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.
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.
As most of you know for several years, I have been on the trail of the intelligence community role in the targeting of President Trump. Part of that research involved locating evidence to show exactly who was inside the intelligence apparatus and what they were doing.
Simultaneous to my effort, I notice there has been growing frustration over the fact that none of the participants in the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” construct have been brought to justice.
I’m going to explain as best I can why accountability is not happening, while disclosing the latest information I have to share.
Just as the location of Devin Nunes’ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report into the formation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was unknown until last year, so too was the location of the transcript containing testimony from Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson similarly hidden.
The HPSCI report on the ICA was buried in the security vault of the CIA. Following the change in administration, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard found it and released it.
The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony about the CIA whistleblower is also buried; only now we know where the House Impeachment Committee co-chair Adam Schiff hid it. The transcript is in a sealed classified vault inside the HPSCI.
The transcript is being read this week, it may have already been read. I am confident the reason for Adam Schiff to classify it and hide it will become transparently obvious to the reader. However, then we as a nation face a problem.
Now, we could drag this out, wait to see how it plays and remain quiet while we watch. However, too much time has been wasted; so let me just cut to the chase. The transcript is one key part of the information that proves the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind the August to December 2019 impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.
In late 2019, President Trump’s own CIA, our government, was trying to weaken and remove President Trump.
The full background of the situation is described below, with citations. I strongly suggest we all think about the implications.
President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have noted that following the ouster of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the remaining government is being pressured to realign their positions and accept a change in direction. It is always tenuous when the leader of a hostile foreign government is removed.
The current approach by the Trump administration is to permit former Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez to continue operating the mechanisms within the country to retain near-term stability.The CIA assessedDelcy Rodriquez was the interim ruler who could keep order.
Prior to the removal of Maduro, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, was asked by the Trump administration to provide a detailed summary of how she could form a functioning government, should she be assisted to power.
Machado’s response did not provide confidence that her strategy was comprehensive enough. Therefore, the Trump administration assessed the best interim approach would be to continue working with the remaining Maduro government officials, led by Delcy Rodriquez, while pressuring them to follow the instructions of the United States.
Various geopolitical powers, including many that attend Mar-a-Lago functions, want Maria Corina Machado installed quickly. President Trump and Secretary Rubio are being more measured in their approach. The powers that want Machado installed are now working on a media strategy. Sean Hannity is enlisted for the assist.
The issue is one of competency and chaos. President Trump and Secretary Rubio do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past (Bush/Powell, Iraq or Obama/Clinton, Libya). The Venezuela issue is entirely different from the Middle East, but the same type of chaos can reemerge if the transition from authoritarianism to representative democracy is not well managed.
The Sea Island attendees support a quick Machado installation. Trump/Rubio prefer to proceed with more caution, especially because someone is going to be on the hook for financial support to Venezuela, because the domestic rewards from any expanded oil revenue are at least 5 to 10 years away.
Changing the regime in Venezuela may break China’s ‘belt and road’ grip, but China’s money is going to need to be replaced with independent domestic economic wealth for the Venezuelan people. That process takes time.
Maria Corina Machado is supported by all the same networks who support Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Despite the twinkles in the eyes of senators within the Foreign Relations Committee, we don’t want Venezuela to become North America’s largest Somali daycare operation.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, Tom Cotton, appears on CBS with Margaret Brennan to discuss reaction to the capture of Nicolas Maduro, the current status of Venezuela and the longer-term ramifications. Video and Transcript Below:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton. Good to have you here. Senator.
SEN. TOM COTTON: Thanks, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have oversight of the intelligence community which was deeply involved in this operation to go into Venezuela militarily and extract Nicholas Maduro and his wife. Does the US still assess that the regime in Venezuela is made up of Narco terrorists with ties to Iran, Russia, China and Cuba?
This is very interesting timing considering the recent denial by Zelenskyy that Ukraine had anything to do with the attack on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence.
According to Politico, Zelenskyy is removing Vasyl Malyuk as head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the state’s top counterintelligence agency. Malyuk previously worked with British intelligence on operation “Spiderweb” where Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s strategic bombers on several protected airfields (USA not informed).
Vasyl Malyuk (pictured above right) was reportedly also behind the St Petersburg terrorist attack that killed Russian blogger Maksim Fomin, 40, who was more popularly known by his pen name, Vladlen Tatarsky. The important element of this shift is the intelligence nature of Malyuk and his covert operations, which arguably did not always flow through information channels.
VIA POLITICO – Vasyl Malyuk as head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the state’s top counterintelligence agency, as part of an ongoing government reshuffle.
The reshuffle has already seen two other top spies — Kyrylo Budanov and Oleh Ivashchenko — shifted to other responsibilities. Budanov has agreed to head the president’s office, while Ivashchenko will be chief of the HUR military intelligence service. Malyuk is said to be fighting to retain his post.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Ukraine did not target the personal residence of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, “according to U.S. officials.” However, Russia captured one of the drones intact and have said they were able to “extract a file containing a flight plan from the navigation unit” which they plan to share with the Trump administration through established channels. {LINK}
WSJ – WASHINGTON—U.S. national-security officials said Wednesday that Ukraine didn’t target Russian President Vladimir Putin or one of his residences in an alleged drone operation, challenging Moscow’s assertion that Kyiv sought to kill the Russian leader.
That conclusion is supported by a Central Intelligence Agency assessment that found no attempted attack against Putin had occurred, according to a U.S. official briefed on the intelligence. The CIA declined to comment.
The U.S. found that Ukraine had been seeking to strike a military target located in the same region as Putin’s country residence but not close by, the official said. (read more)
Who are we going to believe, Russian “special service” operations or anonymous “U.S. Intelligence Officials”?
Unfortunately, this question is no longer easy to answer given the history of the U.S. Intelligence Community, and yes, that includes the current embedded IC officials within the National Security Council, DNI and CIA even with Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe in position.
I would be very surprised if the U.S. Intelligence Community would be honest with President Trump on this issue if, and that is a big “if”, they even factually had any specific intelligence about it. [This WSJ narrative could be fake news]
Again, CTH will also assert the likelihood that Volodymyr Zelenskyy likely didn’t carry out the attack; everything about the timing of it during his meeting with President Trump just doesn’t fit. Instead, it is more likely British intelligence, specifically MI6 carried out the attack, timed specifically for the Trump/Zelenskyy meeting.
As we noted yesterday, lawyers representing former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}. However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position.
You have to go deep in the weeds to see it, but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan’s lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case. As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham.
In 2025, Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.” However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it.
Lawfare lawyer Kenneth Wainstein, representing former CIA Director John Brennan, confirmed in a proactive litigation letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, their client is a “target” of a grand jury investigation.
The word “target” is important here, because the letter specifically outlines how Brennan has received subpoenas for documents and information surrounding his construct of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
The letter notes that prosecutors from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, have advised Mr. Brennan that he is “a target” of a grand jury investigation.
The letter is by Mr. Kenneth Wainstein, a partner in Mayer/Brown law firm, Washington DC, who served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he describes a “concocted case” and “politically motivated and fact-free criminal investigation.”
Wainstein is seeking proactive intervention by Chief Judge Altonaga to block U.S. Attorney Quinones from seeking jurisdiction in the Fort Pierce Division, the court with jurisdiction over the Mar-a-Lago raid, led by Judge Aileen Cannon.
I strongly urge everyone interested to READ THE ENTIRE LETTER to understand why I shared prior warnings about the nonsense ramblings of perhaps well-intentioned voices who will create problems for this case against Brennan if it is to continue.
Pay attention to the footnotes being cited by Brennan’s lawyers, as they begin to pull in some of the commentary by voices who have publicly given opinion about the overall Trump targeting operation. Mike Davis’ name appears frequently in this letter, as the Brennan defense team begins to frame the conspiratorial nature of some claims against their client.
In essence, the Brennan legal team are attempting to refute the evidence, by pointing to the blanket of some crazy commentary that covers it. This is exactly what I have been cautioning about {SEE HERE}.
One of the many things I have learned, in my research and discussions about corruption in government, is that willfully blind defenders of DC corruption all seek the same way to avoid touching it.
The best way to coverup corrupt DC activity is to bury the damaging evidence under a pile of crazy that no one will touch. That strategy works well. I’ll explain why with examples.
There is a rather large network of people, podcasters and financially dependent pundits pushing a false expectation around “Russiagate,” the collaborative Clinton/FBI operation to smear Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and then subsequently use the false Trump-Russia claims to continue targeting his administration.
CTH has outlined a very distinct difference between “Russiagate” and “Spygate.” {GO DEEP} We remind all readers there will likely never be any indictments for the Russigate operation. To understand why, it’s best to think about the Trump targeting operation in stages:
Spygate 2012 to April 2016
♦ Russiagate Apr 2016 to May 2017 ♦
Mueller/Weissmann May 2017 to April 2019
Nadler/Schiff Impeachment Aug 2019
COVID Mail-Ballots 2020
Durham Oct 2020 – 2022
Jack Smith 2022 – 2024
Spygateis intentionally never discussed (I’ll come back to it). However, the Russiagate phase is the part that people are most familiar with. Unfortunately, discussing the evidence behind Russiagate became a lucrative business, and there are now people dependent on retaining Russiagate headlines based on nonsense.
There will never be a criminal indictment for anything to do with the “Russiagate” phase of the Trump targeting operation. The ‘why’ is simple:
Special Counsel John Durham brought cases against the Russiagate crew, specifically Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussman. The predicate of the DOJ case was that the FBI was duped, tricked and misled by the Clinton campaign. Put another way, according to the DOJ – the FBI were victims of the Clinton conspiracy.
