Tag Archives: spying

Nov 21 2025

Well, Well: US Govt Linking [Unknown Provider] Tracking Software to License Plate Readers and Facial Recognition


Posted originally on CTH on November 20, 2025 | Sundance 

The Associated Press is shocked, shocked, to discover that Customs and Border Protection has expanded their surveillance network beyond the “100 miles inland from every border” as authorized in the Patriot Act.

Worse yet is their stunned research showing license plate readers (APLR’s) are being connected to various other public and private sector mechanisms to identify travel patterns of U.S. citizens and collate them to facial recognition software applications.

Both the AP and CBS begin reporting on this domestic surveillance system as something quite new, it’s not.  We have previously outlined the construct as it was assembled HERE and HERE and HERE.

This is the part of the performance where past and present DC officials, including many that you personally support (Nunes), say the risk is now too great to worry about the 4th Amendment.  With borders unsecured by Obama and Biden, there is now no way to mitigate the risk from criminal aliens against the concern with privacy and the 4th Amendment.

In the bigger picture, this is why DC justifies extending FISA-702 reauthorization now.  The argument says, ‘If we do not support and create the surveillance state, we cannot capture and remove all the criminal aliens.’

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious, The Associated Press has found.

The Border Patrol’s predictive intelligence program has resulted in people being stopped, searched and in some cases arrested.

[…] The Border Patrol has recently grown even more powerful through collaborations with other agencies, drawing information from license plate readers nationwide run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, private companies and, increasingly, local law enforcement programs funded through federal grants. Texas law enforcement agencies have asked the Border Patrol to use facial recognition to identify drivers, documents show.

This active role beyond the borders is part of the quiet transformation of its parent agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, into something more akin to a domestic intelligence operation. Under the Trump administration’s heightened immigration enforcement efforts, CBP is now poised to get more than $2.7 billion to build out border surveillance systems such as the license plate reader program by layering in artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. (read more)

The entire article is actually good; it’s just frustrating and annoying to see media pretending they didn’t know about this stuff until Trump.

CTH has been writing about this surveillance issue for well over a decade.  The introduction of Palantir facial recognition, to the overall database of social media information and private identity information, now makes it very easy for the government to simply point a camera at your face and get every scintilla of information about us.

Almost all of the privacy advocates have given up trying to resist the outcome. However, I am not one of them.  All it will take is a small mistake in the AI development programming, and people will see quickly just how dangerous this is.

Nov 20 2025

House Votes Unanimously to Reverse Surveillance Payments to Senators


Posted originally on CTH on November 20, 2025 | Sundance

As noted last week, the Senate included a provision in the government reopening bill to allow Republican Senators to sue the DOJ and data providers who comply with subpoenas for senator’s telephone and email records.

Nine senators who previously were targeted by Jack Smith and Arctic Frost subpoenas likely stand to make millions from lawsuits under the legislation.

In the latest round of DC pretending, the House voted 426-0 to repeal that specific law and terminate the Senate payday.  Is the Senate going to take up the bill, of course not.  However, the House now has another useless talking point (strong in the pearl clutching is this one) to campaign and fundraise with.

House members are great actors, very upset – very, and their level of pretense is excellent on this repeal bill. The unanimous vote really gives both wings of the uniparty, that reach across the aisle, a selling feature for the next election.

WASHINGTON DC – The House unanimously voted 426-0 Wednesday night to claw back language in last week’s government funding bill that could award some GOP senators hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for having their phone records unknowingly obtained by former special counsel Jack Smith.

The language, which was quietly slipped into the shutdown-ending package last week by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, drove bipartisan outrage in the House. Even outspoken critics of Smith — including House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who is leading an investigation into the Biden-era probe — supported the effort to repeal a politically toxic measure that was quickly branded as a taxpayer-funded windfall for a select few.

“That policy, in my opinion — in the opinion I think of all the members of this institution — is unacceptable,” said House Administration Committee chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), during floor debate. “No one should be able to enrich themselves because the federal government wronged them, no elected official should be able to.”

The provision would allow senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if their electronic data was subpoenaed without proper notification. But there are concerns over the language’s retroactivity — which would extend protections to at least eight Republican senators whose records were obtained as part of Smith’s investigation into Donald Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election results.

There are no guarantees the bill to repeal the language will get a vote in the Senate. (read more)

Nov 18 2025

Magistrate Judge Positions Case Against James Comey for Almost Certain Dismissal


Posted originally on CTH on November 17, 2025 | Sundance

At this point, anyone who is left thinking James Comey will stand trial in DC is just pretending for their own agenda.  Unfortunately, the dismissal of the case against him is a foregone conclusion.

The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.

[SOURCE]

Former FBI Director James Comey was leaking information to the media through his friend and FBI Special Government Employee Daniel Richman. When Comey was fired in May 2017, he knew what his risks were. Comey hired Daniel Richman as his personal lawyer and legal counsel. Comey knew this would make targeting him for leaking to media more difficult.

Last month U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case against Comey, assigned magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick to review the issues surrounding potential violations of attorney-client privilege within the indictment.

Today Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick sides with the Comey defense and blasts the prosecution for violating attorney-client privilege. [SEE RULING HERE] In addition, Judge Fitzpatrick instructs the prosecution, Lindsey Halligan, to give the defense team all of the evidence used in the grand jury indictment.

Fitzpatrick is setting the stage to dismiss the charges. There’s zero doubt about it when you read the 24-page order.

It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.

Seriously though, don’t waste any hopium on this case, and expect the judge to require the government to pay all of Comey’s legal fees.

We read enough of this stuff to see a Lawfare set up when it is visible.  The Lawfare crew has this case easily won. Judge Fitzpatrick gives the defense eleven points of process with which to file a motion to dismiss.

[COURT ORDER] – First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.

Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.

Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.

Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.

Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.

Sixth, the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury, particularly if the government’s conduct was willful or reckless, given the centrality of these materials to the government’s presentation.

Seventh, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials, including the reasons why Mr. Comey was never afforded the opportunity to assert a privilege over his communications until after the indictment was obtained.

Eighth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation. This is particularly troublesome because the government’s sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a “limited overview” of privileged material shortly before he testified.

Ninth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey.

Tenth, as discussed in Section IV above the prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.

Eleventh, the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because, although it is clear that a second indictment was prepared and presented to the grand jury (ECF 3), the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communications after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment.

Collectively, the facts set forth herein and the particularized findings of the Court establish that “ground[s] may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury[.]” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). [more]

There are two tiers of justice.  The legal system is as rigged as the intelligence system.

It’s not Halligan’s fault; she tried.

Nov 14 2025

Emails Between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein Resurface – Highlighting Again, Zero Epstein Dirt on Trump


Posted originally on CTH on November 13, 2025 | Sundance 

In an effort to further create friction and division amid the base of support for President Trump, emails previously released to congress are resurfacing – including emails between Kathryn Ruemmler, Obama’s former White House Counsel, and Jeffrey Epstein.  The UniParty players are pushing this narrative hard.

However, in fact, this is an old story going back to 2023 when the connections between then CIA Director William Burns, Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein were previously released to the public {SEE HERE}. However, amid the new effort to stir up friction, the Ruemmler-Epstein emails are being talked about again.  Example Below:

As noted before by the Wall Street Journal, “Kathryn Ruemmler, a White House counsel under President Barack Obama, had dozens of meetings with Epstein in the years after her White House service and before she became a top lawyer at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. He also planned for her to join a 2015 trip to Paris and a 2017 visit to Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean.”

The email above is from August 2018, approximately six months after Ruemmler, who represented former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, lied to Senate Judiciary Committee about Rice’s knowledge of the FBI opening an investigation of President Trump in 2016.

Wall Street Journal 2023 – […] The documents show that Epstein appeared to know some of his guests well. He asked for avocado sushi rolls to be on hand when meeting with Ms. Ruemmler, according to the documents. He visited apartments she was considering buying. In October 2014, Epstein knew her travel plans and told an assistant to look into her flight. “See if there is a first-class seat,” he wrote, “if so upgrade her.”

[…] Epstein and his staff discussed whether Ms. Ruemmler, now 52, would be uncomfortable with the presence of young women who worked as assistants and staffers at the townhouse, the documents show. Women emailed Epstein on two occasions to ask if they should avoid the home while Ms. Ruemmler was there. Epstein told one of the women he didn’t want her around, and another that it wasn’t a problem, the documents show.

Ms. Ruemmler didn’t see anything that would lead her to be concerned at the townhouse and didn’t express any concern, the Goldman spokesman said.

[…] Over the next few years, Ms. Ruemmler, then a partner specializing in white-collar defense at Latham & Watkins, had more than three dozen appointments with Epstein, including for lunches and dinners.

“In the normal course, Epstein also invited her to meetings and social gatherings, introduced her to other business contacts and made referrals,” the Goldman spokesman said. “It was the same kinds of contacts and engagements she had with other contacts and clients.” (source)

Beyond the friendly contact visible in the emails and dates of the Ruemmler-Epstein friendship, years before Donald Trump entered politics, is a transparently obvious issue the mainstream media intentionally omit.

If Epstein had any dirt on President Trump, Kathryn Ruemmler would be the primary person who would use that information against Donald Trump politically, especially because of Ruemmler’s relationship with President Obama and Susan Rice.  If there was anything against Trump in the Epstein mess, it would have been deployed to the benefit of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Instead, Ruemmler took up a defensive position to cover up the trail of unlawful activity within the 2016 Spygate and Russiagate operations.  Ruemmler was Susan Rice’s personal lawyer at a key moment in the coverup operation.

Former FBI Director James Comey admitted to Congress, on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Gang of Eight.

Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”

Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.

Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact, he said exactly the opposite.  He said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).

The very direct and specific implication, the unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump. After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor, and Comey could only “inform” the NSC through Susan Rice.

That Comey testimony is why Susan Rice’s attorney, then Katheryn Ruemmler, could never allow Rice to appear before a congressional inquiry.

Ruemmler lied!

Look at that highlighted box from Susan Rice’s lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, and remember in his March 20, 2017, testimony Comey said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).

FBI Director James Comey was protecting himself against fallout from the spygate surveillance of Trump, by leveraging his prior notification to the White House.  Comey was signaling, ‘You can’t get me for spying on Trump without getting Susan Rice and Barack Obama’, who knew about it.

Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?

The bottom line in this Epstein nonsense is that Kathryn Ruemmler had a long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after his arrest for child sexploitation, and before the 2016 election, before the Trump targeting began and long before Spygate/Russiagate made headlines.

If Epstein had dirt on Trump, Ruemmler would have used it.

Nov 11 2025

Republican Senators Include Provision in Shutdown Bill That DOJ Cannot Subpoena Senators Phone Records – You/Me, No Such Protection


Posted originally on CTH on November 10, 2025 | Sundance 

This is so perfectly Republican.

Republican senators have slipped a provision into the Continuing Resolution bill to re-open government, that forbids the DOJ or Judicial branch from subpoenas targeting their phone records.  The Senate will be protected from abuses to the 4th amendment, but you and me – no such luck.

Additionally, as further evidence to the structural priorities of the professional Republicans, if the legislative provision is violated, each instance of violation will result in a $500,000 payment to the senator.  Go figure.

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Republicans secured a provision in the bipartisan, shutdown-ending government funding package that could award senators hundreds of thousands of dollars for having their phone records collected without their knowledge as part of a Biden-era investigation.

[…] It was tucked into the legislative branch spending measure for fiscal year 2026, part of a three-bill “minibus” of appropriations measures that Senators were set to vote on Monday night alongside a continuing resolution to fund the government through Jan. 30. The House is expected to clear the package for President Donald Trump’s signature as early as Wednesday.

[…] The provision states that electronic services providers must notify a Senate office if the provider receives a request to disclose the data from that senator, or senator’s office. Moreover, the legislative language stipulates that the provider cannot be barred from notifying the senate office under a court order, though that notification may be delayed in the event the senator in question is under criminal investigation.

[…] This portion of the legislative branch appropriations bill also appears to provide a cash bonus for those Senators who were targeted by Smith’s probe. If the provision included in the bill is violated, the Senator can sue the federal government, and if the lawmaker succeeds in the case, the person will be awarded $500,000 or more for each violation by the government. (read more)

Don’t forget, in the last FISA-702 reauthorization, Congress also forbade any member of the legislative branch from being subject to the illegal use of the NSA surveillance system.

Congress is exempt from the FISA abuse they authorize on Americans, and Congress is exempt from subpoenas against their phone records that are authorized against Americans.

Seriously folks, we just cannot make this stuff up.

Nov 8 2025

REPORT: Three Russiagate Grand Jury Subpoenas Sent Today, Brennan, Page and Strzok – Up to 30 Subpoenas Pending


Posted originally on CTH on November 7, 2025 | Sundance

Fox News is reporting that three grand jury subpoenas were issued today for John Brennan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Brennan was the former CIA Director during Russiagate, who created the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment.  Strzok was the lead FBI counterintelligence agent in charge of Crossfire Hurricane, and Page was the former DOJ lawyer assigned to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.  Strzok and Page worked both the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation.

Fox News also reports that up to 30 grand jury subpoenas are anticipated to be served on former government officials involved in “Spygate” and/or “Russiagate.” [SEE FOX REPORT HERE]

There has been a tremendous amount of external pressure being applied, and thankfully this year a significant amount of key internal pressure has joined that effort.  For the issues surrounding former CIA Director John Brennan, Fox News is citing a declassified “Annex A” of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which highlights John Brennan including the Steele Dossier in the ICA at the request of former FBI Director James Comey.

Apparently, according to Fox News, the most significant citation against Brennan is an issue we outlined at CTH five years ago [SEE HERE] when we wrote about Annex-A and the implications therein.  President Trump was still in office in 2020 when Annex-A was released. The good news is that Annex-A found its way into evidence that a prosecutor can present to a grand jury.

The outcome of a grand jury subpoena means the primary Russiagate officials will have to lawyer up, spend money and go plead the 5th amendment, the most likely outcome.

From my frame of reference, the evidence against the targets clearly exists and does not need them to make any admissions or denials.  However, putting them on record in court individually, possibly compelled to testify or invoke the 5th, would perhaps narrow down their options if they were eventually indicted and face a criminal trial.

EXCLUSIVE: A federal grand jury has subpoenaed former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, among others as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Fox News Digital has learned.

Sources told Fox News Digital Brennan; Strzok, the FBI’s former deputy assistant director of counterintelligence; and Page, a former FBI lawyer, were served with federal subpoenas on Friday.

Law enforcement sources told Fox News Digital that up to 30 subpoenas will be issued in the coming days relating to the investigation.

The grand jury is out of the Southern District of Florida. U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe. Fox News Digital first reported this summer that Brennan was under criminal investigation.

[…] As for the criminal investigation into Brennan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.

[…] But back in June 2020, Ratcliffe, while serving as director of national intelligence, declassified a footnote of the 2017 ICA, which revealed that the reporting of Trump dossier author Christopher Steele had only “limited corroboration” regarding whether then-President-elect Trump “knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances of beating” Hillary Clinton and other claims.

[…] The footnote, also known as “Annex A” of the 2017 ICA, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in June 2020, spanned less than two pages and detailed reporting by Steele, the former British spy who authored the unverified anti-Trump dossier — a document that helped serve as the basis for controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. (read more)

I also find it interesting they begin with “Russiagate”, and I wonder if they will find the “Spygate” that preceded it {GO DEEP}.

Then again, I am thankful for the change and recognize Spygate might just be a little too uncomfy for those who seek to retain continuity of government.

Nov 8 2025

James Comey Pushed Steele Dossier into CIA Intelligence Community Analysis – Video Outline


Posted originally on CTH on November 7, 2025 | Sundance

Many people have asked for videos to outline key details about how the systems of the intelligence apparatus were weaponized against President Trump. Well, friend of the Treehouse John Spiropoulos is doing exactly that.

These video segments are not outlines of supposition, guesswork or possibility.  In true CTH mission focus, Spiropoulos makes his presentations full of fact-based citations for scrutiny and review.  Citations, timelines and verifiable receipts are how truthful information cuts through the AI silo filtration; the tech effort to control speech by controlling reach.

John is working hard to put much of the information from our research library into accurate video context.  This is 30 minutes of actionable information. There are both YouTube Links Here and Rumble links Here. WATCH:

Obama’s Spies & Lies: The Junk Intel Scandal DECLASSIFIED_Episode #6

.

Citations and Viewers Guide Here

.

Nov 7 2025

Fox News Says Justice Dept About to Issue Subpoenas to John Brennan from DC and FL Grand Juries


Posted originally on CTH on November 6, 2025 | Sundance

I would not get too spun up about this yet because investigators and reviewers in/around Washington DC, have a ton of catching up to do on the material evidence against former CIA Director John Brennan.

Additionally, there is an institutional aversion to targeting anything to do with the CIA because the information needed for most direct evidence is behind a legislative authorized locked door.

FBI building, left – Main Justice (DOJ) building on right

That said, Fox News is reporting that a grand jury in DC and/or FL is potentially going to be used to issue subpoenas against John Brennan.

The primary issue surrounds Brennan telling congress in 2023 the “Steele Dossier” was not used in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), and current DNI Tulsi Gabbard releasing evidence proving it was.

(Fox News) – Justice Department officials in Miami and Washington, D.C., are actively preparing to issue several grand jury subpoenas relating to an investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, Fox News has learned.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe; Fox News is told.

Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, referred Brennan to the DOJ, saying that the former CIA chief “willfully and intentionally” made false statements to Congress.

Jordan accused Brennan of lying in his 2023 Judiciary Committee testimony by denying that the CIA used the Steele dossier in prepping the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, and falsely claiming the CIA opposed including the dossier. (more)

President Trump’s January Executive Order says in part, “The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of the appropriate departments and agencies within the Intelligence Community, shall take all appropriate action to review the activities of the Intelligence Community over the last 4 years and identify any instances where the Intelligence Community’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies of this order, and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the National Security Advisor, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of this order.”  {source}

DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been working on this for nine months.

Tulsi Gabbard retrieved and released a host of documents relating to the fraudulent ICA construct, including the use of the Steele Dossier.  Gabbard also declassified and released the email from former DNI James Clapper who was pressuring NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to go along with the team goal, and blame Russia:

“Understand your concern. It is essential that we (CIA/NSA/FBI/ODNI) be on the same page, and are all supportive of the report -in the highest tradition of “That’s OUR story, and we’re stickin’ to it.”  This evening CIA has provided to the NIC the complete draft generated by the ad hoc fusion cell. We will facilitate as much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report, but, more time is not negotiable. We may have to compromise our “normal” modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.  This is one project that has to be a team sport.”

DNI James Clapper, December 22, 2016

Remember, on July 20, 2025, DNI Tulsi Gabbard gave this interview.  Within the interview, Tulsi Gabbard emphasizes how important it is for the people who engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to be held accountable.  Gabbard notes there are now whistleblowers from within the IC agencies who have come forward to discuss how the intelligence apparatus was intentionally weaponized.

In her opinion as expressed, there is enough direct evidence now available to the Dept of Justice to begin criminal indictments against all of the participants.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard outlines how the documents released show how the Obama administration actively engaged the Intelligence Community to fabricate a false and malicious conspiracy against the incoming Trump administration.

I like how within the interview Director Gabbard emphasizes within her role she is able to reach into each of the eighteen intelligence agencies and extract documents that pertain to singular issues, in this case the role of Russia in the 2016 election.  This cross-silo investigative ability is why the DNI office is so important to revealing information from within individual silos.

Nov 6 2025

The Hidden Transcript of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson Testimony Is the Key to Reveal CIA Targeting of President Donald Trump


Posted originally on CTH on November 5, 2025 | Sundance |

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 this year, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA. On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.

In August 2025, DNI Gabbard then declassified and released the CIA work product, and then later removed Julia Gurganus security clearance.

The CIA embeds at the NIC and directorate of analysis were furious, and subsequently leaked a false story to the Wall Street Journal saying DNI Gabbard had compromised a covert CIA operative working in government – a familiar ploy that had worked for them in the past.  However, this time it did not work, because her work history clearly showed Julia Gurganus was a known CIA employee.

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016. Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of this year.

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 the impeachment narrative creator and the Russian interference narrative creator.  In short, a political fabricator of intelligence within the CIA.

Again, ICIG Atkinson could not change the ‘whistleblower’ regulations on his own.  Someone had to sign-off on that, giving him the authority. Additionally, Atkinson a former legal counsel to the Deputy Asst Attorney General within the DOJ-NSD, is not going to go out on such a limb without a cya to protect himself.

The only person likely to give that authority within the structures and confines that operate inside our government was then CIA Director, Gina Haspel.  The Deputy CIA Director is not going to make that kind of a decision, especially given the circumstances, and the CIA General Counsel was not touching it.

That outline of events means the 2016/2017 CIA ‘stop-Trump’ operation under CIA Director John Brennan, was effectively continued by CIA Director Gina Haspel in 2019/2020.

[SIDENOTE: Now, does the 2020 CIA operation known as the “51 Intelligence Experts’ who denied the Hunter Biden laptop story take on context?  Now does the recent reaction, the angry outburst by former CIA Director John Brennan about the ICA construct take on some context?]

This is where doors slam and DC officials run out of the room.

This is where ‘pretending not to know‘ takes on another meaning entirely.

♦ IMPLICATIONS: CIA Director Gina Haspel had no way to know if the 2019 impeachment of President Trump was going to be successful.  Just as the ICIG needed a CYA to protect himself, so too would Director Haspel want a legal defense mechanism in case the entire fiasco blew up.  Enter the only oversight agency that can provide Haspel cover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Underneath all of these machinations, there’s no other way for Director Haspel to protect herself other than to use the primary mechanism within the functions of IC oversight, inform the SSCI chair and vice-chair of her changed rule guidance to ICIG Atkinson.  That Occam’s Razor scenario puts SSCI chairman ¹Richard Burr and SSCI vice-chair Mark Warner in the silo-system loop.  If things blew up, Haspel could always defend herself by pointing to her informing the mechanism for CIA oversight, the SSCI.

• DNI Dan Coats resigned from office when the Trump impeachment effort was announced, August 2019.

• Acting DNI Joseph Maguire was appointed by President Trump to replace Dan Coats.

• Following the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 5th, 2020.

• On Feb 20, 2020, President Trump replaced acting DNI Joseph Maguire with acting DNI Ric Grenell.

• On February 28, 2020, President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe to be DNI.

• Ratcliffe was confirmed May 26, 2020, and took office.

Before the impeachment effort began, Congressman John Ratcliffe was President Trump’s first choice to replace outgoing DNI Dan Coats in 2019. However, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said they would not confirm John Ratcliffe.  President Trump was forced to appoint “acting DNIs.”

Somehow, within an unexplained reversal, after the impeachment effort ended, the SSCI had a change of position and agreed to confirm John Ratcliffe.

As the fully confirmed DNI, in 2020 John Ratcliffe would have full control of the ICIG, including an understanding of what took place within the CIA that led to the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.

As Chair of the SSCI in 2019, it is highly likely that CIA Director Gina Haspel informed Richard Burr of the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.  ¹Richard Burr was replaced by Marco Rubio in May 2020.

John Ratcliffe is now CIA Director.  Marco Rubio is now National Security Advisor.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed.

The truth has no agenda.

We have one ally.

I’m doing all I can…

Nov 4 2025

DOJ Responds to Comey Motion to Dismiss – Provides Attachments of Extensive use of Daniel Richman to Leak and Shape Media


Posted originally on CTH on November 3, 2025 | Sundance |

USAO Lindsey Halligan has responded to James Comey’s motion to dismiss the charges against him in a lengthy response and multiple attachment filing [Full COURT FILE HERE] – [Response MOTION HERE].

In addition to refuting the effort by Comey’s lawyers to challenge the appointment of USAO Halligan [See Response Here], the USAO office also provides evidence of James Comey’s extensive use of Daniel Richman to act as a cut out for leaks and communications with the media [Attachments HERE].

Beginning on January 2, 2015, James Comey hired Daniel Richman to be his conduit to the media for all things around the Clinton investigation.  Exhibit #3 highlights Richman emails to Office of Legal Counsel, Patrick Findlay, to begin the process of officially working for Comey as a special government employee. [Attachment #3 HERE].

There are multiple exhibits highlighting emails between James Comey (aka Reinhold Niebuhr7) and Daniel Richman [HERE-4 and HERE-5 and HERE-6 and HERE-7] proving the former FBI director did intentionally direct Daniel Richman to contact media persons on his behalf and leak investigative background information, or instruct them on information, James Comey provided. The evidence on this issue is overwhelming.

Daniel Richman, working directly on the instructions of James Comey, worked closely with New York Times journalist Mike Schmidt, husband of MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace, to publish material [ex. Exhibit #8].  Richman then coordinated the FBI director’s message with dozens of national journalists, writing the scripts for them to publish on behalf of James Comey [ex Exhibit #9].   Again, the evidence on this collaborative endeavor is overwhelming.

Interestingly, [Govt Exhibit #12] is the criminal complaint stemming from the FBI investigation which began on July 21, 2025.   The investigative summary notes the purposeful use of Room #9582 at FBI headquarters, intended to destroy classified evidence concealed in five burn bags.

[SOURCE Exhibit #12, page 2]

I’m still reviewing the information.

More to come…