Tag Archives: USA

Apr 10 2026

Tucker Carlson Jumps the Shark – Attacks Rev. Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse with Ridiculous Smears and Lies


Posted originally on CTH on April 9, 2026 | Sundance

Apparently, Tucker Carlson thought it would be a good idea to use his platform to attack Franklin Graham, Samaritan’s Purse and the faith-based community. Tucker Carlson made a big mistake.

There are situations that we sometimes have a great deal of familiarity with. The work of Samaritan’s Purse and Franklin Graham is one of those situations for me. Readers here will know of my time spent as a CERT volunteer during national disasters, most of which involve hurricane relief.

I have worked closely with Samaritan’s purse, spent time inside that organization and know the scale of assistance they provide. They are, quite simply, the single most effective emergency response mission in our nation.

On his podcast, Tucker Carlson and guest “Bro” Nathan Apffel spin a conspiracy tale that’s wildly out of touch with reality.

At the same time, they mock Christianity and Christian beliefs while taking aim at Franklin Graham, accusing him, among other things, of profiting from the Samaritan’s Purse mission.

You can watch Carlson and Apffel HERE. I’m not going to promote it, because it is sick, twisted, very dark and full of flat out lies.

Carlson even goes as far as to claim: Franklin Graham has a billionaire doomsday bunker in Alaska which he created from the donations to the organization, Samaritan’s purse has a $2.5 billion war chest and ownership of private airplanes worth $15o million which Graham and his leadership use for personal travel and self-enrichment.

Let me be very specific and very clear, every single thing they claim is false; demonstrably false and easily disproven for anyone who spent even five-minutes looking at the IRS filings of the organization [SEE HERE].

Why Tucker Carlson would choose to attack Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse is a bewildering question.  President Trump’s decision to ostracize Carlson from any contact with the White House completely makes sense now.

Listening to the dark voices and whispers on your shoulder, is dangerous.  That internal gnawing inside the spirit of Carlson is NOT the voice of God.

♦ Starting with the conspiracy theory first, Carlson claims Franklin Graham holds a doomsday bunker in Alaska. This is False.

Franklin Graham hosts “Marriage Encounter” events in Alaska, near his own small property (less than a quarter acre). The events are for military husbands and wives who are in desperate need of marital support, before the marriage collapses.

Usually this is a husband and wife in crisis, often driven by the stress of military service, extended absences, financial pressures, pornography and/or serious disturbing events that have fractured the marriage.

Franklin Graham and his entire ministry believe that marriage is a sacrament, and every effort must be made between spouses to hold on to their relationship with God. The Marriage Encounter events are designed specifically to renew Christianity in the relationship and save the marriage.

The area in Alaska is not an “end times” bunker complex. It is a few buildings, cabins on a lake, in a very remote area where the military family marriage encounter workshops take place. There are no distractions, and the remote area is next to a small quarter acre plot where Franklin Graham has a home.

The entire area is very remote and does not have municipal electricity. They use generators for power. The 60,000 gal above ground diesel storage is brought in to power the generators that provide electricity to the venue. The remote area is only habitable for 3 months in the summer. It is part of the Samaritans Purse mission.  The small native community around the area also benefits from the provision of electricity.

I am going to be quoting from the IRS 990 forms that are available HERE:

♦ Next, the issue of compensation. Franklin Graham received $466,000 in base compensation and $407,000 in other reportable IRS compensation.

What is “other compensation” as required to be reported by the IRS filing? Food, Lodging, Benefits, Air Travel, charter travel, security, logistics for Franklin Graham’s mission and much more. As outlined in the 990 form.

Read the highlighted passages.

[Expand image and read the details]

♦ Tucker Carlson claims that Samaritan’s Purse has $150 million in private aircraft.  That is false!

The $150 million valuation is the total value of all equipment owned and operated by Samaritan’s Purse and includes: Hospital tents, field hospital equipment, semi-trucks, tools, chainsaws, ATVs, small and medium sized trucks, hammers, logistical supplies, food, fuel, front end loaders, backhoes, tractors, pile drivers, portable air conditioners, lumber, MRE’s, all the equipment – the works.

The “equipment” is all the stuff that is dispatched when Samaritans Purse goes on lifesaving emergency disaster operations, in the USA and abroad, with a Christian focus to the mission.  They spent $348 million purchasing it, the equipment has depreciated $196 million, it is now worth an estimated $151.8 million.  This stuff is not hard to find out.

♦ Tucker claims that Samaritan’s Purse has $2.4 billion in liquid assets. Again, false.

As the 990 shows, the $2.4 billion is the total of all Samaritan’s Purse assets. Land, Buildings, Equipment, accounts, tangible assets, property, leases, everything.

Samaritan’s Purse took in $1.83 billion with the vast majority of it coming from donors ($1.76 billion) all around the world, not just in the USA.  They spent $1.1 billion on operational expenses, disaster relief and mission work, leaving them with $746 million residual which is added to the prior year net totaling $2.4 billion in all assets at the end of 2024.

The total assets of the organization including all tangible property, equipment and cash totals $2.4 billion.

Summary: There is no charity more vital, more successful, more faith based and functionally responsible for helping our nation in times of crisis than Samaritans Purse.

Importantly, everything they do is above board, easy to research, easy to inquire about and accessible to anyone who would have questions about any of it.

There is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda and no dark organizational intention other than to help people, spread the word and love of Jesus Christ and show up when people and communities are in crisis.  That is what Samaritan’s Purse does, and they are exceptionally efficient doing it.

The organization is a stickler for detail and financial responsibility, and they are light-years more effective than FEMA.

I have no idea what Tucker Carlson hoped to achieve with his attack against Franklin Graham and the people at Samaritan’s Purse; however, one thing is certain – none of it came from a place of light or good.  Tucker Carson is on a very dark trajectory, and I have dismissed several issues of his in the past thinking he was just making poor decisions.

This attack on Graham and Samaritan’s Purse, however, is not a poor decision.  He is doing this with a willful attempt at deception bearing false witness, and it will not end well.

It is totally understandable why President Trump and the people around him have pushed a great distance from themselves and the dark imaginings of Tucker Carlson.

Without a fully repentant apology from Tucker Carlson toward Franklin Graham and the entire Samaritan’s Purse organization, I will never highlight anything from him again.  This time he has just gone too far.

Apr 9 2026

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer Takes Credit for Iran Ceasefire He Just Found Out About


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026 | Sundance

In typical U.K political fashion, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer flew to Saudi Arabia to present the optics of participation, when he found out about the Iran ceasefire deal.

Immediately, Starmer, with an apparent mouse in his pocket, heads for the cameras to announce, “well, we’ve just reached this ceasefire.”   WATCH (prompted):

.

Apr 8 2026

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche Holds a Press Conference


Posted originally on CTH on April 7, 2026 | Sundance

During an appearance at the Hudson Institute, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is asked to summarize the administration’s approach to upcoming USMCA (CUSMA) renegotiations.

USTR Greer emphasized the focus is on outcomes in review of the USMCA, not focusing on the previous trade structure itself. The results carry more weight than reviewing what was intended.  On June 1st Greer anticipates telling congress that the U.S. intends withdrawal, pending unilateral negotiations with both Canada and Mexico to resolve conflict.

Greer describes two different protocols within any negotiation to deal with the structural differences between both Canada and Mexico.  Those differences include a completely different import/export profile with each country, different sectors of goods, difference in the wage rates within each country and a structural difference in the way each country is establishing their own, independent free trade agreements with other third-party countries.  These baselines form the reason to tell congress of the dissolution, and on July 1st inform both Canada and Mexico about it.

In the interim, the points of conflict are currently being negotiated with Mexico toward resolution.  The same negotiation is expected later between the U.S. and Canada; however, it sounds like that engagement will take place after congress is informed of the points of conflict.  WATCH (prompted):

.

Apr 8 2026

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer Discusses USMCA Review and Two Different “Protocols”


Posted originally on CTH onApril 7, 2026 | Sundance

During an appearance at the Hudson Institute, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is asked to summarize the administration’s approach to upcoming USMCA (CUSMA) renegotiations.

USTR Greer emphasized the focus is on outcomes in review of the USMCA, not focusing on the previous trade structure itself. The results carry more weight than reviewing what was intended.  On June 1st Greer anticipates telling congress that the U.S. intends withdrawal, pending unilateral negotiations with both Canada and Mexico to resolve conflict.

Greer describes two different protocols within any negotiation to deal with the structural differences between both Canada and Mexico.  Those differences include a completely different import/export profile with each country, different sectors of goods, difference in the wage rates within each country and a structural difference in the way each country is establishing their own, independent free trade agreements with other third-party countries.  These baselines form the reason to tell congress of the dissolution, and on July 1st inform both Canada and Mexico about it.

In the interim, the points of conflict are currently being negotiated with Mexico toward resolution.  The same negotiation is expected later between the U.S. and Canada; however, it sounds like that engagement will take place after congress is informed of the points of conflict.  WATCH (prompted):

.

Apr 8 2026

Vice President JD Vance Holds Press Conference With Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban


Posted originally on CTH on April 7, 2026 | Sundance

With a critical Hungarian election coming up on April 12th, Vice President JD Vance travels to Hungary to show support from the Trump administration for Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

In the background Hungary is under a great deal of pressure from the European Union for Orban’s resistance to expanded conflict with Russia.  The various left-wing European media claim that Prime Minister Orban is a friend to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the political/intelligence operations of Ukraine have aligned with the EU to target Viktor Orban for removal.

Vice-President JD Vance held a joint press conference with Prime Minister Orban to outline the challenges to the EU, answer questions about the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict and discuss the current energy crisis that has unfolded in Europe as a result of chasing net-zero policies.  WATCH:

.

Apr 7 2026

Question from Mail: It’s Been Two Weeks on the Atkinson Transcript, What’s the Holdup?


Posted originally on CTH on April 6, 2026 | Sundance 

Two weeks ago, after a lengthy back-and-forth process between the HPSCI and DNI offices, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) reported they released the transcript of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  No further information has surfaced following that announcement.

“The transcripts will be posted on the Committee website once they undergo the standard classification review with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”  (source)

It has been two-weeks.  The transcript is not public. In my estimation, this transcript could potentially be exceptionally revealing.  The background ‘delay’ is likely due to the significant revelations within it.   Also, this is a rather extensive stakeholder equity.

The declassification process involves having every equity stakeholder named in the deposition ¹agree to allowing the information, their information, to be released.

Ex. if Atkinson discussed the Senate Intel Committee, they (Cotton/Warner) would need to allow and/or demand redaction. If the CIA was discussed, again another stakeholder who needs to review and approve. If HPSCI, same/same. If any of the internal agencies were discussed by Atkinson, National Security Council (NSC, White House, Rubio), National Intelligence Council (NIC, in CIA at the time), the same process has to flow through each agency.  Also, this testimony is in 2019, making it possible contact with FBI or DOJ-NSD coconspirators (Mueller Inc.) may have taken place; the same would apply.

Each stakeholder gets to review the transcript content that applies to their mention and determine if they ¹approve the declassification process.

This is how the silo defense mechanisms work.  You can see how convoluted these systems have become.

According to the originating HPSCI public release, remember, they are the originating stakeholder of the classified information; well, the transcript is then returned to the House Intelligence Committee for publication.

[¹If they don’t agree, a battle begins. Remember the battle over the Nunes memo?]

What would all these equity stakeholders be hoping to conceal?  That’s where things get interesting.

CONTEXT: 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 in 2025, 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 2025, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA. On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.

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

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

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016. Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of 2025.

Back to Ciaramella…

In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman also responsible for Ukraine, Russia Eurasia affairs, told CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella a fictional narrative about President Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to provide dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election.

Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.  You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.

Facebook, Google, META, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter all deleted any mention of Eric Ciaramella as the anonymous whistleblower, and banned any account that posted the name.  However, something else was always sketchy about this.

As the story was told, Ciaramella blew the whistle to Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. It was further said that Atkinson “changed the CIA whistleblower rules” to permit an “anonymous” allegation; thereby protecting Eric Ciaramella.

Knowing, in hindsight, that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was one of the main people who constructed the 2016 fraudulent ICA, suddenly the motive to make him “anonymous” a few years later in 2019 for another stop-Trump effort makes sense.

Until today, the commonly accepted narrative was that ICIG Atkinson changed the CIA rules arbitrarily.  This is the main narrative as pushed by the media, allowed to permeate by the larger Intelligence Community, and supported by the willful blindness of a complicit Congress.

It never made sense how an IC Inspector General, especially one that involves review of CIA employees/operations, could make such a substantive change in rules for an agency that is opaque by design. There is just no way any IG can make that kind of decision about the CIA without the Director, the Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel being involved.

Either 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”, or some mechanism was triggered that permitted the ICIG to operate using a legislative oversight method.

♦ 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.

Adam Schiff was not stupid.

He knew what he was doing and how to use the separation of powers for his purposes.  He also knew that each stakeholder could be counted on to keep secrets.

The executive branch would not easily be able to reach into the legislative branch and extract information.

That’s why then HPSCI Chairman, Impeachment Chairman and now Senator Adam Schiff buried the Atkinson transcript in the vault of the House Intelligence Committee.

The process.

♦ First, you need a republican President in the White House √. Second, you need an aligned Intelligence Community DNI √, and third you need a Republican controlled HPSCI √:

[¹] • To extract the transcript the Executive would first need to understand its value. • Then the Executive would need to know where it was. • Then the Executive would need a qualified stakeholder, with appropriate clearances, to request to review the transcript in the HPSCI secure compartmented intelligence facility (scif).  • If the HPSCI approved, the Executive would be given an appointment date to read it (no notes, no copying, just reading).  • Then, after reading, the Executive stakeholder would then need to request the HPSCI Chair and Ranking Member for a classified copy.  • The Chair and Ranking Member would need to agree to the value of the sunlight on the Legislative Branch controlled information. • To get a copy the entire House Intelligence Committee would need to vote on the release to the Executive.  • The vote would need to be scheduled on the committee calendar.  • A HPSCI vote would then take place:

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a business meeting to consider multiple Committee actions. During the business meeting, the Committee voted in favor of releasing two transcripts from 2019 hearings with the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. The hearings were held to examine Atkinson’s role in an alleged whistleblower complaint, which ultimately led to Democrats’ first impeachment efforts against President Trump in December 2019. One transcript would be released to the ODNI for classification review, and then subsequently released to the public by the Committee with the second unclassified transcript.

“The great deal of widespread speculation about the Atkinson classified hearing transcript is indicative of the American people’s complete and warranted mistrust of the Intelligence Community,” said Chairman Crawford. “In far too many instances, the IC hides behind the veil of overclassification. Sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant. As part of the Committee’s continued effort to balance the transparency the American people deserve and the need to protect sensitive national security information, we hope that the release of these transcripts allows the American people to make their own determinations. As Chairman, I remain committed to ensuring this Committee, where possible, is transparent as the IC works to rebuild trust with the American people.”

The transcripts will be posted on the Committee website once they undergo the standard classification review with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  (source)

The HPSCI has given the transcript to Tulsi Gabbard, but I guarantee you the public release is against the interests of the entire intelligence apparatus.

Folks, this is a fight… and it’s ugly because the stakes are big.

If it sounds like hitting an anvil with a pickaxe, that’s because fighting the IC is like hitting an anvil with a pickaxe.

The truth has no agenda.

We have one ally.

I’m doing all I can…

~ SUPPORT CTH RESEARCH HERE ~

Apr 7 2026

President Trump Gives Remarks to the Media Following W.H. Easter Celebration


Posted originally on CTH on April 6, 2026 | Sundance 

Following the White House Easter Egg Hunt and Easter celebration, President Donald Trump paused to answer media questions.  WATCH: 

.

Apr 6 2026

Former CENTCOM Commander Frank McKenzie Discusses U.S. Rescue Operation in Iran


Posted originally on CTH on April 5, 2026 | Sundance |

Former Commander of CENTCOM, General Frank McKenzie, appears on CBS to give his analysis of ongoing Operation Epic Fury, along with the successful rescue of the F-15 crew. WATCH:

[Transcript] – ED O’KEEFE: We’re joined now by the former head of U.S. Central Command, retired General Frank McKenzie. General, Happy Easter.

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: And the same to you, Ed.

ED O’KEEFE: So it took just under 48 hours to find the missing weapons systems officer. After the jet they were in went down in a remote and mountainous area of southwestern Iran, the weapons officer was hiding in a mountainous crevice. We’re told by a senior administration official, what’s your assessment of how the search and rescue operation went?

GEN. MCKENZIE: So I think I’d draw two lessons from it, Ed. First of all, the excellence of the joint force, our ability to rapidly pivot, to look for a downed air crewman. We train for this endlessly. It’s a part of every time we send air crew over enemy territory, we have detailed, elaborate plans to go get them. It’s a very basic part of who we are as American fighting men and women. So that plan swung into action. I think it was executed pretty effectively. As always, you’ve got somebody on the ground, may be injured. They got to get to a position where they can hide until you can get to them. All that seemed to work out very well. And you know, we did, in fact, lose a couple of aircraft in that in that mission. But I would just tell you, it takes a year to build an aircraft. It takes 200 years to build a military tradition where you don’t leave anybody behind. You take the aircraft trade any day in a situation like this. The other lesson, I think, is a hard lesson for Iran. First of all, they were not able to find the missing air crewman. Second, you know, they put out a broad appeal to their people to turn him in reward, asking for all kinds of leads, that does not appear to have been successful. And that would- I think that’s maybe a sign of disaffection, don’t know, but you can’t, you can’t be happy with that if you’re a senior leader in Tehran this morning.

ED O’KEEFE: Yeah, you know Iran’s Revolutionary Guards now claiming responsibility for attacks on petrochemical plants in the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain. They warn its attacks against U.S. economic interests will intensify if attacks on civilian targets in Iran are repeated, does Iran and its proxies retain the capacity to inflict serious damage at this point?

GEN. MCKENZIE: They have the ability to inflict damage. They do not have the ability to gain mass effects. And by mass effects, I mean firing many, many dozens of rockets, missiles or drones. I think that capability has been eroded steadily since this campaign began. And frankly, at about plus 30 days into this campaign, I think if you’re at Central Command, you’ve got to be reasonably satisfied with where you are right now. In fact, Ed, when I was the CENTCOM Commander, if you had given me this situation at plus 30 days, I would have rejected it as being too optimistic by far. So we’ve had good effect. Our effects are going to continue. It’s going to be increasingly harder for them to launch missiles and rockets. We may not get to zero for a while, and I think there’s still some time ahead, but everyone realizes that. But I think we’re on track here. This campaign is moving very effectively, and I believe the pace will pick up every day.

ED O’KEEFE: To your earlier point, the president said something interesting to Fox News this morning, revealing for the first time that the U.S., earlier this year had sent a quote, lot of guns to the Kurds, who live in northern Iraq, northern Iran for use by protesters. So he wanted them to use these weapons. And said, you know, inferring now that he was sending weapons to have the Iranian people rise up on Wednesday night, though, in his big speech, clarifying what the war is all about, he said, This campaign is not about regime change, but if they are now, in fact, arming protesters. What might that signal?

GEN. MCKENZIE: Well, I think you want to put pressure on this regime in every way that you can. Arming Kurds certainly increases pressure on the Iranian regime. We know from history that leadership in Iran responds when existential pressure is applied to the regime. Arming the Kurds moves you a step closer toward that even if your ultimate aim is not regime change, getting the regime and Tehran to a place where they’ll make a deal that’s to our liking, is going to be the inevitable by product of intolerable pressure that’s placed over- on them. And I think all of these add together to do that.

ED O’KEEFE: You said last week, a success for the White House is that the Strait of Hormuz reopens, but that vital passageway, of course, remains effectively choked off. The president this Easter morning, used some, shall we say, colorful language, to threaten Iran again to reopen the strait, if the U.S. launches its own military operation in the coming days to open the strait, what’s it going to take militarily to do that?

GEN. MCKENZIE: Well, let me, let me say, first of all, we do have the ability to open the strait. Should we choose to do it in what you’re seeing now are the- what I would call the precursor of the initial steps in such a campaign you want to reduce Iran’s ability to fire short range rockets and missiles into the strait against warships. You want to take out their fast attack craft. Think of them as cigarette boats, large, powerful outboard engined boats that can race out and get among ships and cause direct damage that way. What we’re doing is we’re going after all those vessels. And that’s where a 10s attack aircraft, attack helicopters and other slow moving, low altitude platforms are so very effective. So we’re in the process of removing those right now. At the same time, we’re working to get rid of Iran’s mine stockpile. The mines are very dangerous. They had thousands when the war began. I have no doubt we significantly (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them, now. Of course, it doesn’t take many mines to cause a significant blockage to world shipping. So all of that is underway right now, and you want to reduce those to a low level before you put your warships up there to actually sort of test the waters in that strait. I have no idea what Admiral Cooper’s decision making process is going to be for that, but I think we’re well on the way to achieving those goals.

ED O’KEEFE: Can the strait be reopened with an air and naval campaign or are you going to need ground troops?

GEN. MCKENZIE: I think it could be opened with an air and naval campaign, and the use of ground troops would probably be along the line of raids. And remember, a raid is an attack with a planned withdrawal, where you don’t plan to stay. The one exception might be Kharg Island. I know the president has talked about it. I think it has a unique place in Iranian culture, because of one thing, if you seize it, you’re holding Iranian soil. Secondly, it is the critical mode through which all their oil supplies pass. By seizing it, you have the opportunity to cut that off, inflicting grievous damage on the Iranian economy, and yet with the opportunity, perhaps, to return it as part of a negotiation process. Further, you don’t permanently damage the global economy by destroying the infrastructure. So I think Kharg Island is a very lucrative target. I’m sure we’re looking at it hard right now. I have no idea if we’re going to choose to go up there.

ED O’KEEFE: In our last 30 seconds or so, here, General, bottom line this. The president says two to three weeks is all that it’s going to take? Would you agree with that? Or is it going to take longer?

GEN. MCKENZIE: You know, I always hesitate to put time on a- to put a timeline on a military operation like this, but I would say the Iranians would be very well served to listen to President Trump when he says he’s going to hit him because he’s pro- he’s proven that he’s willing to do that. So that’s the lesson I would learn from from his most recent pronouncement, and from actually what we’ve done in the war to this day, if the president says we’re going to do something, we’re probably going to do it. And it probably is good time for the Iranian leadership to take note of that fact.

ED O’KEEFE: All right, we’ll leave it there. General McKenzie, happy Easter again. Thank you for spending some time with us this morning. We appreciate it.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Apr 6 2026

President Trump Fills in Remarkable Background Details – Deal Tomorrow or U.S. Begins Systematic Destruction of Iranian Infrastructure


Posted originally on CTH on April 5, 2026 | Sundance 

Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst shares details from a conversation he had with President Donald Trump surrounding negotiations to end armed conflict.

According to Yingst, President Trump is optimistic for a diplomatic settlement and a negotiated deal as early as tomorrow.  However, if the deal is not made, the infrastructure within Iran will be systematically destroyed – as noted in a recent Truth Social Post:

[SOURCE]

Watch Trey Yingst explain the full details via Fox News.

.

Apr 4 2026

New York Times Reports the Primary Fundraising Mechanism of Democrats Willfully Accepted Foreign Donations


Posted originally on CTH on April 3, 2026 | Sundance 

ActBlue is to the Democrat party fundraising machine as WinRed is to the Republican side of the equation.

In a rather stunning outline by the New York Times [SEE HERE] the progressive outlet is reporting of serious concerns within the leadership of ActBlue related to their willfully blind reception of foreign sources of money to fund Democrat candidates.

The remarkable aspect is not just that ActBlue takes foreign funds, but rather the New York Times revealing internal legal discussions about it.  According to the Times reporting, the Eric Holder law firm Covington & Burling, the primary legal mechanism for the ActBlue/DNC machinery, lies at the heart of the matter.

(NYT) […] The firm concluded that ActBlue’s chief executive had given a potentially misleading response to congressional Republican investigators in a 2023 letter explaining how the organization vetted donations to ensure that they were not illegally coming from foreign citizens.

The letter from the chief executive, Regina Wallace-Jones, said ActBlue carried out “multilayered” screenings of contributions that helped “root out” those from overseas. In fact, the law firm found, some of the steps she had described were not always followed.

“This presents a substantial risk for ActBlue,” the law firm, Covington & Burling, wrote in one of two memos expressing legal concerns. One memo raised the specter of a criminal investigation if prosecutors believed that ActBlue had tried to conceal facts about its efforts to prevent foreign contributions. (source)

To really appreciate the scheme that seems to be outlined by the internal documents, it is worth remembering that James O’Keefe previously did some boots on the ground research into ActBlue [SEE HERE – 2023] and found that multiple, perhaps thousands, of “donor” names and addresses were assigned to contributions the donors said they never made.

Put the two issues together and it appears that ActBlue may have been laundering foreign money into the DNC by using donor identities to cover the funding mechanism.  Foreign funds, broken up into separate, smaller components and then attributed to Smurf donor identities.

As many surmised at the time, the donor IDs would be useful – only to launder the funds. That would explain why thousands of donors denied making contributions, yet FEC reports filed by ActBlue officials assign, falsely, their identity to donations.

Shortly before the 2024 federal election, on October 24th, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also submitted a criminal referral to the DOJ following his own investigation of this activity [SEE HERE].

TEXAS – Attorney General Ken Paxton made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) detailing the results of an investigation that revealed how suspicious actors seemingly use ActBlue’s political fundraising platform to make illegal straw donations. – SOURCE

Put the New York Times story together with the James O’Keefe investigation, and then overlay the Texas AG investigation and criminal referral, and there’s not just smoke -or fire- there’s an inferno ablaze.

[…] ActBlue is now all but declaring war on its own past lawyers, an extraordinary turn of events at a moment when President Trump has already ordered a Justice Department investigation into the organization. Democrats are nervous that any additional upheaval at ActBlue could destabilize the party’s critical fund-raising apparatus ahead of the midterm elections.

All levels of Democratic candidates, from incumbent presidents to school board aspirants, use ActBlue to raise campaign money from online donors. The platform has processed nearly $19 billion in contributions since its founding in 2004, building a donor database with millions of credit card numbers that is unmatched in American politics. Nearly 23,000 candidates and groups used the site in 2025, ActBlue has said, raising almost $1.8 billion from 52 million contributions, some of which recur every month.

[…] “It can be alleged that ActBlue accepted and/or facilitated the acceptance of foreign-national contributions into American elections,” one memo states. “In addition, because ActBlue’s staff was aware that its system was not as robust as necessary, it could be alleged that these violations were ‘knowing and willful,’ a standard that both increases the penalties the F.E.C. might seek and gives the Justice Department jurisdiction for a potential criminal investigation.” (more)

It’s called, Money Laundering.