Virginia Senator and SSCI Vice Chairman, Mark Warner, is Very Concerned About Tulsi Gabbard
Posted originally on CTH on January 29, 2026 | Sundance
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.
Why did Tulsi Gabbard take part in a raid on an elections office? We need to step up to protect our elections from this administration’s meddling. pic.twitter.com/6mHOgd4jKf
There are only two explanations for why the Director of National Intelligence would show up at a federal raid tied to Donald Trump’s obsession with losing the 2020 election.
[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.
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.
Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance |
This is infuriating, and entirely due to something else in the background {GO DEEP}. Former National Security Council member (Russia/EurAsia desk) Alexander Vindman is running for a Florida senate seat against Republican Ashley Moody.
First, Alexander Vindman doesn’t stand a chance at winning; however, that’s not his objective with this announcement. Here is where it becomes important to understand the game.
Vindman is directly tied to the background issue of the fraudulent impeachment effort, which I have been working to bring to the forefront. Progress is agonizingly slow but moving forward.
Alexander Vindman has two primary objectives in announcing this effort: (#1) to give himself the political defense against any accountability for his involvement in the IC coup against President Trump in 2019. By running for the Florida Senate seat, Vindman will claim evidence is only coming to light as an outcome of his seeking elected office, i.e. it is a political attack. And (#2) running for office allows Vindman to accept campaign donations that will ultimately be used in his defense against #1. This is how they roll.
FLORIDA – MIAMI — Democrat Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who helped trigger President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, announced his Senate campaign in Florida on Tuesday to challenge GOP Sen. Ashley Moody.
Vindman’s entrance into the race pulls Trump’s agenda and record to the forefront of the Senate contest in Florida, bringing a national focus to a race in the president’s home state — one now widely seen as Republican-leaning.
[…] Vindman, born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, was an aide on the NSC during Trump’s first term. He testified before Congress about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the president floated an investigation of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump appeared to tie future U.S. aid to Ukraine’s willingness to launch and announce a probe that would be damaging to Biden.
The Senate acquitted Trump in that case, and Vindman, an Army combat veteran and lieutenant colonel, was fired from his position with the NSC.
[…] Any statewide Democratic candidate faces an uphill climb in Florida, given that Republican voters in the state outnumber Democratic voters by around 1.4 million people. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also classified the Senate seat in Florida as being in the “Solid R” category — the most GOP-friendly ranking available. (read more)
Former AAG Mary McCord (working for Schiff/Nadler), McCord’s former staff lawyer, Michael Atkinson (working as ICIG), Alexander Vindman (NSC) and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella (fraudulent ICA organizer turned anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’) worked together to construct the fraudulent impeachment operation.
In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman responsible for Ukraine, Russia Eurasia affairs, told CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella a fictional narrative about President Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to provide dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election.
Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.
You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.
Facebook, Google, META, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter all deleted any mention of Eric Ciaramella as the anonymous whistleblower and banned any account that posted the name. However, something else was always sketchy about this.
As the story was told, Ciaramella blew the whistle to Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. It was further said that Atkinson “changed the CIA whistleblower rules” to permit an “anonymous” allegation; thereby protecting Eric Ciaramella.
Knowing, in hindsight, that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was one of the main people who constructed the 2016 fraudulent ICA, suddenly the motive to make him “anonymous” a few years later in 2019 for another stop-Trump effort makes sense.
Until recently the commonly accepted narrative was that ICIG Atkinson changed the CIA rules arbitrarily. This is the main narrative as pushed by the media, allowed to permeate by the larger Intelligence Community, and supported by the willful blindness of a complicit Congress.
It never made sense how an IC Inspector General, especially one that involves review of CIA employees/operations, could make such a substantive change in rules for an agency that is opaque by design. There is just no way any IG can make that kind of decision about the CIA without the Director, the Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel being involved.
Someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint.”
[…] On October 4, 2019, ICIG Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation. The key question to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office to change the CIA whistleblower rules permitting Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous. Who gave Atkinson permission?
That Atkinson testimony was then “classified” and sealed under the auspices of “national security” by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, the same guy who Ciaramella talked to before filing the complaint. MORE...
Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.
Posted originally on CTH on January 27, 2026 | Sundance
People might be interested in the recent stories of Canadian Premier Doug Ford and his reversal of position on Chinese EV production. Ontario Premier Ford now welcomes Chinese EVs into Canada.
Or people might be interested in the recent story of the EU announcing a historic trade deal with India. The European Union is now looking to find new markets to replace the U.S., while simultaneously agreeing to establish a new immigration/recruitment process to accept massive numbers of Indian migrants.
Yes, Canada reverses their position on trade with China, that’s odd. And somehow the EU immediately forgets their demands for India to stop buying Russian oil or face EU sanctions, another oddity. This is like watching someone you don’t like, get engaged to your smelly, fat ex-girlfriend. [Matthew 15:14]
Canada and the EU take trade and economic positions seemingly against U.S. interests. Simultaneously Mexico modifies all their trade positions to come into alignment with the USA. Yesterday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Mexico will no longer ship oil to Cuba.
What’s going on?
Well, to really understand what is happening you need to look at President Trump’s responses to all of the individual issues outlined above and take a much bigger picture view. President Trump is the master of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy.’
♦ CANADA – When President Trump was asked about Prime Minister Mark Carney creating a new trade agreement with China, President Trump responded that he didn’t care – it was irrelevant to him. Yet, simultaneously inside the USMCA President Trump has the power to veto any trade agreement between Mexico or Canada and a non-member nation.
So, why didn’t President Trump care? Easy, because in President Trump’s mind there’s not going to be a USMCA; so, he really doesn’t care if Canada runs to violate it. In real terms, Canada doing bilateral deals with other countries, especially deals potentially detrimental to the USA, only strengthens his position on dissolving the USMCA.
If Canada violates the terms and spirit of the USMCA, it makes dispatch of the unliked trade agreement even easier. Canada is helping President Trump remove the congressional justification they could use to block him. If Canada is violating the USMCA (CUSMA), Congress is kneecapped from interference.
Provoking Canada into a trade position, that puts them at a disadvantage trying to stop the dissolution of the CUSMA, stops Congress from opposing the fracture, and then opens the door to a bilateral trade agreement, is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that is entirely controlled by President Donald Trump.
[I pointed this out on the ‘Russian Sanctions’ map four years ago for a reason.]
♦ EUROPE – In the last few months, the EU has been pressuring President Trump to join them in putting sanctions against India for purchasing Russian oil. Suddenly, all those Russian energy issues are dropped, and the EU signs a trade agreement with India. Again, just like with Canada, President Trump doesn’t care; he’s working on a much bigger objective.
Both Canada and Europe are independently, out of necessity, taking action that takes apart the trade and economic system they created. At the core of the old trade system both Canada and Europe were exploiting the USA, exfiltrating wealth and skimming the independent entrepreneurial innovation that originates from within the U.S. economic system.
That necessary exploitation happened because the USA is innovative (freedom-based capitalism), while the CA/EU system is built on government control mechanisms. The CA/EU energy policy is just one impactful example of their pontificating inability to be insightful when it comes to consequences. The EU and Canada are now stuck looking for markets that will do the dirty jobs, provide them with core components, while simultaneously looking for markets for their finished products.
On the other side of the approach is President Trump, working to expand U.S. industrial dirty job capacity, create our own core components, then create finished goods entirely on our own. A complete revitalization of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base. Our U.S. GDP is currently expected to grow north of 5%. This is not happening by accident.
Additionally, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is not bragging about importing Indian IT workers in a vacuum. If the EU cannot skim off the IT capabilities of America, they have to find another Braintrust to tap. Just like the innovative dependencies of China, the EU is intellectually frigid; compliance is ingrained in their academia. Within the USA, we still have foundational disposition of ‘screw you‘ in our DNA.
Look at the advancements of Artificial Intelligence, or AI. All of the growth in that tech sector is being led by America. President Trump is taking every approach to ensure we remain the world’s dominant power in AI development. As much as Elon Musk’s quirks and quasi-friendly politics annoys me personally, strategically, on the technology side, it’s good to see him chumming around with President Trump; at least that’s what I tell myself.
♦ MEXICO – This is where it gets really, super interesting. You might remember that China was set to invest between $5 billion and $10 billion (total) in Mexico for EV auto manufacturing. In December of 2023, three Chinese auto manufacturers, MG, BYD, and Chery, announced they were going to spend billions building new EV manufacturing plants. Each Chinese manufacturer was initially going to spend between $1.5 to $2.0 billion. By March 2024, the reasoning was evident – Biden was supporting it.
When President Trump won the November 2024 election, all of those Chinese investments and plans inside Mexico were cancelled.
As we noted at the end of last year, splitting the USMCA into two bilateral trade deals, one for Mexico and one for Canada, will be one of the most interesting and long-term economically significant moves in U.S. trade history. It is going to be a lot of fun to watch these negotiations, and the pre-positioning gives us a preview of what is to come. Mexico is doing everything almost perfectly in preparation for their bilateral deal, including their stopping of oil shipments to Cuba.
This alignment follows the Mexican government passing a sweeping set of tariffs against Chinese imports. The Mexican government, led by Sheinbaum, made moves throughout 2025 to stay in alignment with a favorable U.S. trade agreement. Meanwhile, the Canadian government, led by Mark Carney, has been more antagonistic and positioning Canada to lose badly.
♦ SUMMARY: Some people have construed the bilateral trade preference of President Trump to be the elimination of globalism in favor of nationalism in trade agreements. While the outcome of Trump’s approach indeed aligns with that theme, it is not specifically the objective of President Trump to eliminate global trade, but rather to focus on specific interests in trade that benefit the unique nature of each party involved.
Canada can embrace China, and Europe can embrace India; in the bigger picture it really doesn’t matter. These relationships only create dependencies which are the natural outcome of globalism. From President Trump’s position, what really matters is what happens within our borders and how the United States economy is positioned. This is President Trump’s singular focus.
Do you remember President Trump leaving the 2025 G7 meeting in Canada early? The final day invitation list brought Australia, Mexico, Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, India, the United Nations and the World Bank into the G7. President Donald Trump smartly exited the G7 assembly a day early, he departed before that crowd of interests arrived. The world leaders came because the process to keep USA wealth inside the USA is against their interests. That’s why they came, and that’s why President Trump left.
Globalism, in its economic construct, is a series of dependencies. However, the opposite is also true. If nations are not dependent, they are sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed. If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies?
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)
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.
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 Schiffsealed 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.
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.
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:
BUSTED! This is the Moment where Jack Smith REVEALS he NEVER had a Case against Trump. The President BELIEVED he WON (lots of ppl agree btw) —-POTUS believed, therefore NOT “falsity” or False Claims. The “criminal intent” is NOT there. Excellent Job by the @judiciaryGOP!!!! pic.twitter.com/INhYJ9ogva
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.
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on her X account that federal arrests are underway for those who participated in the church terrorism in Minneapolis, Minnesota. {Background Here}
The participants in the unlawful activity included former CNN Anchor Don Lemon, lawyer and former law professor Nekima Levy Armstrong, professional extremist and activist William Kelly, along with St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen, Black Lives Matter activists Monique Cullars Doty & Satara Strong-Allen and many more.
The leftists were not protestors or ICE agitators; the crew who entered the church coordinated and organized an aggressive assault on a religious assembly. They are domestic political terrorists.
“Protesting” is petitioning a government or organization for a redress of grievances. The word for traumatizing parishioners and children attending a church service to effect political ends is “terrorism.”
Remember, back in August of 2025, just 5 months ago, a leftist transexual murderer shot and killed two children while wounding 30 others in a church in Minneapolis.
The nation may have forgotten the prior Church attack, but the Christian residents of Minneapolis have not.
Posted originally on CTH on January 18, 2026 | Sundance
To understand just how important it is for leftists to drive a narrative in support of violence and chaos, one only needs to review the behavior of CBS pundit Margaret Brennan in her conversation with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
The combative interview, promoted and advanced by CBS, is ridiculous in the extreme as the news outlet attempts to protect the behavior of Democrat officials in the city of Minneapolis and state of Minnesota. The video and transcript are below.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Castlewood, South Dakota and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Good morning to you, Madam Secretary.
SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY KRISTI NOEM: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: DHS calls this the largest operation in its history, nearly 3,000 federal agents out there. Is this an open-ended deployment, or is there a metric for success that ends it?
SEC. NOEM: Well, I think every day we get a murderer off the streets of Minneapolis, the public is safer, and President Trump is keeping his promise to the American people. And we literally have arrested and detained thousands of illegal criminals in Minnesota since President Trump came back into the White House. And I’ve never met a family that ever said, “Oh, I wish you would have left that rapist free. I wish you would have left that murderer on the street.” So we’re just so thankful that we have a president that’s upholding the law and is determined to make sure that the laws are applied equally to everyone.
MARGARET BRENNAN: According to Pew, Minnesota’s population of immigrants here illegally stands at 2.2%. So, how do you judge when you’ve gotten everyone off the streets, that you say is, you know, requiring your federal agents be there? How do you say we’ve had mission accomplished?
SEC. NOEM: Well, we won’t stop until we are sure that all the dangerous people are picked up, brought to justice and then deported back to their home countries–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –You don’t have a number or a date?–
SEC. NOEM: –We wouldn’t be in this situation- We wouldn’t be in this situation if Joe Biden hadn’t allowed our open-border policies to be in place and allowed up to 20 million people unvetted into this country. We have no idea how many dangerous people are here. When you have millions of people coming in that are terrorists, suspected terrorists, criminals, come from countries in the mass migration that the Biden administration facilitated, I can’t tell the people of Minnesota exactly how many dangerous criminals they have. I do know that they’re extremely grateful every time we get a pedophile off the street. We end- arrested an individual this week that was raping children. I think those parents in Minnesota can sleep better at night knowing that that person isn’t free.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but you just said millions. What’s the breakdown of the percentage of those who you have in custody who have actually committed a criminal offense versus just the civil infraction?
SEC. NOEM: Every single individual has committed a crime, but 70% of them have committed or have charges against them on violent crimes, and crimes that they are charged with or have been convicted of, that have come from other countries–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –that’s–
SEC. NOEM: –that are here illegally, first of all. And then they have committed a criminal act while they’ve been here or in their home countries as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s not 70%.
SEC. NOEM: Yes, it is. It absolutely is, Margaret–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –70% of everyone that–
SEC. NOEM: –You guys keep changing your percentage, you pick and choose what numbers you think work, but that is the facts, is that 70% of the people that we have detained have charges against them or have been convicted of charges. And they need to be brought to justice, and we’re going to keep doing that, no matter how much you guys keep lying and don’t tell the public the truth. It absolutely is that these law enforcement officers are out there every day doing the work to protect the American people, and they will keep doing that because they believe in enforcing the law, which is exactly what President Trump has charged them with.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, well, our reporting is that 47% based on your agency’s own numbers, 47% have criminal convictions against them*. But let’s talk about the other numbers–
SEC. NOEM: –Which means you’re wrong again. Absolutely. We’ll get you the correct numbers–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Okay–
SEC. NOEM: –so you can use them in the future.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that’s from your agency. Let’s talk about our numbers here at CBS. 54% of Americans think the ICE agent shooting of Renee Good was not justified. 60% say the Trump administration responded to the ICE agent’s actions unfairly. These numbers show you do not have the American public on your side. Does that concern you?
SEC. NOEM: Well, the facts are that this individual weaponized her car and threatened the life of the law enforcement officer and those around him. And that is what the media needs to cover, people understand it’s the truth when they have the chance to hear the facts around the case. And this individual was impeding law enforcement operations for quite some time before this incident happened. It’s a tragedy that this situation has happened in this country, and we hope there’s never another situation like this before. But this officer relied on his training to, to defend his life and to defend those around him, and we’re, we’re grateful that we’re in a situation where we hope that more people don’t weaponize their vehicles like this. We’re seeing it happen over and over again. We’ve seen over 100 different vehicle weaponized and attacking law enforcement officers. I would hope that Mayor Frey, when he’s on here, that he’ll announce that he’s going to start working with us to bring safety to the streets. If he would set up a peaceful protest zone so that these individuals can exercise their First Amendment rights and do so peacefully, we would love that, because then we could work together to make sure we’re getting criminals to justice and letting people still express their First Amendment rights.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you know that it is in dispute about weaponizing a car versus driving forward, but I’ll put that aside–
SEC. NOEM: –No it’s really not. Everybody can watch the videos and see that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, let me talk to you about the officer, Jonathan Ross. He was struck. He was hospitalized–
SEC. NOEM: –Don’t say his name. I mean, for heaven’s sakes, we- we don’t- we shouldn’t have people continue to dox law enforcement when they have an 8,000%–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –his name is public–
SEC. NOEM: –increase in death threats against them–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — he was struck and hospitalized–
SEC. NOEM: –I know, but that doesn’t mean it should continue to be said. His life- he got attacked with a car that was trying to take his life, and then people have attacked him and his family, and they are in jeopardy. And we have law enforcement officers every day who are getting death threats and getting attacked at their hotels and they are–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Well, can you tell me about his status right now–
SEC. NOEM: –getting ice thrown at them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, of course, no one condones–
SEC. NOEM: –I can tell you that he’s healing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –against anyone, but here, CBS reported that he did have internal bleeding in the torso, but he was released that same day. So is he back at work?
SEC. NOEM: I’m not going to share – I’m not going to–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Did you give him the required three days of suspension?
SEC. NOEM: We followed the exact same protocols that we always have for years as to investigations into these situations–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Three days of administrative leave?
SEC. NOEM: –But I’m not going to talk about his medical records. I know that you know that in itself is his prerogative to discuss his health. But we’re- we’re hopeful that all of our law enforcement officers know that they can go out and do their job–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Yeah–
SEC. NOEM: –apply the law equally to everyone and that they can do so safely and that the media and people aren’t going to attack them for standing up for what’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m asking you about your policies. I asked you if you had put him on administrative leave. This is in question because the governor of Minnesota said the only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her. Is he correct that the federal agent is not being investigated in any way? Is there any review of protocol here?
SEC. NOEM: We are following the exact same investigative and review process that we always have under ICE and under the Department of Homeland Security and within the administration. The exact same policy that the Biden administration used–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –So his actions are being reviewed?
SEC. NOEM: –the exact same review, so we haven’t changed any of that. I would not- I would not listen to Governor Walz. He has a very bad track record. He- all this billions of dollars of fraud was stolen from people under his watch. He allowed it to happen, and he also ignored the law and allowed the city of Minneapolis to burn down in 2020. He certainly isn’t- have good judgment in these types of situations, and I’m not going to be taking any advice from him and how we implement the law and protect people.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So do I understand you saying that the Office of Professional Responsibility is doing its own probe to determine that the ICE agent violated protocol and that he was on three days of administrative leave because that is what is in the handbook.
SEC. NOEM: The protocol and the advice and the guidance within that handbook and within our policies is being followed exactly like it has been for years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so there is some review of his actions is what I understand you saying there.
SEC. NOEM: Margaret, there always is. Every law enforcement officer knows that when they take the oath to step up and to protect the public and put their lives on the line, they absolutely know that everything that they do will be analyzed and investigated, but also, what they don’t- I don’t think they realized until just recently is how the liberals and the Democrats and the media would attack them and try to ruin their lives for doing what’s right, and we’re seeing in Minneapolis an unprecedented fraud history going on by elected leaders and individuals in that state, but also criminal activity, and it’s being allowed to happen. When we did these operations in other cities across the country, we didn’t see this kind of violence. We didn’t see organized, funded protesters come in to conduct acts of violence against our law enforcement officers–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, let’s talk about that–
SEC. NOEM: –like we’re seeing in Minneapolis. The elected leaders and Mayor Frey is allowing that to happen and allowing this kind of violence to happen when we didn’t see it in Louisiana, we didn’t see it in Florida, we didn’t see it in other cities–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –We will talk to Frey about what is happening in his city–
SEC. NOEM –And we shouldn’t have to be watching it here in Minneapolis,
MARGARET BRENNAN: But we have heard and I’m asking you here about the security of your agents that you say you are concerned about. The local police chief said your agents are being forced into situations out in Minneapolis that they’re not prepared to deal with. And we looked and the Government Accountability Office said, back in 2021, most ICE agents are not trained to handle crowd control. So are you looking at expanding the training for the agents that you are putting in this situation that you describe as dangerous out in Minneapolis?
SEC. NOEM: They are absolutely trained for the situations that they’re put in. We would never put an officer in a situation that they would be beyond their training and skill set. And so these are highly trained individuals that are here and in Minneapolis doing operations, they are and frankly–
MARAGRET BRENNAN: On crowd control and de-escalation?
SEC. NOEM: The Minneapolis chief of police is not an expert– absolutely. They are trained at that. Their specialized skill set is being utilized for where they are located and the jobs that they are doing in Minneapolis and across other cities across the country. We, we do- they have an incredible amount of training that is ongoing throughout their careers–
(CROSSTALK STARTS)
MARAGRET BRENNAN: –Do you want to expand that?
SEC. NOEM: — in crowd control, in handling enforcement operations that they have- Do I want to expand it based on the Minneapolis police chief’s advice? Not on his advice.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Well, some Republican–
SEC. NOEM: –I will continue to use–
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, but some Republican lawmakers have called for it.
(CROSSTALK ENDS)
SEC. NOEM: If you remember- well, Republican lawmakers and Democrat lawmakers, they absolutely can continue to debate. That’s what they’re supposed to do, is work on policy and pass laws. What I know is that under the Department of Homeland Security has always been entrusted with training our federal law enforcement officers. We do it for many different agencies. We train those within the ATF, the DEA. We train those that are established across the country. We are the largest law enforcement operation and department in the government beyond the Department of War, and we’re proud of that, and we’ve done it with excellence for years and are continuing to put the resources–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But these–
SEC. NOEM: –and people into our law enforcement officers. They need to change and to challenge these, these situations they’re facing on the ground.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, but you’ve described this situation as unique. You’ve acknowledged that. I want to talk to you about some of the instance- incidents that the public has seen. There was a U.S. citizen, Aliya Rahman, on her way to a medical appointment out in Minneapolis. She was dragged out of her car and detained. Video of her arrest was spreading on social media. There were allegations there of aggressive tactics. You’ve seen other incidents. For example, out in Minneapolis, this family with six children, with one as young as six months old, got kind of caught in the incident as they were driving to basketball practice. The mother Destiny Jackson told CBS, ICE agents stopped the car, told them to leave, but the agents were in the way, and they feared that they would have happened to them what happened to Renee Good. They didn’t drive off. ICE released a canister of tear gas, and the mother described giving her infant CPR. We’re showing that video there. Do any of these tactics seem to you heavy handed?
SEC. NOEM: That family was caught up in that situation because of violent protesters that were impeding law enforcement operations, and that family would have never been in that situation if those protesters had been acting peacefully and law enforcement was able to do their job without being threatened. And, so, it’s a terrible situation that that family had to go through, and I hope it never happens again. But we need to remember that because the mayor and the governor have allowed this kind of violence to be perpetuated across Minneapolis is why there’s other innocent people that are impacted throughout the city but throughout their state as well. And it doesn’t have to be this way–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But this doesn’t seem targeted.
SEC. NOEM: –They could establish a peaceful protest zone, they could enforce their or their laws. And if Governor Walz didn’t recognize that, that what he is doing there is poor leadership, he wouldn’t have put his National Guard on standby in order to respond. And I’m hopeful that he does recognize that he needs to start working with us–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are your agents going to comply–
SEC. NOEM: –I have asked him to. I know the White House has asked him to.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sorry with the federal order on Friday to not use chemical agents.
SEC. NOEM: That federal order was a little ridiculous because that federal judge came down and told us we couldn’t do what we already aren’t doing. We, we are- have not engaged–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Well we just video of chemical agents being used–
SEC. NOEM: in any- We only use those chemical agents when there’s violence happening and perpetuating and you need to be able to establish law in order to keep people safe. That’s the only situation, so that judge’s order didn’t change anything for how we’re operating on the ground because it’s basically telling us to do what we’ve already been doing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Madam Secretary, thank you for your time this morning. Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
Posted originally on CTH on January 18, 2026 | Sundance
According to the Minnesota Dept of Public Safety, Governor Tim Walz has activated the national guard. However, in a statement on their X account the officials note, the guard “are not deployed to city streets at this time, but are ready to help support public safety, including protection of life, preservation of property and supporting the rights of all who assemble peacefully.”
This is likely a proactive move to block President Trump from invoking the ‘insurrection act’ to stop the chaos being fueled by the governor himself as well as professional leftists in the region.
As federal efforts led by the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) together with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continue, the governor and local municipal leaders throughout Minneapolis have continued to call for activists in the street to maintain operations against immigration enforcement and criminal illegal alien arrests.
Underneath all of the state opposition is a matrix of financial fraud purposefully being hidden by the officials throughout the state of Minnesota including Governor Walz himself. In essence, the state government is trying to protect themselves from criminal investigations of fraud by creating chaos as a defense mechanism.
The Minnesota national guard are being called to duty as a chaos management operation. They are not being called up to stop the violence, merely facilitate the ongoing violent street protests. The national noticing, along with the riots and violence, continues….
Posted originally on CTH on January 11, 2026 | Sundance
It appears that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is about to discover what happens when you anger the Treasury Secretary, who happens to be the IRS Commissioner. WATCH (Prompted):
Posted originally on CTH on January 9, 2026 | Sundance
On Wednesday, a confrontation between ICE agents and an aggressive anti-ICE protester in Minneapolis resulted in the ICE officer defending himself while a vehicle was weaponized against him. The female driver named Renee Nicole Macklin Good (37) was shot and killed.
Antifa aligned activists had been chasing and using their vehicles to block ICE officials, while trying to disrupt immigration enforcement operations throughout the Minneapolis area. In newly obtained video (w/audio) from the event, Renee Good and her wife are shown in the moments of the encounter. The video is from Alpha News:
I suggest turning the audio on to understand the nature of the hostility being faced by the ICE officers.
BREAKING: Alpha News has obtained cellphone footage showing perspective of federal agent at center of ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis pic.twitter.com/p2wks0zew0
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 