Tag Archives: USA

Feb 2 2026

Sunday Talks: Deputy AG Responds to Questions About Epstein File Release – Video and Transcript


Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance

President Bill Clinton appears in multiple documents throughout the Epstein files.  President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, George Stephanopoulos, questions current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about the ongoing releases of Epstein information.

Specifically concerning to Stephanopoulos this week is the rushed nature of the 3.5 million-page document release by the DOJ, and victim information.   Last week Stephanopoulos was complaining about the lengthy delays in the release as DOJ officials worked to redact victim information.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks, Pierre Thomas, for that.  We’re joined now by the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, thank you for joining us this morning.

As you know, your release on Friday has already received a response from the victims, from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. I want to show the statement right now. It says, “survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. This is outrageous. The Justice Department cannot claim it is finishing releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed.”

Will there be more releases?

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: I mean, look, first of all, we took great pains, as I explained on Friday, to make sure that we protected victims. This was a — we are talking about a review of 3.5 million pieces of paper that were released on Friday.

Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectified that. And the numbers we’re talking about, just so the American people understand, we’re talking about .001 percent of all the materials. And so — and we knew this. I said this on Friday, that — that, of course, the nature of this type of review was — the volume of materials that were reviewed, that there would be times when this happened. And so we’re working hard to make sure that we fix that. And I expect that that will continue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Will more documents be released?

BLANCHE: We have released — there are a small number of documents, as I said on Friday, that we’re waiting for a judge to say we can — we’re allowed to release because of a protective order. But there are — this review is over. I mean we reviewed over six million pieces of paper, thousands of videos, thousands — tens of thousands of images. And — which is what the statute required us to do.

You know, it’s interesting. Leadership on the — on the Hill, Congressman Massie, Senator Schumer are quick to complain. There is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produced, because I know the materials we produced. We produced them on Friday. By Saturday, they’re already complaining about what we did? And by the way, apparently Massie and others wrote a letter to come and review unredacted materials. I didn’t get that letter yet. They leaked it to the press before they actually sent it to me.

But, yes, that’s absolutely totally fine. We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to hide. We never did. And our doors are open if they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was going to be my next question. So, thank you for answering it.

I do want to move on right now.

We have some video right now showing Liam Ramos, that five-year-old boy who was detained by ICE in Minnesota, being released today. He’s on his way back home to Minnesota after a judge ordered him released. And it was a pretty blistering order from the judge, Fred Biery, down in — the U.S. district judge — district court judge down in Texas.

He showed a photo of Liam, included some biblical passages, saying “Jesus wept,” and then went on to say, “civics lesson to the government: administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. This is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”

What’s your response?

BLANCHE: Well, look, that’s an active litigation, so I’m limited. But I will say this, the immigration law, the body of immigration law is much different than our typical criminal process because of the administrative nature of what we do every day. And so, to the extent that we need to appeal that judge’s decision, I promise we will.

But you see thousands and thousands of administrative actions happening every single day in this country. And you just highlighted a single one and not the thousands and thousands of others that happen. And so, this is — what we’re doing is tough. What we’re doing is difficult. I mean, we’re talking about a situation where millions and millions and millions of undocumented illegal aliens have flooded our country and we are trying to find them basically one by one.

And so, you know, I don’t have a comment specifically on what that judge said yesterday, but generally speaking, we are complying with the law every single day.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal records, but about 70 percent at least of those who have been detained don’t have criminal records.

BLANCHE: Well, just — hang on. The fact that they’re here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don’t have criminal records, they are — by their presence being here without status, having come into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so, we have to be careful.

And you’re right, there is a schism in the law right now about whether an illegal alien can be held pending their proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there’s a bunch of appellate cases.

So that’s another example of something where a number of district court judges have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellate court and ultimately, probably the Supreme Court that will be asked to interpret that. So — so, we should be — we should wait before we withhold judgment until the appellate courts have had their opportunity to weigh in.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I should say, to clarify, the lawyer for Liam Ramos and his father say they were following the legal process for asylum.

BLANCHE: I mean, I don’t know what that means. They were following legal process, and yet the judge disagreed with us —

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum.

BLANCHE: Excuse me?

STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum, and they were going through the legal process.

BLANCHE: Well, there’s — so that’s not true. That is not true. There’s a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum.

And again, I do — I cannot get into the — the specifics of this litigation, but you can read the same briefs I can. And what you just said is not true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. That’s what his lawyer says. So, they — I’m sure they’ll have a response to that as well.

I also want to ask you about the situation. Just this week, Don Lemon was arrested, the journalist Don Lemon was arrested, along with another independent journalist. And he was — this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge in an appeals court refused to approve the request. And the Chief Federal District Judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.

So, when do you believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity?

BLANCHE: Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question. So — and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause.

That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that that Mr. Lemon did. I am not going to comment on the charges specifically because it’s not appropriate.

But it’s interesting that — that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right a freedom of religion which is just as important as any other right that we have. And, George, I don’t know if you’ve — if you’ve watched the videos or read the indictment about what it’s alleged that Mr. Lemon did, but if anybody in this country thinks that that is, quote, “independent journalism,” I would like to have a conversation with you.

Now, he obviously has a very good lawyer. He can raise defenses in court to the extent he wants to, but nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we’re just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen.

It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a former CNN journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re a rioter. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re confident he’s going to be convicted and the case won’t be dismissed?

BLANCHE: I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate. He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis, and he’ll have — have his day in court like everybody else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: During your confirmation hearings, you made a strong statement against partisan political investigations and prosecutions. And I want to show it for our audience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: Partisan lawfare in our justice system wastes taxpayer money, makes communities less safe, and ruins lives. This should never happen in America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve got your commitment there — there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it.

BLANCHE: I commit to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since then, as you know, a number of targets of President Trump, have been publicly targeted by President Trump, have been prosecuted or investigated. I want to show that right now. It includes the former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Senators Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin, Governor Tim Walz, and Mayor Jacob Frey.

So, how do you respond to those who say you’ve broken your commitment?

BLANCHE: You just showed a handful of investigations or grand jury indictments that have been brought. We are — we are investigating tens of thousands of individuals and cases every single day. They are not political in base. The fact that you cherry-picked a handful that some people in the media have said, “Oh, those must be political,” is absurd and not fair.

I mean, don’t forget, George, when I walk into the Oval Office right now, I look around. And oftentimes every single person in that room was heavily attacked and gone after by the last Biden administration. And so, when I said to Congress and when I say to you right now that what we’re — there’s not a whiff of political partisanship in what we’re doing, I mean that. The mere fact that some Democrats, or some individuals who have spoken out against President Trump are being investigated is because there — that’s what the Department of Justice does. It doesn’t make it political because we’re investigating. And that — and that’s something important we’re doing. We have — we have brought down crime. We’re making America safe again. We’re working hard every day. And those handful of investigations or cases you just show don’t change that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Those indictments of James Comey and Letitia James came after the president explicitly said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served right now. They came after career attorneys refused to bring the indictments, and both cases have been dismissed.

BLANCHE: I mean, when you — I don’t know what it means to say they’ve come after people. I mean, listen, if you’re a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, you are expected to effectuate this administration’s priorities, like every single prosecutor in every administration. There are some prosecutors within the department who have chosen to leave. They don’t want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you’re going to work in this department, you are going to execute on the president’s priorities, and that’s what we do.

And yes, there are cases that have been dismissed by judges. They’re under appeal. That’s what happens in our system. And that doesn’t make the cases wrong or right, it just means that they’ve been dismissed and they’re under appeal.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you just — you just actually made my point right there. You said it’s the president’s priorities. The president calls for them publicly to be prosecuted, says they’re guilty as hell, and then they’re prosecuted.

BLANCHE: Now that’s not the president’s priorities. That’s a truth that he sent out. The president’s priorities are executing on making America safe again. And that’s what we’re doing.

And so, when we go to prosecutors and we say, you are going to do violent crime. You are going to do fraud cases out of Minnesota because that’s a horrible thing that’s happening there. If individual prosecutors say, no, I don’t want to do that, they need to leave. And they do leave. And that’s what I meant when I said that.

I’m not — I’m not saying that we — under no circumstances do we turn to a prosecutor and say you need to go after somebody because they are politically one way or another. We have never done that, and we won’t do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the president said it. The president is the one who said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served.

BLANCHE: You’re reading a small part of a — of a truth. The truth said a lot of other things to, and many other truths have said the thing. What the president has said publicly, and what he says to me, and what he says to the attorney general, and what he says to the American people is, he expects investigations to be fair. He expects investigations to be done right. But he also doesn’t expect that we investigate. He expects that we — that we do the right thing and that we root out the corruption.

I mean, we had a — an incredibly corrupt Department of Justice when we came into power last year. There can be no dispute about that. There can be no dispute that the Garland Department of Justice did not do the right thing in many cases.

And so to now be judged a year later because of a truth the president said is not appropriate, we can look at our body of work and the work that we’re doing as a department every day. And I know that we’re making this country safer again. We are bringing integrity back to the department, notwithstanding what those in the media say differently, and we’re going to continue to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask you about a report breaking in “The Wall Street Journal” overnight. I want to show the headline right now. It’s — the headline saying the “Spy Sheikh Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company.” “A $500 million investment for 49 percent of World Liberty came months before UAE won access to tightly guarded American A.I. chips.” It’s referring to the national security adviser at the UAE, Sheikh Tahnoon. And he made this investment just before President Trump was inaugurated.

The article goes on to say, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” This is the company of President Trump’s family. Eric Trump is the — is the president of the company. Trump — President Trump is listed as the founder emeritus, though he’s not running it directly right now.

How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?

BLANCHE: I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before, as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.

So, I — look, I saw that article. I don’t have a comment on it beyond President Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.

And so, there — there’s nothing unprecedented about a — about the Trump Organization going out and trying to make investments that basically all will come back to the American people and jobs in this country. And so this idea that there’s something untoward or unprecedented is just a repeated story that that isn’t true. And that’s — and I think that that — the American people know that. And the fact that we’ve talked about unprecedented, and this is something that doesn’t happen is just not true. And it’s — it shouldn’t be said by these so-called newspapers that are saying it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the president doesn’t run the company, but he does profit from it. His financial disclosure show he’s received funds from that. And law professor Kathleen Clark is quoted in the article saying this sure looks like a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Ty Cobb, who served as President Trump’s lawyer in — during the first administration, said, quote, “My advice as an ethics lawyer would have been clear. You don’t do business deals with the families of the leaders of foreign countries. It taints American foreign policy.”

How do you respond to Mr. Cobb?

BLANCHE: I don’t have a response to that guy. I mean, that guy hasn’t said a nonpartisan thing in the past four years. I mean, I could have predicted what you just said he would say. That’s what he says every time anything comes out about the president. I don’t have a — the president is ethical. He talks more to the press. He says what’s happening more than any president in history. You have a question about it, you can ask him. He gaggled on the plane last night at midnight for like 20 minutes. OK?

So, like the fact that Ty Cobb claims that he would have counseled something different to the president, OK. I mean that guy. I mean, I don’t have response to that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the questions the president also took last night when he was on Air Force One was questions about his suing the Treasury Department, the IRS for $10 billion for leaking his tax returns. And he’s — he suggested that there could be some questions about the conflict. He says it’s an interesting question.

How do you respond to those who say that’s a conflict of interest for the president to be seeking funds from those who he’s administering?

BLANCHE: Look, we’re looking at how to handle that. I mean, he’s not wrong, and I don’t think even you think he’s wrong, that what happened there is horrible. The fact that his tax returns were leaked. No American should have that. And you do have Americans, whether you’re the president or just a — anybody in this country, has a right when something like that happens. And so I very much sympathize with what the president talked about and we’re looking into as a department how to address and make sure that type of thing never happens again to anybody, much less a former president or a current president. And we’ll go from there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It is wrong for a president to have his tax returns leaked, for anyone to have their tax returns leaked. I agree with that. The president is also seeking $232 million from the Justice Department, saying his rights were violated during the 2016 campaign.

And I just wonder how you think you’re going to handle that. Both you as the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, have served as President Trump’s personal lawyers in the past. Doesn’t that pose at least the appearance of a conflict? And should you be involved in dealing with that in any way?

BLANCHE: I mean, I haven’t talked whether I’m involved with that at all anyway. I mean, it’s — that’s a fair question, George. And we all — we obviously talk about conflicts and what I’m allowed to do, what the attorney general is allowed to do because of what we’ve done in our past. But there are limits to those — to those conflicts. And I do have a job to the American people and President Trump as a deputy attorney general. And so, I — you know, we will — we will navigate that appropriately and consistent with the ethical rules and get to a just result.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Blanche, thanks for your time this morning.

BLANCHE: Thank you, George.

[END Transcript]

Feb 2 2026

Sunday Talks – Venezuela Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado Discusses Her Goals and Objectives


Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance

President Trump and Secretary Rubio are walking carefully through a process to keep Venezuela stable and authentic to the true intents of the Venezuelan people.  Toward that end, both Trump and Rubio have been very careful with Maria Corina Machado, the exiled opposition leader who claims to be the legitimate voice of the people.

Machado is loved by the United Nations, the American leftists and DC control agents. However, to avoid Machado becoming Venezuela’s Zelenskyy, President Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio are working through a three-stage process that would culminate in secure national elections to coincide with Maria Machado’s return.  If she wins the hearts and minds, she will have legitimacy.

If you listen carefully to her phrases and omissions, you can clearly see where the trepidation from Trump and Rubio comes from.  There are a lot of platitudes and pretenses within Venezuelan politics.  Video and Transcript Below:

[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, and it is amazing to see you here in person after so long.

MARÍA CORINA MACHADO: Likewise. Thank you very much.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio this past week. He said the U.S. now does not intend to have any military action or presence inside Venezuela, except for maybe at a reopened embassy there. Is that a good idea to take that military pressure off when the Maduro regime is effectively still in place?

MACHADO: Well, first of all, I have to say that on behalf of the Venezuelan people, we’re very, very grateful to the American people, and the first hand- first and foremost, to President Trump, to the secretary of state, and also to your leaders in Congress. I mean, the- the degree of support and care that we’ve felt in this fight at this moment is enormous, and I think it is clear on the- on the behalf and well being of the American people, but also of the Venezuelan people, and I would say the whole hemisphere. I do not think that the pressure is being taken away. Actually, everything Delcy Rodríguez is currently doing is because she’s complying with instructions she’s getting from the United States, and important steps are being taken. So I think that the message has been delivered, and so far, we’re seeing the results in the actions taken by the regime, and also in the mood and energy that is growing within the Venezuelan population.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you, or is anyone in your movement, in touch with Delcy Rodríguez, who’s the acting president of Venezuela now?

MACHADO: No, not directly.

MARGARET BRENNAN: No. Why not?

MACHADO: Well, we had offered, since we won the election by a landslide, that we were willing to- to agree in the terms of a negotiated transition, they refused. On the contrary, they decided to unleash the- the- the most cruel, brutal repression wave. There are- as you know, there have been thousands of political prisoners, and they had not demonstrated any willingness to- to stop this cruelty, until January 3rd arrived and- and happened when it happened. So it sent a clear message to them, and they’re starting to realize that things have changed for good. So eventually they might understand or- and even very soon, that it is in their best interest to- to accept that transition is unstoppable.

MARGARET BRENNAN: A transition that you hope involves a democratic election at some point. Did Secretary Rubio give you any kind of timeline for the American plans?

MACHADO: What I do have very clear is that the end result is the same. What we want, what the Venezuelan people have voted and struggled and fight for with huge cause and sacrifice, and what the United States government and President Trump also desires. It is a very complex process. I mean, this is a criminal structure that has intertwined with the enemies of the West, Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, extremist terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the cartels, the guerrilla, all in association with the Maduro regime and Delcy Rodríguez and others. So it’s a process of dismantling this structure in the- in a way that it’s most orderly under control possible in the short term. And yes, the end game has to be, or the end step has to be, a electoral process in which we can have legitimate power. So I’m talking about a legitimate national assembly, governors, mayors and certainly president.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But for the people in Venezuela still living under that regime, what has actually changed for them, and do they have the patience to wait for what you’re talking about, which is basically just hoping that the Rodríguez government does what Donald Trump tells them to do?

MACHADO: Well, it’s more than hoping. We’re seeing the results, the actions. Are we there yet? Not. And- and I think it’s a good point, what you mentioned, patience. How much patience can the Venezuelan people have? Because, I mean, there were over 1,000 political prisoners on January the 1st. Still, there are over 700. Not one military prisoner, political prisoner has been liberated. There are men and women that have been in prison for years. Even the three police of the Policía Metropolitana have 23 years in prison, and they have not been liberated- released yet.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And Secretary Rubio has said it’s not happening as fast as America wants it to.

MACHADO: Absolutely. And in- in our case, we want that to happen immediately. Imagine, you know, the mothers of- of- of many of these innocent prisoners have been in vigils for over 23 days and nights. This is something that was unthinkable, Margaret, before January 3rd, and it shows that Venezuelan people are getting more and more empowered, more and more confident that this process will eventually lead to a- to a legitimate government based on the will of the people, but certainly we need to move there and leave evidence that there’s no way back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, President Trump has talked a lot about Venezuela’s oil and its natural resources. Do you support the law that was just passed that allows the Venezuelan Government to privatize the oil industry?

MACHADO: Well, first of all, I do not recognize the National Assembly as a legitimate power. It has not been recognized by the Venezuelan people, not even by the American- by the U.S. government.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Not legally, but effectively they–

MACHADO: Yeah, but whatever comes from that National Assembly has no legality. So- because this is an illegitimate power. So certainly, these so-called reforms introduce positive signs in terms of what we, the Venezuelan people, want in the future. We don’t want socialism. We don’t want the state owning every single, you know, facility or production center. We want private property, but that requires rule of law, long term guarantees for foreign investment, for local investment. But one thing that is the most important of all, in my opinion, you need to have people, talent, specialized, professional, willing to work and develop these enterprises. What happened with the Venezuelan specialized talent? It was forced to flee the country, almost a third of our population, and these are people that are working all around the world. So imagine if a Venezuelan engineer working in Ghawar, the- the largest oil field in Saudi Aramco, would he leave his job and go back to Venezuela, where Delcy Rodríguez, who is part of the cartel, is in- and who originally fired him is in power? Of course, not.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you raised this point, but President Trump just said on camera that United States is going to start peeling back some of these sanctions so that Americans can travel back to Venezuela. He’s lifted the air restrictions–

MACHADO: –Well, I think–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –is it safe to go?–

MACHADO: I think it is important to take steps. I think these are signals directed to several actors. First and foremost, to the regime, saying this is going to move forward. There is no way back. And- and- and the regime knows that no American citizen or Venezuelan citizen is going to go back to a country that’s still under the power of Maduro regime and the cartel. That’s not going to happen. But- but these kinds of actions, I think, give the correct signals in terms that this is going to move ahead. And I do trust the president in what he has said regarding how much he cares about the Venezuelan people, that’s something that I think it was quite significant in our conversation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: If you return to Venezuela now, would you be imprisoned, and has the American government said that they will protect you, they will guarantee your safety?

MACHADO: Well, you know, things are changing very fast in Venezuela. If they had captured me before I left, I probably would have been disappeared or worse. Right now, I don’t think they would dare to kill me because of the United States presence and pressure and actions. I don’t know how much possibility of moving I would have inside Venezuela, certainly they would be very afraid, because the- the regime knows the connection, the intimate connection we have, you know, the Venezuelan people and- and the leadership that won the election, the legitimate government.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You won that election along with Edmundo González at the top of that ticket, even the Trump administration recognized it. Secretary Rubio testified that to Congress, but then the president of the United States stood up there and said to the public that even though you had won that election, you didn’t have the public support. And I wonder if you can understand why they made that calculation, that you and your party who won an election couldn’t be that transitional government that would do all the things you’re talking about?

MACHADO: Well, Margaret, I will concentrate in what he told me in a private conversation, looking each other in the eyes, and I, and I truly believe he understands the nature of this regime. They all know that Delcy Rodríguez is a communist that no one can trust. Not even, you know, the people surrounding her right now does. I mean these are individuals that have strong ties with Russia, Iran, China, Cuba. I mean, she is doing what she’s doing because United States is putting enough pressure for them to understand that she has no other option. If that, if that pressure were taken away, she would turn around and go back to where loyal- her loyalty is with these regimes are the enemies of America. So no one is naive here. I think she’s doing part of the dirty job of dismantling her own regime and entourage, but that’s a- there’s a limit to it. For what you said before, you know, people have to be taken account on- of. They have to be involved. And the Venezuelan people, 90% of our people want the same. Not only this regime to go immediately, but we want to live in a country with human dignity, with solidarity, with justice, with freedom. This is all about bringing our kids back home, having our families together. It’s about saving lives.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What role would you want in a future Venezuelan government? Because even President Trump says you may have a role in the future. Would you run for president?

MACHADO: I will be president when the time comes. But it doesn’t matter. That should be decided in elections by the Venezuelan people. I wasn’t allowed to run in the last election, as we mentioned before, because Maduro was afraid to running against me, and he thought Edmundo was not a threat, because nobody knew who he was. And in less than three months, we managed to put the whole country supporting him, because this is- this is matter of freedom. I mean, this is a spiritual fight, an existential fight for Venezuela. Unlike other diasporas, and I want to stress this, our people around the world, here in the United States, want to go back. Go back and live in a country where they’re safe, but most of all, where there is a future in freedom and democracy. So if we want those hundreds of thousands and millions of Venezuelan to go back, we need to have a secure and precise timeline through which this transition will advance.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we don’t know when yet–

MACHADO: Not yet–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –from the Trump administration at all.

MACHADO: Not yet. But I’m sure there is, and the secretary of state and many other members of the government, by instructions of the president, a clear willingness to move as fast as possible within, you know, control and order and understanding the complexity of such a criminal structure, but understanding that the voice of the people is what brings legitimacy to this process.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go. You know, the last time we spoke, you had made this daring, covert escape by land, sea and air from Venezuela to go and receive that Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. You’ve kept those details private, you said, for safety reasons, but you did say you broke your back, you talked about being lost at sea, that you feared that you might lose your life at one point. After all of that, why did you give your Nobel Peace Prize to President Trump after you’d already dedicated it to him?

MACHADO: Look, I think this is a matter of justice, and it’s a matter of what’s in the superior interest of our country. We the Venezuelan people, are truly grateful for what he has done, and we’re confident in what he will do in the- in the days, weeks and months to come.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You believe he supports you.

MACHADO: I do. Because it is- it has to do first and foremost with you, the American people, and how dismantling this criminal structure not only saves millions of Venezuelan lives, it also saves lives in the Americas. And once Venezuela is free, then the Cuban regime will follow. The Nicaraguan regime will follow, even the Iranian regime that has turned Venezuela into its safe haven and satellite only three hours away from Florida. I mean, this has huge consequence for the Western Hemisphere, for United States. So I think this is a win-win situation for investment, for business opportunity, for security reasons, and certainly for migration tensions and crisis. So Venezuela will be free, and I know I will host you soon in a wonderful country that is very grateful to yours.

MARGARET BRENNAN: María Corina Machado, thank you very much for your time today. We’ll be right back.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Feb 1 2026

FBI Director Kash Patel Outlines “Probable Cause” in Georgia Election Data Warrant


Posted originally on CTH on January 31, 2026 | Sundance

FBI Director Kash Patel appears on Fox News to discuss the ongoing efforts of the FBI amid national headlines.  The first topic is the DOJ and FBI executing a search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia.

Director Patel then moves on to discussing the FBI operations in the Minnesota fraud schemes, drawing attention to the arrests in Minneapolis last summer for the rampant fraud identified within HHS programs.  Director Patel notes the expanded use of surveillance both in the govt and private sector is helping to drive down the crime rates in various states. WATCH:

.

Jan 31 2026

Senate Intelligence Committee Demand Answers About DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s Ongoing Reviews of Govt Activity


Posted originally on CTH on January 30, 2026 | Sundance

Apparently, the Senate and House intelligence committees are very concerned about what Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is doing. Almost every tweet from Senator Mark Warner in the past 48 hours has been about DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

What seems to worry them the most is that they don’t know exactly what she is doing.  Triggered by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, the Democrats are now demanding Director Gabbard tell them her intentions and her itinerary so they can monitor her activity.  Tulsi Gabbard continues to review internal government activity without consulting them.

[SOURCE]

“Director Gabbard recognizes that election security is essential for the integrity of our republic and our nation’s security. As DNI, she has a vital role in identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and protecting against exploitation,” a DNI spokesperson noted. “We know through intelligence and public reporting that electronic voting systems have been and are vulnerable to exploitation. President Trump’s directive to secure our elections was clear, and DNI Gabbard has and will continue to take actions within her authorities, alongside our interagency partners, to support ensuring the integrity of our elections,” the DNI spokesperson said.

Thursday evening while attending the premier of ‘Melania’ at the Kennedy Center, President Trump said, “you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”

According to the Wall Street Journal:

[…] “[Tulsi Gabbard] has begun studying information about voting machines, analyzed data from swing states and pursued theories that President Trump has promoted to claim the 2020 election was unfairly taken from him, the officials said, particularly on foreign government interference.

She has regularly briefed Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles about her inquiry in recent months along with others involved in the investigation. Those include senior Justice Department officials, Trump’s outside ally and lawyer Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who pushed claims in 2020 that the election was stolen and joined the administration as a special government employee.

Gabbard has consulted with others in the intelligence community about claims of foreign interference in the 2020 election, the officials said, though she hasn’t provided the public with new evidence of it.

She is expected to prepare a report on her work, the people said. The administration has discussed executive orders on voting ahead of the midterm elections, two of the officials said. 

[…] Democrats criticized Gabbard’s election effort. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus—in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns—or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office,” said Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee. (more – paywall)

There are a lot of interconnected aspects to all of this, many circle around the Intelligence Community’s prior and current involvement in various operations against the interests of the Office of the President.

As noted by Paul Sperry: “In a letter, ex-CIA chief John Brennan’s lawyer said his client has “complied” w/ a fed grand jury subpoena seeking, among other things, materials related to his role in creation of the Obama-ordered ICA on Russia + Trump covering the period from July 1, 2016 to Feb 28, 2017.” 

Most people are not aware how the 2016/2017 CIA work product known as the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) ties directly into the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump for the Ukraine phone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

A key architect of the 2017 ICA was a CIA analyst on Russian issues named Eric Ciaramella. The anonymous CIA whistleblower who facilitated the 2019 impeachment effort was the same Eric Ciaramella.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard previously released information showing how the 2017 ICA was fraudulently constructed, and now DNI Gabbard has reviewed the transcribed testimony of former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, where he described how he gained authority to change the CIA rules to permit Ciaramella to remain anonymous in 2019.  All of this ties together.

[VIA Politico] – […] Sen. Mark Warner, (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued on X Wednesday that there “are only two explanations” for Gabbard’s presence in the raid.

“Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy,” he wrote.

Warner and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) wrote to Gabbard Thursday to request briefings for both panels about the legal basis, scope, and justification of her participation in the raid. (more)

DNI Tulsi Gabbard continues to work on behalf of the American people; that seems to have triggered Senator Mark Warner.

The need for control is a reaction to fear.

ps. We have not heard much about the 2026 FISA-702 reauthorization, yet.

Jan 30 2026

Border Czar Tom Homan Holds a Press Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota


Posted originally on CTH on January 29, 2026 | Sundance

President Trump’s Border Czar, Tom Homan, arrived in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Monday.  Today he gives a press conference following meetings with the Minnesota governor and Minneapolis mayor.

Mr Homan said he is now supervising the capture and removal of all criminal aliens from the Minneapolis region. ICE agents together with Customs and Border Patrol officials will continue operations throughout the region and the governor and mayor have given their assurances they will no longer attempt to interfere with capture, detainment and removal efforts.

.

Jan 29 2026

Conniving Effort – Alexander Vindman Launches Democrat Senate Campaign in Florida


Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance |

This is infuriating, and entirely due to something else in the background {GO DEEP}.  Former National Security Council member (Russia/EurAsia desk) Alexander Vindman is running for a Florida senate seat against Republican Ashley Moody.

First, Alexander Vindman doesn’t stand a chance at winning; however, that’s not his objective with this announcement. Here is where it becomes important to understand the game.

Vindman is directly tied to the background issue of the fraudulent impeachment effort, which I have been working to bring to the forefront.  Progress is agonizingly slow but moving forward.

Alexander Vindman has two primary objectives in announcing this effort: (#1) to give himself the political defense against any accountability for his involvement in the IC coup against President Trump in 2019.  By running for the Florida Senate seat, Vindman will claim evidence is only coming to light as an outcome of his seeking elected office, i.e. it is a political attack.  And (#2) running for office allows Vindman to accept campaign donations that will ultimately be used in his defense against #1.  This is how they roll.

FLORIDA – MIAMI — Democrat Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who helped trigger President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, announced his Senate campaign in Florida on Tuesday to challenge GOP Sen. Ashley Moody.

Vindman’s entrance into the race pulls Trump’s agenda and record to the forefront of the Senate contest in Florida, bringing a national focus to a race in the president’s home state — one now widely seen as Republican-leaning.

[…] Vindman, born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, was an aide on the NSC during Trump’s first term. He testified before Congress about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the president floated an investigation of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump appeared to tie future U.S. aid to Ukraine’s willingness to launch and announce a probe that would be damaging to Biden.

The Senate acquitted Trump in that case, and Vindman, an Army combat veteran and lieutenant colonel, was fired from his position with the NSC.

[…] Any statewide Democratic candidate faces an uphill climb in Florida, given that Republican voters in the state outnumber Democratic voters by around 1.4 million people. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also classified the Senate seat in Florida as being in the “Solid R” category — the most GOP-friendly ranking available. (read more)

Former AAG Mary McCord (working for Schiff/Nadler), McCord’s former staff lawyer, Michael Atkinson (working as ICIG), Alexander Vindman (NSC) and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella (fraudulent ICA organizer turned anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’) worked together to construct the fraudulent impeachment operation.

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

Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.

You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.

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

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

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

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

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

Someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint.”

[…] On October 4, 2019, ICIG Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation.  The key question to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office to change the CIA whistleblower rules permitting Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.  Who gave Atkinson permission?

That Atkinson testimony was then “classified” and sealed under the auspices of “national security” by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, the same guy who Ciaramella talked to before filing the complaint.   MORE...

Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.

Jan 29 2026

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Testifies to Senate Foreign Relations Committee About Venezuela Operations


Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance

Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to outline the current situation with U.S. policy toward Venezuela against the background of Nicholas Maduro being captured by the U.S. Dept of Justice.  In essence, Western Hemisphere policy.

The Senate has been fraught with anxiety over the Trump administration focusing on the American continent and strengthening the U.S. position in the region.  Stability in the Americas is against the interests of the corporate and banking benefactors who pay for control of Senate seats and use their influence therein.

Having come from the Senate, after fulfillment of his fourteen-year corporate obligations, Secretary of State Rubio acutely understands the voices behind those on the panel delivering the questions.  Rubio outlines the goals and objectives of the Venezuelan operation by speaking directly to the concerns of the banking and financial community; in addition, he answers the questions posed by the performance actors put in place by the corporate strategists.

Video is prompted to 14:33 to cut out the narrative engineered talking points from the chair and vice-chair. Secretary Rubio outlines the BIG PICTURE.  WATCH: 

.

Jan 28 2026

Big Picture: President Trump and Trade Using the Art of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy


Posted originally on CTH on January 27, 2026 | Sundance

People might be interested in the recent stories of Canadian Premier Doug Ford and his reversal of position on Chinese EV production. Ontario Premier Ford now welcomes Chinese EVs into Canada.

Or people might be interested in the recent story of the EU announcing a historic trade deal with India. The European Union is now looking to find new markets to replace the U.S., while simultaneously agreeing to establish a new immigration/recruitment process to accept massive numbers of Indian migrants.

Yes, Canada reverses their position on trade with China, that’s odd. And somehow the EU immediately forgets their demands for India to stop buying Russian oil or face EU sanctions, another oddity.  This is like watching someone you don’t like, get engaged to your smelly, fat ex-girlfriend. [Matthew 15:14]

Canada and the EU take trade and economic positions seemingly against U.S. interests. Simultaneously Mexico modifies all their trade positions to come into alignment with the USA. Yesterday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Mexico will no longer ship oil to Cuba.

What’s going on?

Well, to really understand what is happening you need to look at President Trump’s responses to all of the individual issues outlined above and take a much bigger picture view.  President Trump is the master of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy.’

♦ CANADA – When President Trump was asked about Prime Minister Mark Carney creating a new trade agreement with China, President Trump responded that he didn’t care – it was irrelevant to him.  Yet, simultaneously inside the USMCA President Trump has the power to veto any trade agreement between Mexico or Canada and a non-member nation.

So, why didn’t President Trump care?  Easy, because in President Trump’s mind there’s not going to be a USMCA; so, he really doesn’t care if Canada runs to violate it.  In real terms, Canada doing bilateral deals with other countries, especially deals potentially detrimental to the USA, only strengthens his position on dissolving the USMCA.

If Canada violates the terms and spirit of the USMCA, it makes dispatch of the unliked trade agreement even easier.  Canada is helping President Trump remove the congressional justification they could use to block him.  If Canada is violating the USMCA (CUSMA), Congress is kneecapped from interference.

Provoking Canada into a trade position, that puts them at a disadvantage trying to stop the dissolution of the CUSMA, stops Congress from opposing the fracture, and then opens the door to a bilateral trade agreement, is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that is entirely controlled by President Donald Trump.

[I pointed this out on the ‘Russian Sanctions’ map four years ago for a reason.] 

♦ EUROPE – In the last few months, the EU has been pressuring President Trump to join them in putting sanctions against India for purchasing Russian oil.  Suddenly, all those Russian energy issues are dropped, and the EU signs a trade agreement with India.  Again, just like with Canada, President Trump doesn’t care; he’s working on a much bigger objective.

Both Canada and Europe are independently, out of necessity, taking action that takes apart the trade and economic system they created.  At the core of the old trade system both Canada and Europe were exploiting the USA, exfiltrating wealth and skimming the independent entrepreneurial innovation that originates from within the U.S. economic system.

That necessary exploitation happened because the USA is innovative (freedom-based capitalism), while the CA/EU system is built on government control mechanisms.  The CA/EU energy policy is just one impactful example of their pontificating inability to be insightful when it comes to consequences.  The EU and Canada are now stuck looking for markets that will do the dirty jobs, provide them with core components, while simultaneously looking for markets for their finished products.

On the other side of the approach is President Trump, working to expand U.S. industrial dirty job capacity, create our own core components, then create finished goods entirely on our own.  A complete revitalization of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base.  Our U.S. GDP is currently expected to grow north of 5%.  This is not happening by accident.

Additionally, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is not bragging about importing Indian IT workers in a vacuum.  If the EU cannot skim off the IT capabilities of America, they have to find another Braintrust to tap.  Just like the innovative dependencies of China, the EU is intellectually frigid; compliance is ingrained in their academia.  Within the USA, we still have foundational disposition of ‘screw you‘ in our DNA.

Look at the advancements of Artificial Intelligence, or AI. All of the growth in that tech sector is being led by America. President Trump is taking every approach to ensure we remain the world’s dominant power in AI development. As much as Elon Musk’s quirks and quasi-friendly politics annoys me personally, strategically, on the technology side, it’s good to see him chumming around with President Trump; at least that’s what I tell myself.

♦ MEXICO – This is where it gets really, super interesting.  You might remember that China was set to invest between $5 billion and $10 billion (total) in Mexico for EV auto manufacturing.  In December of 2023, three Chinese auto manufacturers, MG, BYD, and Chery, announced they were going to spend billions building new EV manufacturing plants.  Each Chinese manufacturer was initially going to spend between $1.5 to $2.0 billion.  By March 2024, the reasoning was evident – Biden was supporting it.

When President Trump won the November 2024 election, all of those Chinese investments and plans inside Mexico were cancelled.

As we noted at the end of last year, splitting the USMCA into two bilateral trade deals, one for Mexico and one for Canada, will be one of the most interesting and long-term economically significant moves in U.S. trade history.  It is going to be a lot of fun to watch these negotiations, and the pre-positioning gives us a preview of what is to come.  Mexico is doing everything almost perfectly in preparation for their bilateral deal, including their stopping of oil shipments to Cuba.

This alignment follows the Mexican government passing a sweeping set of tariffs against Chinese imports. The Mexican government, led by Sheinbaum, made moves throughout 2025 to stay in alignment with a favorable U.S. trade agreement.  Meanwhile, the Canadian government, led by Mark Carney, has been more antagonistic and positioning Canada to lose badly.

♦ SUMMARY: Some people have construed the bilateral trade preference of President Trump to be the elimination of globalism in favor of nationalism in trade agreements. While the outcome of Trump’s approach indeed aligns with that theme, it is not specifically the objective of President Trump to eliminate global trade, but rather to focus on specific interests in trade that benefit the unique nature of each party involved.

Canada can embrace China, and Europe can embrace India; in the bigger picture it really doesn’t matter.  These relationships only create dependencies which are the natural outcome of globalism.  From President Trump’s position, what really matters is what happens within our borders and how the United States economy is positioned.  This is President Trump’s singular focus.

Do you remember President Trump leaving the 2025 G7 meeting in Canada early? The final day invitation list brought Australia, Mexico, Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, India, the United Nations and the World Bank into the G7.  President Donald Trump smartly exited the G7 assembly a day early, he departed before that crowd of interests arrived.  The world leaders came because the process to keep USA wealth inside the USA is against their interests.  That’s why they came, and that’s why President Trump left.

Globalism, in its economic construct, is a series of dependencies. However, the opposite is also true. If nations are not dependent, they are sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed. If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies?

“G7”?

Jan 27 2026

NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte Delivers Brutally Honest Message to Virtue Signaling Brussels


Posted originally on CTH on January 26, 2026 | Sundance 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte delivered a direct reminder to the EU in Brussels.  Brushing aside criticism after Donald Trump published private messages between them and telling EU lawmakers, he did not mind the disclosure. Speaking directly to the EU nations at the European Parliament, Secretary Rutte defended Trump’s NATO record, warned Europe cannot defend itself alone, and rejected claims linking Greenland talks to Ukraine.

Rutte reminded the European assembly that without the United States there is “no way” for Europe to defend itself. WATCH:

.

Full EU MEETING VIDEO:

Jan 27 2026

A Domestic Insurgency Has Erupted – President Trump Sending Tom Homan to Minneapolis


Posted originally on CTH on January 26, 2026 | Sundance

The violence in Minneapolis erupted when the scale of financial fraud was discovered.  The administration of President Trump has begun to highlight this non-pretending reality.

On the surface it seems like ICE enforcement is the issue; however, in reality Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey have been leading a criminal syndicate, with the entire region engaged in money laundering and financial fraud.

State political leadership are involved. The local Minneapolis police are involved; the Minneapolis municipal leaders are involved; a large and dedicated segment of the migrant population is involved; corrupt judges and officers of the courts are involved; public and private sector agencies involved in fraudulent exploitation of benefits are involved, and the community activists -footsoldier communists- are engaged in the process of using civil unrest as cover.

As the violent insurgency escalates, President Trump has announced Border Czar Tom Homan is being sent to the region:

“I am sending Tom Homan to Minnesota tonight. He has not been involved in that area, but knows and likes many of the people there. Tom is tough but fair, and will report directly to me. Separately, a major investigation is going on with respect to the massive 20 Billion Dollar, Plus, Welfare Fraud that has taken place in Minnesota, and is at least partially responsible for the violent organized protests going on in the streets. Additionally, the DOJ and Congress are looking at “Congresswoman” Illhan Omar, who left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars. Time will tell all. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” ~ President DJT

When we went to Iraq/Afghanistan, American political leadership said we were going to fight them “there” so that we didn’t need to fight them “here.” However, that same American political leadership then imported hundreds-of-thousands of them to here.

The communist-minded community activists have joined with the Antifa domestic terrorists and adopted the strategy of insurgencies.  Former retired Green Beret Officer Eric Schwalm writing on X accurately draws attention to the similarity of action:

Eric Schwalm: “As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.

What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.

Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.

This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.

The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in.

When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.

I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.

Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.

We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.

Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore. It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.” [source]