA. This served as the basis for what was essentially a years-long coup against the duly-elected President of the United States, subverting the will of the American people and attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.
WITNESS 2 – who was one of the key sources for the Whistleblower ahead of filing a complaint – admits in a witness interview to being a “co-author of the 2017 ICA” which used manufactured and manipulated intelligence to create the false narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to the benefit of President Trump.
WITNESS 2 also admitted to having worked alongside now-disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok who inserted political bias into FBI investigations about President Trump based on the manufactured Russia Hoax.
WITNESS 2 further exposed political bias when explaining that he/she “routinely deals with issues on a daily basis that are contrary to [his/ her] personal beliefs,” and “stated that [he/she] is disappointed everyday by policy decisions and statements made by political figures.”
♦ WHISTLEBLOWER’S PARTISAN BIAS, LIES CONFIRMED: The Whistleblower [Eric Ciaramella] admitted he/she lied to the Inspector General about speaking to Democrats in Congress ahead of submitting allegations of wrongdoing by President Trump to the IC Inspector General. While media widely reported on this detail in 2019, the pre-complaint meeting with Congress has never before been confirmed by the Whistleblower.
In October 2019, after the media began to report that the Whistleblower had spoken with Congress ahead of submitting the “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form,” the Whistleblower called the IC IG to admit that he/she had, in fact, spoken with Congress.
IC IG Atkinson admits in newly-declassified testimony that his investigative team “did ask the complainant who else knew about the disclosure” and the complainant withheld from the investigative team, within the 14-day window, that he/she alerted HPSCI Democratic staff.
[Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella pictured left with U.S. President Barack Obama]
Whistleblower interviews reveal the political biases of the Whistleblower, in his/her own words:
The Whistleblower states he/she is a “registered democrat.”
The Whistleblower claims to have “worked closely with Vice President Biden…travelled with Biden to Ukraine and was part of conversations where LUTSENKO corruption was discussed.”
The Whistleblower also claims to have become “the target of right-wing bloggers…and conspiracy theorists.”
Yet, IC IG Atkinson ignored this and insisted during his testimony to HPSCI, “I also want to make it clear that I never considered the whistleblower to be politically biased.”
Despite public reports that the Whistleblower worked with Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, inquiries into the Whistleblower’s bias and motive were blocked during the 2020 impeachment trial.
♦ IC INSPECTOR GENERAL WEAPONIZED THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROCESS: Newly declassified documents confirm that IC IG Atkinson failed to conduct basic due diligence and willfully exceeded his statutory jurisdiction to mischaracterize the President’s phone call with Zelensky as an “urgent concern” to Congress.
• From Day 1, IC IG Atkinson knew that a transcript of President Trump’s call existed. And yet, he never, throughout the entire preliminary investigation, requested access to it.
• IC IG Atkinson sent a criminal referral to the DOJ on this matter, despite only relying on second-hand knowledge to support his claims.
• The DOJ later assessed the allegations raised by the Whistleblower and IC IG and found no basis for a criminal case, concluding that based on the facts and applicable law, there was “no campaign finance violation” and “no further action was warranted.”
• After the DOJ reviewed the whistleblower complaint and determined there was “no urgent concern,” IC IG Atkinson ignored their determination and proceeded to transmit this faulty whistleblower complaint to Congress without completing a fulsome investigation, despite the allegations being made based on second-hand information.
• On September 3, the DOJ provided Office of Legal Counsel guidance to IC IG Atkinson that the complaint did not rise to the level of “urgent concern” because the alleged conduct does not relate to “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity” under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.
• On September 9, the IC IG ignored this guidance and the Acting Director of National Intelligence to pen a letter to inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the existence of the “urgent concern” complaint.
• As was reported at the time, IC OIG altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints.
• IC IG Atkinson sought unprecedented assistance from other Inspectors Generals to carry on this investigation “if [he] was stopped, [he] wanted to see whether other inspectors general could proceed.” In particular, he contacted the IGs at the Departments of State, Justice, and Defense. {SOURCE}
IC IG Michael Atkinson pictured below
Hopefully everyone can see the construct above and how IC IG Michael Atkinson worked with his former DOJ colleague Mary McCord who was at the time working for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff.
Michael Atkinson moved from his position as legal counsel for the Asst Attorney General of the DOJ-NSD (Mary McCord) to the position of IC IG effective May 17, 2018. The ICIG position is a nomination by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI):
Who told Trump to appoint Atkinson?
Find that person and you will find a person who was directly working against the interests of President Trump.
Why does this matter?…
…. Because this is not a random nomination and random appointment. ICIG Michael Atkinson was intentionally moved into the position of ICIG in order to carry out an impeachment effort.
This was not happenstance. This was intentional.
At the conclusion of his impeachment trial, President Trump fired IC IG Michael Atkinson.
Simultaneous with the Senate acquittal during the failed impeachment, and following the firing of IC IG Michael Atkinson, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence suddenly dropped their block on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of National Intelligence.
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.
♦ 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…
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.
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.
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….
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?
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.
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.
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)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 