FBI Director Kash Patel appears on Fox News Sunday to discuss ongoing FBI issues with Maria Bartiromo.

Beginning with the issue of missing scientists, Kash Patel notes the FBI is “working with partners in various jurisdictions” to review each case and identify if something more nefarious is afoot.  The questioning then shifts to an explosive accusation by The Atlantic about his drinking, partying and indulgences within his position.  Patel notes he is going to sue the Atlantic for defamation.

Maria Bartiromo also asks if Kash Patel has seen any evidence of the 2020 election fraud as outlined by President Trump for several years.  Patel notes he cannot talk about ongoing investigations but hints that more information is likely to come out within the next few weeks.  WATCH:

.

From my personal perspective, Kash Patel does like the indulgences that come with the office. However, I think the accusations against him are likely spurred by disgruntled FBI agents and DOJ officials with an axe to grind.

That said, it still doesn’t appear that Director Patel has his arms around the agency he leads, and it is not uncommon to find people within the Trump administration who are frustrated with ongoing dubious activity carried out by remnant FBI officials who are not being brought to heel.

(more…)

A formal announcement is likely tomorrow; however, leading information now affirms Acting AG Todd Blanche is moving Joe DiGenova and Christopher-James DeLorenz into positions in South Florida to assist U.S. Attorney Jason Quiñones in ongoing investigation of the Donald Trump targeting.  The venue puts any grand jury information in the court orbit of Judge Aileen Cannon.

Before getting into the substance, the alignment here is critical to understand.  Judge Cannon saw firsthand exactly what the Lawfare constructs consist of when she had the Jack Smith operation in her court during the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  Judge Cannon knows the context of weaponized justice and saw the techniques through first-hand experience.  This cannot be emphasized enough.

There are a lot of people who want to see some form of accountability finally delivered for the decade-long corrupt Lawfare operation that took place against Donald Trump before he took office (Spygate), during his administration (Russiagate, Mueller, Impeachment), after he left office took office (Jack Smith and Mar-a-Lago) and even through today (Judicial Intervention).  Many of those voices have concerns about 81-year-old Joe diGenova, so let me address that first by pointing out how the issues that frame the criticism are also a valuable asset.

Joe diGenova has a very rare current perspective; he completely sees the timeline of Trump targeting for what it is.  This is immensely valuable because not enough people understand the complex continuum enough to stand back and see the bigger picture.  diGenova sees the bigger picture.

diGenova can see the 2015/2016 FBI contractor political spying operation (Spygate) and how it connects to the later Fusion GPS/Clinton construct of Russiagate. More importantly, diGenova sees the connective tissue -the actual characters- flowing from Spygate, through Russiagate, into the Mueller investigation, then into the impeachment effort and then into the Jack Smith operation.  Seeing the big picture is the first step.

Now, critics point out that diGenova is a creature of DC. Yes, that is true. However, that’s also an asset given that he understands just how difficult it is to navigate through all of these ridiculous DC interests.  diGenova is also a character, boisterous perhaps intemperate and easy to Alinsky (isolate, ridicule, marginalize). So what? It doesn’t matter who is involved in this effort, they are going to be Alinsky’d by the Lawfare operatives on the other side.

Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing see the big picture and have a skillset to tell the story.  They can assist brilliantly and direct the telling of the story by connecting the lead prosecutors to the background script of how everything unfolded over the past decade.  If Quiñones is researching a “conspiracy” case, it is the primary job of the investigative researchers to connect each of the evidence dots to the larger conspiracy.  Sounds perfect for diGenova.

(more…)

Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, appears for an interview with Katie Pavlich to outline the importance of bringing all of the information about the Intelligence Community targeting of President Trump to the public.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and We the People want to see accountability for the Machiavellian conduct.  The intelligence community targeted President Trump and people within the CIA ran an operation to remove him.  These people have names and titles that have remained hidden, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is putting those names, specific names into the public psyche so we can have a full understanding of what took place.

Now, for many here this may seem like information we have all known about; however, Gabbard is providing the receipts, the actual evidence, of how these IC operations took place.  WATCH:

.

DNI Gabbard is showing how specific people within government weaponized their positions to conduct some of the most insidious schemes in modern U.S. history.  The criminality of those schemes is for others in Main Justice to determine, but the evidence of those schemes is clear.

I am thankful that people are now starting to use the new information to review past timelines. [SEE HERE] What they will discover is that Michael Atkinson’s work with Mary McCord and the Lawfare network are not isolated events. This is a continuum of targeting against Donald Trump using all of the intelligence levers at their disposal.

Michael Atkinson and Eric Ciaramella are the current names, but beside them sits Mary McCord, Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Dan Goldman, Benjamin Wittes and many others from the Lawfare community.  They intersect with various high level government officials in Main Justice, the FBI, the CIA, NSA and various intelligence agencies.

This is the nest of Deep State and Tulsi Gabbard is exposing it.

(more…)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ for former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and former CIA Analyst (National Intelligence Council) Eric Ciaramella.

Atkinson was the intentional organizer of false impeachment material submitted by CIA operative Ciaramella.  Apparently, people know the background. lol

WASHINGTON DC – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for the whistleblower whose complaint helped trigger President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment and for the former intelligence community inspector general who notified Congress of the allegations, Fox News Digital has learned.

“I want to refer information that may constitute possible criminal activity in violation of federal criminal law committed by one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” ODNI’s general counsel wrote in the referral to the Justice Department. Fox News Digital on Wednesday reviewed the referrals ODNI sent to the Justice Department.

(more…)

It’s worth remembering how the IC silo process was used to manipulate proprietary claims by government agencies. These setups are intentionally designed this way, and none of the reasons behind them are good.

The CIA Whistleblower Complaint and subsequent Intelligence Community Inspector General investigation and report, falls under the work product of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  The IC IG is quasi-independent but works for the ODNI.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard is releasing direct stakeholder information from within the ODNI with the release as noted – SEE HERE.  This is the background information that led to the impeachment effort.  The DNI is the Executive Branch.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson was held within another branch of government, within the Legislative Branch, and as a consequence DNI Gabbard needed to gain permission from the House Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), another silo, in order to review the testimony that came as an outcome of the ICIG complaint and investigation. SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

DNI Gabbard then needed to request the release of the HPSCI transcripts [legislative branch] to her DNI office [executive branch] where all three aspects of the ICIG activity can then be examined and reviewed in full context.

The DNI then requests the HPSCI to permit declassification and public release.  HPSCI reluctantly agrees.  DNI declassifies then returns the transcripts to the HPSCI for public release – while simultaneously the DNI office declassifies and releases the baseline ICIG investigative material so the public can have context.

The resulting outcome is a combined work product from five silos (HPSCI, DNI, CIA, ICIG, NSC) along with a statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and a summary of what all the combined materials show:

(more…)

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has retrieved, reviewed, declassified and forced the release of internal background documents related to the Intelligence Community’s collaborative effort to impeach President Donald J Trump in 2019.   {GO DEEP – BACKGROUND}

The HPSCI wants to take political credit for the release; however, the HPSCI was forced into this position by the diligent work of Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

Without DNI Gabbard, these documents would never have seen sunlight.   This type of public information release is exactly why DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been targeted by friend and foe alike.

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released two declassified transcripts from 2019 hearings with the former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, following a security review from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The Committee received the declassified transcripts from the ODNI the evening of Friday, April 10, 2026. These transcripts are from two hearings 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. (link)

Looking closely at the information in these three documents makes it clear why the HPSCI never wanted them released. Both current and former members, including Republicans, are tied to a pattern of willful blindness, knowing the details yet choosing to stay silent for months and even years afterward.

Former HPSCI Chairman, then HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes was a participant in the testimony.  Former HPSCI member, now CIA Director John Ratcliffe was a participant in the testimony.  Former HPSCI staff, now FBI Director Kash Patel was a participant in the testimony. [Think about it]

♦ Principle Players – The National Security Council leaker was Alexander Vindman.  The CIA “Whistleblower” was Eric Ciaramella.  The Intelligence Community Inspector General was Michael Atkinson.

There is a lot of information to review as the documents include:

(1) The CIA complaint from Ciaramella and subsequent ICIG investigation. (pdf)

(2) The first interview of the ICIG Atkinson by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), dated September 19, 2019. (pdf)

(3) The second interview of ICIG Atkinson dated October 4, 2019. (pdf)

(more…)

Against the backdrop of President Trump calling attention to the narcissism podcast universe, several people have made inquiry about relationships, motives, financial structures etc.

For those unaware, the traditional media framework of billionaire and corporate opinion/information shaping, modified itself for a new digital era.  However, the motives that underpinned the original control mechanisms remain the same, only the venues are different.

RED SEAT VENTURES HERE

As an example, most reasonably intelligent people caught on to the manipulative political content pushed by Rupert Murdoch, his family of control agents and the Fox Corporation media empire.  However, most people are unaware that Fox Corporation controls the information space of well-known current and former Fox News employees and contract agents that shifted to the podcast venues.

Fox Media purchased Red Seat Ventures {Citation} and expanded the narrative control operations through “podcasting.”  As a consequence, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Piers Morgan, Bill O’Reilly and many more still work for Fox Corporation, just in different venues.

When Tucker Carlson is interviewing Megyn Kelly during a podcast, or when Piers Morgan is interviewing Bill O’Reilly during a podcast, it is no different than Megyn Kelly interviewing Piers Morgan on Fox News television.  The platform changed, but the relationships -and more importantly the information content itself- is the same.  The same control mechanisms apply; it is just a different distribution channel.

Instead of watching Fox News, you are essentially watching Fox News ‘podcasting’ division, via Red Seat Ventures.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

In a two-week period right after the 2024 election, the most energy expended by the transition team putting a cabinet together was toward Main Justice or the Dept of Justice.  As a consequence, those around Lutnick and Wiles spent an incredible amount of time thinking about the Attorney General pick.

Following an insider discussion, I spoke with several people about positions and appointments, focused on pointing out that the transition’s priorities were misplaced. The AG needed to be someone with exceptional moral character, capable of gathering information and presenting it for public consumption, with the option of supporting criminal referrals if necessary.

The Attorney General wasn’t going to be the tip of the spear in any operation to confront the Deep State, because if Main Justice wanted to confront Lawfare they needed to confront the Intelligence Community first.  The IC controls all of the activity within the Dept of Justice.

Read that again for emphasis.  For the issues of greatest importance, the Intelligence Community controls all of the activity within Main Justice.  The IC is in control of the source material.  The IC is above the DOJ.  If you don’t strategize a confrontation with the IC first, it doesn’t matter what you do with the Dept of Justice.

The best example I could reference at the time was the Mar-a-Lago documents case and Judge Aileen Cannon.  In that example the Executive branch was targeting Trump through the DOJ/FBI, and representing the Judicial branch Judge Cannon was the firewall ensuring the appropriate administration of justice.

Trump’s defense, through Cannon, pushed back against the DOJ (Jack Smith) while Smith leveraged all his Lawfare tools back against Cannon.  You might remember the “classified document” issue went to the 11th CCA.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government position that any documents defined as “classified” by the executive branch that claimed, “national security,” should not be disclosed to the defendant, Trump.  The 11th CCA said when it comes to matters of national security, the judicial branch must defer to the determinations of the executive.

Basically, if the intelligence community decides certain information is tied to national security and labels it as classified for the DOJ, that decision can’t be challenged. The U.S. Supreme Court has backed this view. As a result, when it comes to national security issues, the judicial branch has to defer to the executive, giving the IC significant control over the DOJ.

If you drag former CIA Director John Brennan into court and Brennan’s lawyers argue ‘national security’ as a defense against indictment, inquiry or questioning, it’s not the DOJ (Attorney General) who matters – it’s the ‘national security’ determination of the Intelligence Community (Tulsi Gabbard) who controls the outcome.

(more…)