Posted originally on CTH on February 7, 2026 | Sundance
The attempted framing of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard continues with senate intelligence committee Mark Warner and/or his collaborating whistleblower attorney Andrew Bakaj (also Ciaramella’s attorney) leaking details to the British intelligence services and their preferred media outlet The Guardian.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has responded to the ongoing nonsense but first let’s review the newly disclosed details for some interesting information.
The UK Guardian now shares the agency for the “whistleblower” as the NSA, likely an NSA contractor, and the basic details of an intercepted phone call which the contractor deemed “unusual”. I’ll pull citations from the article.
SUMMARY VERSION: In/around March of 2025 an NSA contractor “detected evidence of an unusual phone call between an individual associated with foreign intelligence and a person close to Donald Trump, according to Whistleblower attorney, Andrew Bakaj.” The NSA contractor then wrote up a report and gave it to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. DNI Gabbard then took the report to Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
One day after meeting Wiles, Gabbard told the NSA not to publish the intelligence report. Instead, she instructed NSA officials to transmit the highly classified details directly to her office. (Guardian citation)
The NSA whistleblower was upset that DNI Gabbard didn’t share the report with others and filed a whistleblower complaint on April 17, 2025, with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Within the complaint the NSA whistleblower included the details of the phone call leading to the complaint being labeled Top Secret Compartmented Information (TSCI classification). This format of including TSCI material complicates how the complaint can be reviewed. This looks like it was done on purpose.
Because the complaint contained TSCI material, it could not follow ordinary whistleblower pathways toward congress.
(Guardian) […] Acting inspector general Tamara A Johnson dismissed the complaint at the end of a 14-day review period, writing in a 6 June letter addressed to the whistleblower that “the Inspector General could not determine if the allegations appear credible”. The letter stipulated that the whistleblower could take their concerns to Congress, only after receiving DNI guidance on how to proceed, given the highly sensitive nature of the complaint. (citation)
The inclusion of the TSCI material, the ‘highly sensitive‘ part, creates a conflict within the process. [The TSCI material is the name of the individual associated with foreign intelligence, and the name of the person close to President Trump.]
The NSA whistleblower complaint is against DNI Gabbard, but any complaint containing TSCI material must carry guidance from DNI Gabbard for further sharing. The NSA whistleblower likely intended to create this problem as part of the scheme to set up the events.
(Guardian) […] The contents of the whistleblower complaint are still largely unknown. Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney, said that Gabbard’s office had redacted much of the complaint that was released to intelligence committee members on Tuesday, citing executive privilege.
“I don’t know the contents of the complaint, but by exercising executive privilege they are flagging that it involves presidential action,” he said.
On 3 February, Bakaj again requested guidance from Gabbard’s office about how to share the whistleblower’s full report while taking appropriate precautions.
“As you are well aware, our client’s disclosure directly impacts our national security and the American people,” Bakaj wrote. “This means that our client’s complete whistleblower disclosure must be transmitted to Congress, and that we, as their counsel, speak with members and cleared staff.”
Bakaj said that the DNI’s office did not respond to his letter by its Friday deadline. He plans to contact members of the Senate and House intelligence committees on Monday to schedule an unclassified briefing on Gabbard’s conduct and the “underlying intelligence concerns”.
Members of the gang of eight have contacted the NSA to request the underlying intelligence that the whistleblower says Gabbard blocked, according to staff in Warner’s office. (more)
NOTE: At this point I’m more interested in the name of this NSA contractor who is listening to the phone calls of foreign intelligence and the Trump administration. Much like the heavily protected Eric Ciaramella (2019 effort), this NSA contractor likely carries similar motivations. Both Ciaramella and this “whistleblower” are using the same lawyer, Andrew Bakaj.
Regardless, DNI Tulsi Gabbard responded today via her X account:
“Senator Mark Warner and his friends in the Propaganda Media have repeatedly lied to the American people that I or the ODNI “hid” a whistleblower complaint in a safe for eight months. This is a blatant lie.
The truth:
– I am not now, nor have I ever been, in possession or control of the Whistleblower’s complaint, so I obviously could not have “hidden” it in a safe. Biden-era IC Inspector General Tamara Johnson was in possession of and responsible for securing the complaint for months.
– The first time I saw the whistleblower complaint was 2 weeks ago when I had to review it to provide guidance on how it should be securely shared with Congress.
– As Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Warner knows very well that whistleblower complaints that contain highly classified and compartmented intelligence—even if they contain baseless allegations like this one—must be secured in a safe, which the Biden-era Inspector General Tamara Johnson did and her successor, Inspector General Chris Fox, continued to do. After IC Inspector General Fox hand-delivered the complaint to the Gang of 8, the complaint was returned to a safe where it remains, consistent with any information of such sensitivity.
– Either Senator Warner knows these facts and is intentionally lying to the American people, or he doesn’t have a clue how these things work and is therefore not qualified to be in the U.S. Senate—and certainly not the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Here is a detailed chronology of the situation:
– June 2025, I became aware that a whistleblower made a complaint against me that after further investigation, neither Biden-era IC Inspector General Tamara Johnson nor current IC Inspector General Chris Fox found the complaint to be credible.
– The complaint required special handling and storage in a safe because the complainant chose to include highly sensitive information within the complaint itself rather than referencing the sensitive reporting and leaving the complaint at a lower level of classification.
– Security standards for complaints that include such sensitive intelligence required the Inspector General to keep the complaint and the intelligence referenced secured in a safe from the time the complaint was made, until now.
– In June 2025 after Biden-era Inspector General Tamara Johnson completed her review of the complaint, no further oversight or investigative activity took place.
– Biden-era Inspector General Johnson had communicated with me directly throughout the course of her investigation into this complaint, yet neither she nor anyone from her office informed me that the Whistleblower chose to send the complaint to Congress which would require me to issue security instructions.
– When a complaint is not found to be credible, there is no timeline under the law for the provision of security guidance. The “21 day” requirement that Senator Warner alleges I did not comply with, only applies when a complaint is determined by the Inspector General to be both urgent AND apparently credible. That was NOT the case here.
– I was made aware of the need to provide security guidance by IC Inspector General Chris Fox on December 4, 2025, which he detailed in his letter to Congress.
– I took immediate action to provide the security guidance to the Intelligence Community Inspector General who then shared the complaint and referenced intelligence with relevant members of Congress last week.
Senator Warner’s decision to spread lies and baseless accusations over the months for political gain, undermines our national security and is a disservice to the American people and the Intelligence Community.” {source}
This multi-layered IC operation against Tulsi Gabbard is transparent in its political motivations. However, at the end of the day the dynamic is really remarkable when you cut through the fog and see it for what it is. The Intelligence Community (Fourth Branch) is listening to the conversations of the Trump administration, conducting full spectrum surveillance and looking for anything the IC can exploit to retain their status and power.
For additional perspective, put this IC effort into context looking at it through the separation of powers.
Every element of the Executive Branch is President Donald Trump:
An NSA contractor working for Donald Trump intercepted a phone call between a foreign intelligence person and a person working for Donald Trump. That contractor, working for Trump, then shared the intercept with the ODNI, who also works for Trump. The DNI, working for Trump, then informed the chief of staff to Donald Trump, and later secured the intercept.
The NSA contractor, who works for Trump, was angered by the DNI who works for Trump, and filed a complaint against the DNI because she didn’t share their intercept with other people who do not work for Trump.
That’s the current state of the Intelligence Community within the U.S. govt.
Again, I will repeat…. Until the Trump administration puts full sunlight on the intelligence community operations; which includes retrieving, declassifying and sharing the sealed secret transcript of former ICIG Michael Atkinson; the various intelligence officials who are comfortable weaponizing their positions will continue trying to manipulate American politics. They are continually using the same playbook.
Posted originally on CTH on February 5, 2026 | Sundance | 93
This is funny, not because the narrative is so obvious, but because the well-used script is so transparent.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), a misnomer if there is one, Vice Chairman Mark Warner, finds out that Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had previously (May ’25) retrieved voting machines from Puerto Rico for analytical review. Of course, he needs immediate camera time to clutch his pearls, but it gets better.
For those who walk the deep weeds, you will remember when the Warner operation in 2017 needed to promote the intel script about the first discussion of the Christopher Steele “dossier”, they enlisted CNN’s Manu Raju, Jim Scuitto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein. That ‘breaking news’ was the original trigger for the Daily Beast to then publish the “dossier.” Senator Mark Warner then came in for the close with the leak of the Carter Page FISA. That was the script in 2017. We watched it in real time.
So, now Mark Warner finds out Tulsi Gabbard is on the trail of the intelligence manipulation of election machines. In this video below, Mark Warner appears for an entirely scripted segment with… wait for it… Manu Raju. How do you know this was pre-scripted for TV? Because: (a) that’s what they do, and (b) Raju is the only one who asks questions – while Warner doesn’t even look at him because he knows the narrative in advance. Seriously, watch it. It’s funny:
[A completely unrelated side note: Notice how the U.K, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have refused to join the Board of Peace? You know what they all have in common…. 5-eyes.]
(REUTERS) – WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) – A team working for President Donald Trump’s spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard, last spring led an investigation into Puerto Rico’s voting machines, said Gabbard’s office and three sources familiar with the previously unreported events.
The sources said the goal was to work with the FBI to investigate claims that Venezuela had hacked voting machines in Puerto Rico, but added the probe did not produce any clear evidence of Venezuelan interference in the U.S. territory’s elections. Reuters first reported the investigation.
Gabbard’s office, in a statement to Reuters, confirmed the May investigation but denied a link to Venezuela, saying its focus was on vulnerabilities in the island’s electronic voting systems. Her team took an unspecified number of Puerto Rico’s voting machines and additional copies of data from the machines as part of its investigation, a spokesperson for Gabbard’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence said.
Her office said the taking of voting machines and data was “standard practice in forensics analysis.”
Noting similar voting infrastructure elsewhere in the United States, it added: “ODNI found extremely concerning cyber security and operational deployment practices that pose a significant risk to U.S. elections.”
Jorge Rivera Rueda, head of Puerto Rico’s State Elections Commission, said he could not comment on any ongoing investigations. He added in a statement, “the Commission will fully cooperate with any investigative process conducted by the appropriate authorities, whether at the state or federal level.”
Venezuela’s government did not respond to a request for comment.
ODNI said some security gaps in voting machines used in Puerto Rico stemmed from their use of vulnerable cellular technology and that software flaws existed that could give hackers access deep into vital electoral systems. (more)
Warner is super nervous.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard is off the range of control.
The next play is obvious. Warner et al will attempt to put DNI Gabbard into a position where an answer to a Senate question will need some kind of classified response. The weaponized IC elements, of which Warner is a key participant, need to get Tulsi Gabbard removed from her position.
Posted originally on CTH on February 5, 2026 | Sundance
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, Tom Cotton, outlines via his X account that he has reviewed the intelligence community whistleblower complaint being used in a ridiculous effort to impeach DNI Tulsi Gabbard and finds it “not credible.”
The entire construct of this CIA-NIC ‘whistleblower’ operation is transparent. We have outlined the basic parameters of the entire fiasco {GO DEEP}. The intelligence community/Lawfare operation is a replay of the 2019 intelligence community/Lawfare operation used to frame Donald Trump during the 2019 impeachment effort.
Even setting aside the insufferable politics of it all, our national enemies must be laughing at us and how easy it is to identify the background of the super-secret, classified and “highly sensitive” national security information regarding Venezuela that underpins the baseline for the CIA-NIC effort.
If a simple website can put it together, then certainly our enemies know our own intelligence community is leveraging the rules and regulations around CIA assets to frame domestic political lawfare operations.
It is stunningly embarrassing on a national level.
Dear Senator Tom Cotton, you are Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. You are a member of the Gang of Eight. You have all the clearances.
Please take a few hours and go to the House Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) scif; sit down with the October 2019 deposition from ICIG Michael Atkinson and read it.
Access should not be a problem with HPSCI Chairman, Representative Rick Crawford, also being a fellow Arkansan.
Read how then ICIG Atkinson gained authority to change the CIA whistleblower rules to facilitate the false claim by CIA National Intelligence Council, Russia desk analyst Eric Ciaramella.
Look at how Ciaramella coordinated with then HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, while former AAG of the NSD, Mary McCord, was working as staff on the background structure of the Trump impeachment operation.
Remind yourself of the context. In 2019, ICIG Atkinson was Mary’s former office counsel in the NSD (2016). They worked together on the Trump surveillance in 2016 (Page FISA) and then again in 2019 on the pathway to create an anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint.
What you will notice from that 2019 deposition is the similarity to the whistleblower complaint pathway and IC operation you just reviewed today.
Ciaramella was one of the key authors of the 2017 ICA from his office desk inside the CIA (per Brennan’s instructions to the NIC). Ciaramella was also the anonymous CIA whistleblower in the Trump impeachment 2019. See the issue?
Then ask yourself, if we the ordinary American people can see this stuff and put it together… then what exactly does that say about the SSCI role in oversight?
Posted originally on CTH on February 4, 2026 | Sundance
For the past week+, semi opaque stories have been circulating about Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche removing Trump’s appointed U.S. Attorney Ed Martin from official responsibility as it pertains to the ongoing DOJ Govt. Weaponization working group.
There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the rumors and inside DOJ motives therein. Why would Blanche remove Martin and what does it mean? Lots of back and forth, lots of speculation and lots of angst has followed. CTH took a wait and see approach.
Today a report surfaces from CNN that likely explains the context. Now, with CNN as the outlet, sure there’s tons of room to dismiss the story and simply label it fake news; however, as with most things in DC, while CNN would certainly put the worst possible spin on the story, there is also likely some truth within the explanation.
With the Dept of Justice being in a hypersensitive mode and need to be exceptionally careful, lest they face attacks from the quadrillion powered spotlight upon their activity by the leftist opposition, the story of Ed Martin potentially sharing grand jury information about Adam Schiff and Letitia James mortgage fraud cases does reconcile the background context of Deputy AG Todd Blanche’s move to distance Martin.
WASHINGTON DC – A Justice Department review found that Ed Martin improperly handled grand jury materials that were part of an investigation targeting Donald Trump’s political enemies, at least two sources familiar with the review told CNN. It was at least part of the reason Martin was pushed out of DOJ headquarters early this year.
The review, which was overseen by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office, focused on whether grand jury material gathered in the department’s mortgage fraud inquiries into Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James had been illegally shared with people not authorized to possess that information, multiple people briefed on the matter told CNN.
The department found that Martin had shared the secret grand jury material in the Schiff case, one of the sources said. The person said Martin initially denied sharing the material with unauthorized people when asked by department leaders, but emails soon surfaced showing that Martin had in fact shared the grand jury material.
A second person told CNN a finding of misconduct gave the deputy attorney general a reason to further ostracize Martin. Martin was removed as the head of the so-called Weaponization Working Group on the first day of 2026 and he was relocated out of department headquarters to a building across town that houses the pardon attorney — Martin’s one remaining role.
[…] Martin is expected to leave the department in coming weeks. […] In a statement to CNN, Blanche said, “there are no misconduct investigations into Ed Martin. Ed is doing a great job as Pardon Attorney.” (more)
I hate to say it, but the story tracks accurate.
There are two standards in DC that apply to rules. One standard that applies to the corrupt, and one standard that applies to those who would expose the corruption. The corrupt are protected, defended, justified and excused; the investigators of the corruption are under constant and unending scrutiny. The investigators cannot deviate one scintilla from absolute rule-following.
It sucks, but that is the reality of the situation. One small mistake can and will be exploited, emphasized and used to cast the entire operation into a cloud of noise to hide the fraud and corruption that permeates the U.S. body politic.
Take the loss, learn the lesson, move on.
When the handle breaks, replace it. Keep swinging the axe.
Posted originally on CTH on February 4, 2026 | Sundance
As background for this interview, I’m going to say something that generally will not be received well by many. I have it on very good authority that FBI Director Kash Patel’s organization is currently one of the biggest impediments to successful execution of Trump administration domestic policy goals.
Specifically stated, DC operatives within the FBI are creating, manufacturing and leaking information against the goals and objectives of the White House, DOJ and other administration executive offices. In short, Kash Patel does not have his arms around the agency and subversive operatives are actively successful because of his incompetence. Accept it or disregard it, but that is the honest expressed sentiment from officials who are having to deal with the consequence.
All of that said, here is FBI Director Kash Patel appearing on Fox News to again emphasize that the agency is working in a supportive role on various domestic issues of concern. Not “lead“, “support.” WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on February 3, 2026 | Sundance
A natural law within human behavior: “The need for control is a reaction to fear.”
Earlier today, the Vice-Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Senator Mark Warner, delivered a statement and took questions from the press pool. The subject was his extreme concern about the actions of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard against the background of the U.S. intelligence community losing their grip on American politics. In every nuance of every syllable, Mark Warner is very concerned about this.
Warner talks about the intelligence community “Gang of Eight” [@16:37] being formed specifically so that critical issues of vital national security could be shared and reviewed in a secure forum for oversight. This is the same Mark Warner who on March 17, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm, leaked a top-secret highly classified FISA warrant in an effort to achieve his domestic political objectives. Warner genuinely doesn’t think we know about it.
Senator Mark Warner rails against Tulsi Gabbard for working on election integrity issues without debriefing the Senate Intelligence Committee. In short, what reasonably concerns Warner is that organized intelligence community work to influence U.S. election outcomes is going to be impaired by DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Warner notes the DNI should never be permitted to review domestic intelligence operations in U.S. elections, and he is very angry about what might happen if this continues. WATCH:
Those who have been with CTH for more than a little while will understand why we have been documenting the Senate Intelligence Committee as the key enabler for the Intelligence Community to run amok with no accountability. The SSCI is the most corrupt of all DC institutions.
CTH is certain Mark Warner played a role in leaking the Carter Page FISA application. CTH is also reasonably confident that Senator Mark Warner and CIA Director Gina Haspel coordinated the Eric Ciaramella “whistleblower” complaint, through ICIG Atkinson, that facilitated the 2019 impeachment effort. The evidence is in Atkinson’s October 2019 testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that has been sealed and classified. That transcript remains a House equity, outside the reach of the executive branch per the plan of HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff.
For the current topic, Senator Warner is highly concerned a review of the 2020 election outcome might reveal gross election manipulation.
Posted originally on CTH on February 2, 2026 | Sundance
The Wall Street Journal is out with a very specific hit piece against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The article is 100% Intelligence Community insider lawfare against DNI Gabbard; however, in addition to being completely bogus the construct of the hit itself is very revealing.
Within this current story we are going to find out why it is so important for someone, anyone to reveal how the 2019 CIA operation against President Trump was created. {GO DEEP}
The first CIA operation (2017) involved the National Intelligence Council (NIC sub-silo) and a Russian intelligence analyst, Eric Ciaramella. That was the creation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) written from within the NIC at the direction of John Brennan. The second CIA operation was the 2019 fraudulent Trump impeachment effort, again originating from Russian analyst Eric Ciaramella (anonymous whistleblower) who was represented by legal counsel Andrew Bakaj.
The current attack against DNI Tulsi Gabbard involves her May 2025 move to take the National Intelligence Counsel out of the CIA, and remove the heads of the agency, Chairman Mike Collins (friend of Mike Morrell) and Deputy Chair Maria Langan-Riekhof. {GO DEEP}
Within the current “leak”, structurally another false narrative, the Wall Street Journal frames yet another anonymous intelligence community whistleblower complaint, this time against DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Notice: the “anonymous whistleblower” is again represented by legal counsel Andrew Bakaj. The anti-Trump intelligence officials are running the same play.
As noted by DNI Spokesperson Olivia Coleman, “This is a classic case of a politically motivated individual weaponizing their position in the Intelligence Community, submitting a baseless complaint and then burying it in highly classified information to create 1) false intrigue, 2) a manufactured narrative, and 3) conditions which make it substantially more difficult to produce “security guidance” for transmittal to Congress.”
WASHINGTON—A U.S. intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a whistleblower complaint that is so highly classified it has sparked months of wrangling over how to share it with Congress, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the matter.
The filing of the complaint has prompted a continuing, behind-the-scenes struggle about how to assess and handle it, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint. Gabbard’s office rejects that characterization, contending it is navigating a unique set of circumstances and working to resolve the issue.
[…] The complaint was filed last May with the intelligence community’s inspector general, according to a November letter that the whistleblower’s lawyer addressed to Gabbard. The letter, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, accused Gabbard’s office of hindering the dissemination of the complaint to lawmakers by failing to provide necessary security guidance on how to do so.
[…] Gabbard answered written questions about the allegations from the inspector general’s office, a senior official at the spy agency said. That prompted the acting inspector general at the time, Tamara Johnson, to determine the allegations specifically about Gabbardweren’t credible, the official said.
[…] The complaint includes a separate allegation about “an office within a different federal agency,” upon which the watchdog’s office wasn’t able to make a credibility determination, the representative for that office said. The Wall Street Journal couldn’t determine the identity of the other federal agency. (read more)
The Wall Street Journal cannot determine the “other federal agency” provenance, but we can.
The office was the “National Intelligence Council” and the ‘other federal agency’ was/is the CIA. The background context is exactly as we previously outlined {SEE HERE}.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been removing the Intelligence Community tentacles used to control political policy. The Intelligence Community and the downstream stakeholders hate her.
Here’s where it becomes important to understand the full context of what DNI Gabbard did in May 2025 to infuriate the IC. The CIA was running another impeachment operation when DNI Tulsi Gabbard intercepted it.
The issue involved President Trump and Marco Rubio designating Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a terror group operating as part of the coordinated effort by Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro. To undermine Trump/Rubio the National Intelligence Council within the CIA created analysis that contradicted the White House claim.
CBS Margaret Brennan was prepared to frame the narrative just before Tulsi Gabbard intercepted it. Brennan saying to Rubio, “Do you accept the intelligence community’s assessment that the Venezuelan gang is not a proxy force of the Maduro government? That was the National Intelligence Council assessment.
SEC. RUBIO: “Yeah, that’s their assessment. They’re wrong. In fact, the FBI agrees with me that they are. We- we- the FBI agrees that not only is Tren de Aragua exported by the Venezuelan regime, but in fact, if you go back and see a Tren de Aragua member, all the evidence is there, and it’s growing every day, was actually contracted to murder an opposition member, I believe, in Chile a few months ago. So, one of the warnings out there by the FBI is not simply that Tren de Aragua are- are a terrorist organization, but one that has already been operationalized, to murder a- to murder a- an- an opposition member in another country.”
In early 2025 the CIA was working to kneecap the Trump administration’s moves in Venezuela. [I suspect, because the CIA funding mechanism involves money flows from the drug running that Venezuela supported.]
In essence, the NIC sub-silo within the parent CIA agency was weaponizing intelligence against President Trump in order to trigger a Lawfare attack. DNI Tulsi Gabbard intercepted the issue, removed the NIC agency from the CIA and dispatched the two heads, Mike Collins and Maria Langan-Riekhof.
That’s the sourcing for the “anonymous whistleblower” shot against DNI Gabbard in 2025, that surfaced in today’s Wall Street Journal.
Again, I will repeat…. Until the Trump administration puts full sunlight on the intelligence community operations; which includes retrieving, declassifying and sharing the sealed secret transcript of former ICIG Michael Atkinson; the various intelligence officials who are comfortable weaponizing their positions will continue trying to manipulate American politics. They are continually using the same playbook.
As if the @WSJ needed to provide more examples of how it’s utter trash.
Here’s the truth: There was no wrongdoing by @DNIGabbard, a fact that WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era IC IG came to this collusion the Whistleblower’s allegations against DNI… https://t.co/0UeSvde67l
This is not true and is one of the most disgusting cases of clickbait I have ever seen.
There was absolutely NO wrongdoing by DNI Gabbard, a fact that @WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era Intelligence Community Inspector General came to this… https://t.co/F9LMolUXCb
Like clockwork: DNI Gabbard finds 2020 election fraud, days later the WSJ publishes a cryptic hit piece from anonymous sources. This is the Russiagate/impeachment hoax playbook, ment to divert attention from the DNI’s fight for the truth.
Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance
President Bill Clinton appears in multiple documents throughout the Epstein files. President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, George Stephanopoulos, questions current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about the ongoing releases of Epstein information.
Specifically concerning to Stephanopoulos this week is the rushed nature of the 3.5 million-page document release by the DOJ, and victim information. Last week Stephanopoulos was complaining about the lengthy delays in the release as DOJ officials worked to redact victim information. WATCH:
[Transcript] – STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks, Pierre Thomas, for that. We’re joined now by the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, thank you for joining us this morning.
As you know, your release on Friday has already received a response from the victims, from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. I want to show the statement right now. It says, “survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. This is outrageous. The Justice Department cannot claim it is finishing releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed.”
Will there be more releases?
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: I mean, look, first of all, we took great pains, as I explained on Friday, to make sure that we protected victims. This was a — we are talking about a review of 3.5 million pieces of paper that were released on Friday.
Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectified that. And the numbers we’re talking about, just so the American people understand, we’re talking about .001 percent of all the materials. And so — and we knew this. I said this on Friday, that — that, of course, the nature of this type of review was — the volume of materials that were reviewed, that there would be times when this happened. And so we’re working hard to make sure that we fix that. And I expect that that will continue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Will more documents be released?
BLANCHE: We have released — there are a small number of documents, as I said on Friday, that we’re waiting for a judge to say we can — we’re allowed to release because of a protective order. But there are — this review is over. I mean we reviewed over six million pieces of paper, thousands of videos, thousands — tens of thousands of images. And — which is what the statute required us to do.
You know, it’s interesting. Leadership on the — on the Hill, Congressman Massie, Senator Schumer are quick to complain. There is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produced, because I know the materials we produced. We produced them on Friday. By Saturday, they’re already complaining about what we did? And by the way, apparently Massie and others wrote a letter to come and review unredacted materials. I didn’t get that letter yet. They leaked it to the press before they actually sent it to me.
But, yes, that’s absolutely totally fine. We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to hide. We never did. And our doors are open if they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That was going to be my next question. So, thank you for answering it.
I do want to move on right now.
We have some video right now showing Liam Ramos, that five-year-old boy who was detained by ICE in Minnesota, being released today. He’s on his way back home to Minnesota after a judge ordered him released. And it was a pretty blistering order from the judge, Fred Biery, down in — the U.S. district judge — district court judge down in Texas.
He showed a photo of Liam, included some biblical passages, saying “Jesus wept,” and then went on to say, “civics lesson to the government: administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. This is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”
What’s your response?
BLANCHE: Well, look, that’s an active litigation, so I’m limited. But I will say this, the immigration law, the body of immigration law is much different than our typical criminal process because of the administrative nature of what we do every day. And so, to the extent that we need to appeal that judge’s decision, I promise we will.
But you see thousands and thousands of administrative actions happening every single day in this country. And you just highlighted a single one and not the thousands and thousands of others that happen. And so, this is — what we’re doing is tough. What we’re doing is difficult. I mean, we’re talking about a situation where millions and millions and millions of undocumented illegal aliens have flooded our country and we are trying to find them basically one by one.
And so, you know, I don’t have a comment specifically on what that judge said yesterday, but generally speaking, we are complying with the law every single day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal records, but about 70 percent at least of those who have been detained don’t have criminal records.
BLANCHE: Well, just — hang on. The fact that they’re here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don’t have criminal records, they are — by their presence being here without status, having come into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so, we have to be careful.
And you’re right, there is a schism in the law right now about whether an illegal alien can be held pending their proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there’s a bunch of appellate cases.
So that’s another example of something where a number of district court judges have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellate court and ultimately, probably the Supreme Court that will be asked to interpret that. So — so, we should be — we should wait before we withhold judgment until the appellate courts have had their opportunity to weigh in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I should say, to clarify, the lawyer for Liam Ramos and his father say they were following the legal process for asylum.
BLANCHE: I mean, I don’t know what that means. They were following legal process, and yet the judge disagreed with us —
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum.
BLANCHE: Excuse me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum, and they were going through the legal process.
BLANCHE: Well, there’s — so that’s not true. That is not true. There’s a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum.
And again, I do — I cannot get into the — the specifics of this litigation, but you can read the same briefs I can. And what you just said is not true.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. That’s what his lawyer says. So, they — I’m sure they’ll have a response to that as well.
I also want to ask you about the situation. Just this week, Don Lemon was arrested, the journalist Don Lemon was arrested, along with another independent journalist. And he was — this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge in an appeals court refused to approve the request. And the Chief Federal District Judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.
So, when do you believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity?
BLANCHE: Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question. So — and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause.
That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that that Mr. Lemon did. I am not going to comment on the charges specifically because it’s not appropriate.
But it’s interesting that — that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right a freedom of religion which is just as important as any other right that we have. And, George, I don’t know if you’ve — if you’ve watched the videos or read the indictment about what it’s alleged that Mr. Lemon did, but if anybody in this country thinks that that is, quote, “independent journalism,” I would like to have a conversation with you.
Now, he obviously has a very good lawyer. He can raise defenses in court to the extent he wants to, but nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we’re just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen.
It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a former CNN journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re a rioter. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re confident he’s going to be convicted and the case won’t be dismissed?
BLANCHE: I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate. He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis, and he’ll have — have his day in court like everybody else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: During your confirmation hearings, you made a strong statement against partisan political investigations and prosecutions. And I want to show it for our audience.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: Partisan lawfare in our justice system wastes taxpayer money, makes communities less safe, and ruins lives. This should never happen in America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve got your commitment there — there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it.
BLANCHE: I commit to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Since then, as you know, a number of targets of President Trump, have been publicly targeted by President Trump, have been prosecuted or investigated. I want to show that right now. It includes the former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Senators Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin, Governor Tim Walz, and Mayor Jacob Frey.
So, how do you respond to those who say you’ve broken your commitment?
BLANCHE: You just showed a handful of investigations or grand jury indictments that have been brought. We are — we are investigating tens of thousands of individuals and cases every single day. They are not political in base. The fact that you cherry-picked a handful that some people in the media have said, “Oh, those must be political,” is absurd and not fair.
I mean, don’t forget, George, when I walk into the Oval Office right now, I look around. And oftentimes every single person in that room was heavily attacked and gone after by the last Biden administration. And so, when I said to Congress and when I say to you right now that what we’re — there’s not a whiff of political partisanship in what we’re doing, I mean that. The mere fact that some Democrats, or some individuals who have spoken out against President Trump are being investigated is because there — that’s what the Department of Justice does. It doesn’t make it political because we’re investigating. And that — and that’s something important we’re doing. We have — we have brought down crime. We’re making America safe again. We’re working hard every day. And those handful of investigations or cases you just show don’t change that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Those indictments of James Comey and Letitia James came after the president explicitly said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served right now. They came after career attorneys refused to bring the indictments, and both cases have been dismissed.
BLANCHE: I mean, when you — I don’t know what it means to say they’ve come after people. I mean, listen, if you’re a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, you are expected to effectuate this administration’s priorities, like every single prosecutor in every administration. There are some prosecutors within the department who have chosen to leave. They don’t want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you’re going to work in this department, you are going to execute on the president’s priorities, and that’s what we do.
And yes, there are cases that have been dismissed by judges. They’re under appeal. That’s what happens in our system. And that doesn’t make the cases wrong or right, it just means that they’ve been dismissed and they’re under appeal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you just — you just actually made my point right there. You said it’s the president’s priorities. The president calls for them publicly to be prosecuted, says they’re guilty as hell, and then they’re prosecuted.
BLANCHE: Now that’s not the president’s priorities. That’s a truth that he sent out. The president’s priorities are executing on making America safe again. And that’s what we’re doing.
And so, when we go to prosecutors and we say, you are going to do violent crime. You are going to do fraud cases out of Minnesota because that’s a horrible thing that’s happening there. If individual prosecutors say, no, I don’t want to do that, they need to leave. And they do leave. And that’s what I meant when I said that.
I’m not — I’m not saying that we — under no circumstances do we turn to a prosecutor and say you need to go after somebody because they are politically one way or another. We have never done that, and we won’t do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the president said it. The president is the one who said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served.
BLANCHE: You’re reading a small part of a — of a truth. The truth said a lot of other things to, and many other truths have said the thing. What the president has said publicly, and what he says to me, and what he says to the attorney general, and what he says to the American people is, he expects investigations to be fair. He expects investigations to be done right. But he also doesn’t expect that we investigate. He expects that we — that we do the right thing and that we root out the corruption.
I mean, we had a — an incredibly corrupt Department of Justice when we came into power last year. There can be no dispute about that. There can be no dispute that the Garland Department of Justice did not do the right thing in many cases.
And so to now be judged a year later because of a truth the president said is not appropriate, we can look at our body of work and the work that we’re doing as a department every day. And I know that we’re making this country safer again. We are bringing integrity back to the department, notwithstanding what those in the media say differently, and we’re going to continue to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask you about a report breaking in “The Wall Street Journal” overnight. I want to show the headline right now. It’s — the headline saying the “Spy Sheikh Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company.” “A $500 million investment for 49 percent of World Liberty came months before UAE won access to tightly guarded American A.I. chips.” It’s referring to the national security adviser at the UAE, Sheikh Tahnoon. And he made this investment just before President Trump was inaugurated.
The article goes on to say, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” This is the company of President Trump’s family. Eric Trump is the — is the president of the company. Trump — President Trump is listed as the founder emeritus, though he’s not running it directly right now.
How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?
BLANCHE: I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before, as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.
So, I — look, I saw that article. I don’t have a comment on it beyond President Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.
And so, there — there’s nothing unprecedented about a — about the Trump Organization going out and trying to make investments that basically all will come back to the American people and jobs in this country. And so this idea that there’s something untoward or unprecedented is just a repeated story that that isn’t true. And that’s — and I think that that — the American people know that. And the fact that we’ve talked about unprecedented, and this is something that doesn’t happen is just not true. And it’s — it shouldn’t be said by these so-called newspapers that are saying it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the president doesn’t run the company, but he does profit from it. His financial disclosure show he’s received funds from that. And law professor Kathleen Clark is quoted in the article saying this sure looks like a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Ty Cobb, who served as President Trump’s lawyer in — during the first administration, said, quote, “My advice as an ethics lawyer would have been clear. You don’t do business deals with the families of the leaders of foreign countries. It taints American foreign policy.”
How do you respond to Mr. Cobb?
BLANCHE: I don’t have a response to that guy. I mean, that guy hasn’t said a nonpartisan thing in the past four years. I mean, I could have predicted what you just said he would say. That’s what he says every time anything comes out about the president. I don’t have a — the president is ethical. He talks more to the press. He says what’s happening more than any president in history. You have a question about it, you can ask him. He gaggled on the plane last night at midnight for like 20 minutes. OK?
So, like the fact that Ty Cobb claims that he would have counseled something different to the president, OK. I mean that guy. I mean, I don’t have response to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the questions the president also took last night when he was on Air Force One was questions about his suing the Treasury Department, the IRS for $10 billion for leaking his tax returns. And he’s — he suggested that there could be some questions about the conflict. He says it’s an interesting question.
How do you respond to those who say that’s a conflict of interest for the president to be seeking funds from those who he’s administering?
BLANCHE: Look, we’re looking at how to handle that. I mean, he’s not wrong, and I don’t think even you think he’s wrong, that what happened there is horrible. The fact that his tax returns were leaked. No American should have that. And you do have Americans, whether you’re the president or just a — anybody in this country, has a right when something like that happens. And so I very much sympathize with what the president talked about and we’re looking into as a department how to address and make sure that type of thing never happens again to anybody, much less a former president or a current president. And we’ll go from there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It is wrong for a president to have his tax returns leaked, for anyone to have their tax returns leaked. I agree with that. The president is also seeking $232 million from the Justice Department, saying his rights were violated during the 2016 campaign.
And I just wonder how you think you’re going to handle that. Both you as the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, have served as President Trump’s personal lawyers in the past. Doesn’t that pose at least the appearance of a conflict? And should you be involved in dealing with that in any way?
BLANCHE: I mean, I haven’t talked whether I’m involved with that at all anyway. I mean, it’s — that’s a fair question, George. And we all — we obviously talk about conflicts and what I’m allowed to do, what the attorney general is allowed to do because of what we’ve done in our past. But there are limits to those — to those conflicts. And I do have a job to the American people and President Trump as a deputy attorney general. And so, I — you know, we will — we will navigate that appropriately and consistent with the ethical rules and get to a just result.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Blanche, thanks for your time this morning.
Posted originally on CTH on January 30, 2026 | sundance
National race antagonist, Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was arrested last night in Los Angeles. Lemon’s arrest comes after he helped organize and coordinate a group of agitators to attack a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mr Lemon has said he was reporting as a journalist when he entered the Cities Church on January 18. However, video evidence shows he was working in conjunction with the group of anarchists who entered the church to terrorize the worshippers. The antagonistic group claimed the church’s pastor worked for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and therefore was selected as the target for their attack.
Attorney General Pam Bondi released the following statement via X: “At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. More details soon.”
Don Lemon’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, another man of radical disposition, released a statement saying Lemon was taken into custody by federal agents in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards. “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” he added. “Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”
Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance |
This is infuriating, and entirely due to something else in the background {GO DEEP}. Former National Security Council member (Russia/EurAsia desk) Alexander Vindman is running for a Florida senate seat against Republican Ashley Moody.
First, Alexander Vindman doesn’t stand a chance at winning; however, that’s not his objective with this announcement. Here is where it becomes important to understand the game.
Vindman is directly tied to the background issue of the fraudulent impeachment effort, which I have been working to bring to the forefront. Progress is agonizingly slow but moving forward.
Alexander Vindman has two primary objectives in announcing this effort: (#1) to give himself the political defense against any accountability for his involvement in the IC coup against President Trump in 2019. By running for the Florida Senate seat, Vindman will claim evidence is only coming to light as an outcome of his seeking elected office, i.e. it is a political attack. And (#2) running for office allows Vindman to accept campaign donations that will ultimately be used in his defense against #1. This is how they roll.
FLORIDA – MIAMI — Democrat Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who helped trigger President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, announced his Senate campaign in Florida on Tuesday to challenge GOP Sen. Ashley Moody.
Vindman’s entrance into the race pulls Trump’s agenda and record to the forefront of the Senate contest in Florida, bringing a national focus to a race in the president’s home state — one now widely seen as Republican-leaning.
[…] Vindman, born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, was an aide on the NSC during Trump’s first term. He testified before Congress about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the president floated an investigation of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump appeared to tie future U.S. aid to Ukraine’s willingness to launch and announce a probe that would be damaging to Biden.
The Senate acquitted Trump in that case, and Vindman, an Army combat veteran and lieutenant colonel, was fired from his position with the NSC.
[…] Any statewide Democratic candidate faces an uphill climb in Florida, given that Republican voters in the state outnumber Democratic voters by around 1.4 million people. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also classified the Senate seat in Florida as being in the “Solid R” category — the most GOP-friendly ranking available. (read more)
Former AAG Mary McCord (working for Schiff/Nadler), McCord’s former staff lawyer, Michael Atkinson (working as ICIG), Alexander Vindman (NSC) and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella (fraudulent ICA organizer turned anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’) worked together to construct the fraudulent impeachment operation.
In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman 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 recently 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.
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.”
[…] 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. The key question to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office to change the CIA whistleblower rules permitting Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous. Who gave Atkinson permission?
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. MORE...
Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.
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!
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
Centinel2012 