Today, at 10:00am ET, Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to deliver oversight testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. Livestream links below:
.
.
.
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.
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.”
[SOURCE]
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.
As a result, I have tried to inform SSCI Chairman Tom Cotton via X with the following message:
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?
Warmest best,
A Frustrated American
[CC: DNI Tulsi Gabbard, SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner, HPSCI Chair Rick Crawford]
¹WARNING: The backstory outline reveals highly classified TSCI national security information, derived through research and common sense.
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.
The Clintons are political animals; everything they do is with a political strategy at the forefront of their thinking. What Bill and Hillary needed was to provide an excuse for Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to vote against holding them in contempt. That’s what Bill and Hillary have done.
In a somewhat opaque last-minute agreement to testify to the House about their involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, rules and limits still to be decided, Bill and Hillary Clinton have simply attempted to stop/stall the House from holding them in contempt.
WASHINGTON DC – Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a remarkable reversal for the former president and secretary of state, who had defied committee-issued subpoenas and risked imprisonment by the Trump Justice Department as the House prepared to vote Wednesday to hold them in contempt of Congress.
After both skipped their scheduled depositions earlier this year, the Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis in January to approve a contempt measure for each of them.
Although both have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, they have maintained that the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid. They also argued that the GOP-led exercise was designed to embarrass and put them in jail.
It is not immediately clear when they would appear and if the House will continue to go ahead with the contempt votes anyway.
“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions,” House Oversight Chair James Comer said in a statement Monday. “The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt. I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.” (read more)
Apparently, the Senate and House intelligence committees are very concerned about what Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is doing. Almost every tweet from Senator Mark Warner in the past 48 hours has been about DNI Tulsi Gabbard.
What seems to worry them the most is that they don’t know exactly what she is doing. Triggered by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, the Democrats are now demanding Director Gabbard tell them her intentions and her itinerary so they can monitor her activity. Tulsi Gabbard continues to review internal government activity without consulting them.
“Director Gabbard recognizes that election security is essential for the integrity of our republic and our nation’s security. As DNI, she has a vital role in identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and protecting against exploitation,” a DNI spokesperson noted. “We know through intelligence and public reporting that electronic voting systems have been and are vulnerable to exploitation. President Trump’s directive to secure our elections was clear, and DNI Gabbard has and will continue to take actions within her authorities, alongside our interagency partners, to support ensuring the integrity of our elections,” the DNI spokesperson said.
Thursday evening while attending the premier of ‘Melania’ at the Kennedy Center, President Trump said, “you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”
According to the Wall Street Journal:
[…] “[Tulsi Gabbard] has begun studying information about voting machines, analyzed data from swing states and pursued theories that President Trump has promoted to claim the 2020 election was unfairly taken from him, the officials said, particularly on foreign government interference.
She has regularly briefed Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles about her inquiry in recent months along with others involved in the investigation. Those include senior Justice Department officials, Trump’s outside ally and lawyer Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who pushed claims in 2020 that the election was stolen and joined the administration as a special government employee.
Gabbard has consulted with others in the intelligence community about claims of foreign interference in the 2020 election, the officials said, though she hasn’t provided the public with new evidence of it.
She is expected to prepare a report on her work, the people said. The administration has discussed executive orders on voting ahead of the midterm elections, two of the officials said.
[…] Democrats criticized Gabbard’s election effort. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus—in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns—or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office,” said Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee. (more – paywall)
There are a lot of interconnected aspects to all of this, many circle around the Intelligence Community’s prior and current involvement in various operations against the interests of the Office of the President.
As noted by Paul Sperry: “In a letter, ex-CIA chief John Brennan’s lawyer said his client has “complied” w/ a fed grand jury subpoena seeking, among other things, materials related to his role in creation of the Obama-ordered ICA on Russia + Trump covering the period from July 1, 2016 to Feb 28, 2017.”
Most people are not aware how the 2016/2017 CIA work product known as the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) ties directly into the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump for the Ukraine phone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
A key architect of the 2017 ICA was a CIA analyst on Russian issues named Eric Ciaramella. The anonymous CIA whistleblower who facilitated the 2019 impeachment effort was the same Eric Ciaramella.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard previously released information showing how the 2017 ICA was fraudulently constructed, and now DNI Gabbard has reviewed the transcribed testimony of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, where he described how he gained authority to change the CIA rules to permit Ciaramella to remain anonymous in 2019. All of this ties together.
[VIA Politico] – […] Sen. Mark Warner, (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued on X Wednesday that there “are only two explanations” for Gabbard’s presence in the raid.
“Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy,” he wrote.
Warner and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) wrote to Gabbard Thursday to request briefings for both panels about the legal basis, scope, and justification of her participation in the raid. (more)
DNI Tulsi Gabbard continues to work on behalf of the American people; that seems to have triggered Senator Mark Warner.
The need for control is a reaction to fear.
Senator Mark Warner is the vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). In his position he is also a member of the intelligence community oversight group known as the “Gang of Eight.” Senator Mark Warner replaced Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2017 for his SSCI position. Dianne Feinstein’s former chief-of-staff Dan Jones was a central participant in the 2016 Trump-Russia targeting effort.
Senator Warner moved into position in 2017 to sit at the center of the legislative branch effort to support the targeting and removal of President Trump. Warner ran cover for the actions in 2016 and worked to construct the fraudulent narrative after President Trump took office. On March 17, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm, Senator Mark Warner entered the senate SCIF with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to review the Title-1 search warrant used against U.S. citizen Carter Page. The ‘read and return’ documents were delivered by FBI special agent Brian Dugan. James Wolfe took 82 pictures of the FISA application (one picture per page) and then sent them to Buzzfeed journalist Ali Watkins. ¹{Background}
Mid-March 2017 Senator Mark Warner was trying to support the appointment of a special counsel to target President Trump, his directed leak was to support that objective. Three days later, March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey appeared before congress and admitted the FBI was investigating Donald Trump. Senator Warner then used his position as SSCI vice-chair to advance the DC legislative efforts against President Trump.
Senator Mark Warner is very concerned about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, being in Fulton County, Georgia, yesterday when the search warrant for election records was carried out. Senator Mark Warner is very concerned.
[¹ My position has never changed. I fully support former SSCI Security Director James Wolfe being given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation and testimony as to the involvement of Vice Chairman Mark Warner. The other person who knows the granular details of how the leak took place is FBI Special Agent Brian Dugan, who investigated the Wolfe leak.]
♦ Within the Wolfe indictment you’ll notice the “Top Secret” document picked-up by SSCI Director James Wolfe took place on March 17th, 2017:
♦ Within the Mark Warner text messages you’ll note the SSCI Vice-Chairman went into the SSCI Secured Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on March 17th, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm:
♦ Within the declassified and released FISA application you’ll notice the copy date from the FISA clerk for the FISA application was March 17th, 2017:
The information within the three events (Warner Text release, Wolfe Indictment release, and Carter Page FISA release) shows the connection of the events. James Wolfe took custody of the Carter Page FISA, delivered it to the SCIF, it was reviewed by SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner, and then leaked by James Wolfe.
“82 Text Messages” The FISA application was 83 pages with one blank page. It was the Carter Page FISA application that James Wolfe leaked to Ali Watkins as outlined within the unsealed June 2018 indictment.
Sidebar, a fourth albeit buried public release came on December 14th 2018 confirmed everything.
The FBI filed a sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked:
I only share the sidebar (out of chronological sequence) to emphasize there is no doubt it was the FISA application that James Wolfe leaked.
During his initial summer and fall negotiations with the DOJ, lawyers representing James Wolfe threatened to subpoena the SSCI in his defense. The implication was that Wolfe was directed to leak the FISA by members of the committee.
The Wolfe defense team delayed pre-trial discussions with the DOJ, stalling for time throughout the fall of 2018 until the November midterms. Democrats won the 2018 midterm races and took control over the House.
In the lame-duck congressional period following the election, very specific senators on the SSCI asked the DOJ to go easy on Wolfe: Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein and Mark Warner.
Delaware Senator Chris Coons questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the Trump administration’s refusal to consult the Senate in advance about national security operations using the U.S. military. Specifically, Senator Coons expressed his anger about not being informed in advance of the operation to capture Nicholas Maduro.
Secretary of State Rubio reminded Senator Coons that operational security, and the desire to protect U.S. military servicemen, precluded the administration from permitting the Senate to warn Maduro of the pending operation. Senator Chris Coons then counters by saying, “The Gang of Eight has never leaked, it is critical you consult with Congress.” This is a false statement by Chris Coons, who has never been a ‘Gang of Eight’ member.
Virginia Senator Mark Warner was Vice-Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and a Gang of Eight member, when he directed SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak a top-secret classified document (Title-1 warrant) to the media on March 17, 2017. The Gang of Eight does leak to the media, and Secretary Rubio should know. Secretary Rubio was also a member of the Gang of Eight as SSCI Vice-Chair.
The entire testimony by Secretary Marco Rubio is exceptional. You can even tell from the moderate responses from Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they were/are completely outmatched by Rubio.
Despite the background of Rubio, working against many of MAGA’s interests (2010 – 2024), I have never seen a more articulate Secretary of State with complete command of every granular aspect to U.S. foreign operations. The MAGA-Rubio is perhaps the most skilled and articulate voice we have ever seen on our side.
This is the same Marco Rubio who came out of the Florida Senate, supported Jeb Bush, worked for immigration amnesty, supported TPP, supported fast track TPA, supported TTIP, supported the Libya intervention model, worked against tariffs and traveled the world with Senator John McCain. In full honest review, Marco Rubio was to John McCain what John Thune was to Mitch McConnell.
I really hope someone can eventually ask Rubio what happened during his ‘¹road to Damascus’ moment? What, specifically, is behind this transformation? Someone needs to ask.
Check out the look of defeat on the face of Senator Chris Coons (below) when Secretary of State Marco Rubio was finished with him. Incredible.
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.
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….
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?
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.
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.
♦ 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.
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.
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…
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 