Tag Archives: Legislation

Jan 24 2026

Harriet Hageman Questions Jack Smith – Finds Trail of Deleted J6 Committee Evidence


Posted originally on CTH on January 23, 2026 | Sundance

Many of you may remember back in 2024 I strongly urged President Trump to consider appointing Harriet Hageman as CIA Director for very specific reasons and intents. Watch this video below and you will see why she was my preferred choice.

Representative Hageman has just found an important trail to discover the missing documents, recordings and transcripts that were destroyed by the January 6 Committee. WATCH:

Keep in mind that former AAG Mary McCord was working for the J6 Committee at the time period being discussed. When the J6 Committee closed, McCord went to work directly with Jack Smith.

McCord was inside the J6 Committee feeding information to the DOJ and Jack Smith.  McCord then went to work for Jack Smith.

Always scheming, organizing and planning in the background of Washington DC, Mary McCord was conducting surveillance of an Oathkeeper chat room and sending information to the FBI following the November 2020 election, and in the runup to the January 6, 2021, protest.

[SOURCE]

This is interesting on a variety of levels, because we have documented Mary McCord working on the Trump-Russia fabrication [FISA warrant], the CIA [Ukraine] impeachment fabrication [as key staff], the January 6th Committee fabrication [again staff], and the Jack Smith fabrication.  Now we see Mary McCord actively setting up the “insurrection narrative” ahead of the J6 protests.

It appears Mrs. McCord then forwarded the email to someone [REDACTED], likely within the J6 Committee or Jack Smith investigation on Sept 24, 2021.

There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most.  When you understand what they hid, and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.

The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.

Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.

Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice, given the unknowns of an incoming Republican majority.

First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers issue.

Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that were carried out as part of the ’round up.’  That’s where FBI operation Arctic Frost appears in the conversation.

The House Subcommittee on Oversight released a report, [SEE HERE] and overview [SEE HERE], highlighting just how political the J6 Committee was.  The report outlines how Nancy Pelosi structured the J6 Committee for political intents, and the longer report showcases the evidence of how Liz Cheney assisted.

WASHINGTON– Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released his “Initial Findings Report” on the events of January 6, 2021 as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee. (more)

[SOURCE]

The last bullet point has a name.  The “Select Committee staff”, who met with Fani Willis, was likely Mary McCord.

If there is one corrupt DC player 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 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.

KEY: Michael Atkinson was forced to testify to the joint House impeachment committee about the CIA whistleblower rule change and the process he authorized and participated in as the Intelligence Community Inspector General.  Adam Schiff sealed that deposition, and no one has ever discussed what Atkinson said when questioned.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (Legislative Branch) can unseal and release that testimony to the CIA or ODNI (Executive Branch), and Tulsi Gabbard who is in charge of the ICIG can declassify Michael Atkinson’s deposition.  However, Speaker Mike Johnson has to transfer it from the legislative to the executive, and unfortunately it does not appear that Speaker Johnson wants to open that can-of-worms – at least, not willingly.

Moving on…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened next….

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

Yes, that is correct.  After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 Committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.

But wait…. remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago?  Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team

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

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

Now, let’s go deeper….

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

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

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

This is where a big mental reset is needed.

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

So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?

Why did the DOJ-NSD even care?  This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle.  People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.

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

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

Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor.  Obama’s plausible deniability of the 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 “by the book” three times.

It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge.  The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.

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

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

But wait, there’s more…. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The timeline holds the key.

BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.

I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:

Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.

Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?

Mary McCord.

Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?

Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.

In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.

If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:

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

♦ McCord helped create 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 on Impeachment Committee.

♦ 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 was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.

♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2

♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.

♦ Joe Biden then pardoned Mary McCord.

[SOURCE]

Now, if you’re wondering why I spend so much time and attention on the Mary McCord issue, the information today about her sending the FBI information about the Oathkeepers chat group might clarify things.

When I look at that activity by Mary McCord, and I consider the duplicity of the FBI in conducting the Arctic Frost investigation, I also consider that I was personally targeted by the J6 team of McCord and the FBI.

It all tracks, and Mary McCord is in the very center of all of it.

So no, I am not letting it go.

Jan 23 2026

It’s Time to Call The Baby Ugly – Someone Needs to Tell President Donald Trump


Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance

As most of you know for several years, I have been on the trail of the intelligence community role in the targeting of President Trump.  Part of that research involved locating evidence to show exactly who was inside the intelligence apparatus and what they were doing.

Simultaneous to my effort, I notice there has been growing frustration over the fact that none of the participants in the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” construct have been brought to justice.

I’m going to explain as best I can why accountability is not happening, while disclosing the latest information I have to share.

Just as the location of Devin Nunes’ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report into the formation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was unknown until last year, so too was the location of the transcript containing testimony from Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson similarly hidden.

The HPSCI report on the ICA was buried in the security vault of the CIA.  Following the change in administration, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard found it and released it.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony about the CIA whistleblower is also buried; only now we know where the House Impeachment Committee co-chair Adam Schiff hid it.  The transcript is in a sealed classified vault inside the HPSCI.

The transcript is being read this week, it may have already been read.  I am confident the reason for Adam Schiff to classify it and hide it will become transparently obvious to the reader.  However, then we as a nation face a problem.

Now, we could drag this out, wait to see how it plays and remain quiet while we watch.  However, too much time has been wasted; so let me just cut to the chase.  The transcript is one key part of the information that proves the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind the August to December 2019 impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.

In late 2019, President Trump’s own CIA, our government, was trying to weaken and remove President Trump.

The full background of the situation is described below, with citations.  I strongly suggest we all think about the implications.

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 this year, 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 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, released in January 2017, just before President Trump took office. Ms 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.

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.”

♦ 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 both 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 2025 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 senate intelligence committee (SSCI) had a change of position and agreed to confirm congressman John Ratcliffe as Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

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.

UPDATE: The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed inside the Republican controlled House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI.

Republicans in the House have not released the Atkinson transcript since they took control.

As a consequence…. How can the story of the CIA targeting the President of the United States get told?

Even if an executive branch intelligence leader read the transcript from inside the HPSCI, and considering the separation of powers (evidence inside legislative branch), and considering that information is sealed and classified (would require a full committee vote to unseal), and considering the ramifications that would rain down upon anyone who would make that request to release; well, who exactly is going to tell that story, under what conditions and facing what consequences?

People of great trust; people of great power; people currently very close to President Trump, would themselves be at risk from the release of the information showing the 2019 President Trump CIA was deliberately targeting President Trump to weaken him and/or remove him from office.

Think about this very carefully.

The jaw-dropping reality of this situation will explain why we have seen no action or accountability by DC toward any of the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” activity.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The truth has no agenda.

I’m doing all I can…

Jan 23 2026

The Moment Jack Smith Admitted to Congress He Had No Legal Case Against President Donald Trump


Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance 

The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boiled down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.

To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election.  That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”

However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.”  The key word here is “believe.”  Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election.  WATCH: 

This is what CTH previously pointed out from the deposition of Jack Smith. {GO DEEP}

If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief.  Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.

It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.

The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.

Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.

Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.

In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.

Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.

Jack Smith sought to define “truth” and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.

The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.

Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.

A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.

[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]

When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.

Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.

Stop the Division!

We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.

It’s not about Trump. It’s about us.

Jan 8 2026

Secretary Rubio and Secretary Hegseth Speak to Media Following Senate Briefing on Venezuela


Posted originally on CTH on Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth deliver remarks to the media following a briefing of Senators on the ongoing Venezuela operations.

As noted by Secretary Rubio, the U.S. is now in control of all Venezuela oil production and distribution.  WATCH:

Further to Rubio’s remarks: Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday that the United States will sell Venezuelan oil “indefinitely” after completing sales of the crude currently accumulating in storage there.

Wright said the proceeds from those sales would be “deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. government” and then “flow back into Venezuela to benefit the Venezuelan people.”

“Instead of the oil being blockaded, as it is right now, we’re gonna let the oil flow … to United States refineries and around the world to bring better oil supplies, but have those sales done by the U.S. government,” he said at Goldman Sachs’ Energy, CleanTech & Utilities Conference.

“We’re going to market the crude coming out of Venezuela, first this backed-up stored oil, and then indefinitely, going forward, we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace,” Wright added. (read more)

January 7, 2026 | Sundance

Jan 7 2026

President Trump Gives Remarks at House Republican Retreat – 10:00am ET Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on January 6, 2026 | Sundance 

President Donald Trump will be delivering remarks today at a House Republican conference event.  The anticipated remarks are scheduled to begin at 10:00am ET with livestream links below:

.

.

.

Jan 2 2026

Here We Go – First Day of 2026, First Discussion of FISA-702 Reauthorization Surfaces


Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance 

The tenuous legal theory permitting the U.S. government to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizen data (emails, texts, phone calls, messages etc.) rests on the unconstitutional ability of the government to intercept your “private papers” with the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically FISA-702.  The “702” aspect is the term for U.S. citizen intercepted.

The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.  The 702 authorities have been abused to conduct political surveillance for just about everything in Washington DC.  Millions of unauthorized searches have been identified; it is unconstitutional.

Politico, an outlet for the concerns of the administrative state, begins the new year by noting there is increased resistance to the reauthorization.  However, in order to carry out the domestic national security agenda of the Trump administration, the Deep State considers JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others as likely supporters for reauthorization.

(Politico) – […] During the last reauthorization debate in 2024, then-candidate Trump urged Congress to “kill” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the larger spy law that Section 702 is nested under. Trump’s decision frustrated supporters of the program — in part because they believe he conflated the foreign-target spy program with the broader surveillance law that was not up for reauthorization.

A crucial Biggs-sponsored House amendment that would have added a warrant requirement for any communications involving Americans failed on a 212-212 tie, with Speaker Mike Johnson casting a rare and decisive vote to kill it.

Now the spy powers fight is a major headache for Johnson, who infuriated privacy hawks with his 2024 amendment vote after having advocated for more surveillance guardrails as a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close Trump ally — have started discussing how to approach the reauthorization during their weekly meetings. Jordan said in an interview he is again hoping to impose a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans as well as a ban on data brokers selling consumer information to law enforcement.

He said he has “had some discussions over this past year with some members of the administration” on this issue and plans to meet alongside House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) with White House officials on the matter early next year.

Lawmakers on both sides of the debate are carefully watching Crawford, who opposed the warrant requirement in 2024 — along with every other House Intelligence Committee Republican. But Johnson has since added five Republicans to the panel who each voted for the Biggs amendment.

A committee spokesperson said Crawford is working with House leadership, Jordan, the Senate and the administration “to determine the best way forward to extend 702 authority.”

There are still, however, a majority of Intelligence Committee Republicans who are working to extend the program without adding a warrant requirement — and they are hoping administration officials whom they view as allies, including Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will be able to sway Trump. (read more)

Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata.  Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists.  It really is that simple.

The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it.  That’s where FISA-702 comes in.

Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification.  702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.

This is a very key component to fully understand.  Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking.  Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification.  The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.

The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.

The Intelligence Community (IC) has told Congress, particularly the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, that all hell will break loose if they don’t reauthorize full electronic surveillance of Americans.

Congress has historically been scared of the “seven ways from Sunday” IC.  However, now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is attempting to change things; specifically change things as they pertain to the domestic use of the intelligence agencies.

As the counterargument is made, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and all of the key participants, are siloed from understanding that 702 has nothing to do with incidental collection of American data, whilst the honorable IC were doing foreign intercepts.

According to intelligence experts, Speaker Johnson and most Republicans believe the IC justification, and perhaps many of them pretend not to know the alternatives.  I do not buy this argument, because too much recent evidence exists to sell the story that Congress is unknowing of how this metadata capture is being continually exploited.

The only way to really test congressional knowledge is to question them.  No one is questioning them.

In my opinion, the politicians and their key staff pretend they cannot fathom how the FBI, DOJ, NSD, DHS and contractors use this database to conduct political and “other” (think corporate espionage for sale) surveillance.  When you engage with them, you realize they really do put on a great show proclaiming the IC is full of honorable rank-and-file, trying to walk a fine line between the 4th Amendment and exploitation.  The counter position is akin to them living in a DC bubble.

The IC argument is now something akin to how we have let thousands of terrorists into the country through the southern border crisis.  They say: “My god, we need to monitor the terrorists, and if you take away the 702, the foreign terror cells will activate and start killing us all.  Do you want that blood on your hands?”   You cannot take away surveillance tools.

Then you overlay the FISA 702 reauthorization argument, as used as a bargaining chip by the same people who don’t want to get caught up in the surveillance.

The DC conversations end up like, “Ok, we’ll reauthorize it, but you cannot use it against us – and all the sex parties and perverted stuff we do when no one is around; you must promise to keep our secrets hidden“…  Then, just like the 2024 reauthorization change, they exempt themselves.

The IC agree to accept a reauthorization that exempts Congress.   The IC keep the process – just promise not to use it against Congress.   This outlook is what we see visible in the CR bill extension that included forbidding the FBI from seeking search warrants against Senator’s telecommunications, and this outlook is highlighted by Elise Stefanik demanding that Congress be notified if any federal candidate for office is under investigation.   The Big Club protects the Big Club.

Unfortunately, ‘We The People’ do not have many friends in DC on this issue, other than a very small group in/around Tulsi Gabbard’s office, and they are constantly under attack.

The DC UniParty will attempt to reauthorize 702 to continue exploiting their surveillance authority. Do not forget, now we have over 10,000 log-in portals with access to the NSA database exist, including the workstation at Perkins Coie that tied into the NSA database {GO DEEP}.

After spending several years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed, because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.

It is almost impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.

If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit).  In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th Amendment protection.

BIG Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database.  That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702.  If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.

The significance of this FISA-702 issue is much bigger than most can appreciate.

This surveillance underpinning also reconciles many of the puzzled faces when it comes to who is permitted nomination and who is not.  The DC Deep State confirmed both Kash Patel to be Donald Trump’s FBI Director (SSCI), and Pam Bondi to be U.S. Attorney General (SJC).  Both Bondi and Patel are expressed believers in the value of FISA-702.

You might even remember this odd question from October of 2025 that came out of nowhere.  Attorney General Bondi literally read a script on the issue that was prepared for her.  WATCH:

Additionally, the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence was initially opposed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), until she acquiesced and agreed there was value in the FISA-702 process.

We have a few weeks before things get really ugly, but they will get ugly.

Deals will be cut.  Offers will be made. Corruption throughout this argument will run amok.

In the background of every headline, that will surface over the next two months, this issue will enmesh.

We need to watch closely how National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance respond to the surfacing issues.

All of the modern surveillance mechanisms, within the U.S. government network currently being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, come from the gateway of 702; ie. govt being allowed to exploit the NSA database against Americans.

If warrantless searches of the NSA database are legally stopped, or no longer authorized, the gate closes and the DHS, Palantir/IC and Tech Bro surveillance collaboration hit a brick wall.

This is my hill! 

Dec 22 2025

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche Explains Epstein File Releases


Posted originally on CTH on December 21, 2025 | Sundance

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appears on Meet the Press to pushback against a narrative that DOJ officials are not being compliant with a statutory demand to release the Epstein files.

As outlined by Todd Blanche, there is a full attempt to release all of the information, with no intent to redact any information except to protect the victims and survivors as required by the same law that requires the release.  WATCH:

.

Dec 16 2025

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


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance 

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

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

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

[SOURCE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 13 2025

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Discusses Ongoing Efforts to Find and Remove 18,000 Known Terrorists Who Entered U.S. Under Biden


Posted originally on CTH on December 13, 2025

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears on Fox News to discuss the Trump administrations’ effort to track down, capture and remove a reported 18,000 known and documented terrorists who crossed the southern border and entered the U.S. during the Biden administration.

There are several elements to this issue, and unfortunately the aspect that pertains to identifying them and locating them works to enhance the argument of those who support govt surveillance. In fact, both the use of Palantir track and trace technology in combination with the FISA-702 reauthorization come into play here.

I would argue, as I have since 2022, that one of the reasons the DC administrative state allowed the Biden regime to create this national security threat, was specifically so they could justify the creation and use of a national identity surveillance net.

Washington DC supported the creation of the borderless crisis, in part to ensure the need for their surveillance solution. This puts the efforts of DNI Gabbard into a catch-22 scenario as witnessed in the questioning before congress of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. WATCH:

.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem are trying to remove thousands of national security threats and deport millions of illegal aliens.  The tools they need to track and identify those threats are the tools DC wants to retain against everyone, not just the threats.

In order to keep the pitchforks away, Washington DC has filled the haystack with needles. Gabbard (DNI), Noem (DHS) and Homan (ICE) are using metal detectors while the DC UniParty keeps operating the needle-making machinery.

Dec 9 2025

House Releases Text of 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Codifying 15 Trump Executive Orders


The House Armed Services Committee has released the full text of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2026 [SEE TEXT HERE]. The massive bill consists of 3,086 pages, making the fiscal year 2026 NDAA longer than the manuscript of War and Peace. Most people will never read it, so a 24-page Summary Version is Here.

The FY 2026 NDAA authorizes $892.6B for defense, which includes $153B for procurement, $142B for Research and Development, and $235B for military personnel. The legislation: Codifies 15 Trump EOs on military reform, border security, and DEI elimination. Boosts shipbuilding, aircraft, munitions, funds Taiwan aid and Israel programs, reforms acquisitions, enhances border support including $900M for counter-narcotic operations and includes a 3.8% pay raise and quality-of-life improvements.

There is a $400 million authorization for Ukraine support, however, the amount is ‘authorized’ not ‘appropriated’ – which would have to come in a separate spending bill.

Other Ukraine-Related Provisions (No Specific Funding). These sections emphasize oversight, reporting, and strategic support but do not authorize new funding:

SEC. 1244 (Military Intelligence Support for Ukraine): Directs the provision of military intelligence to Ukraine but without dollar figures.

SEC. 1245 (Report Relating to Allied and Partner Support to Ukraine): Requires the Secretary of Defense to report on U.S. and allied contributions, including unobligated balances in the USAI account and plans for using funds to bolster Ukraine’s defense. Covers bilateral aid, Jumpstart/PURL initiatives, and deterrence against Russia.

SEC. 1246–1250: Broader provisions on NATO’s eastern flank, Baltic security, U.S. basing/training in NATO countries, and European deterrence reports. These indirectly support Ukraine via enhanced regional posture but lack Ukraine-specific funding.

No other sections in the amendment (e.g., those on Indo-Pacific, cyber, or appropriations for unrelated programs) mention Ukraine funding. The total direct authorization for Ukraine in FY 2026 appears to be $400 million under USAI, building on prior years’ initiatives. This is an authorization bill, so final funding levels depend on the appropriations process and conference reconciliation between House and Senate versions.

December 8, 2025 | Sundance