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…)

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…)

The Daily Mail has written a rather explosive story saying Attorney General Pam Bondi was fired because she leaked or gave a heads up to Eric Swalwell about the FBI re-reviewing the investigative files about him [STORY HERE].

Without discussing the motive or background, the story itself just doesn’t make sense.

What most people probably don’t know is that former FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Counterintelligence Division, Joseph Pientka III, currently works for Congressman Swalwell [CITATION].

FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former partner, Joe Pientka, works for Eric Swalwell.  Now, remember Joe Pientka’s very high security job inside the FBI Counterintelligence office? [REMINDER]

Because of his former role, Joe Pientka has deep ties to senior agents inside the current FBI, the type of agents who would know the inside details of any Swalwell investigative activity.

[SIDENOTE: Following the ridiculous Russiagate, and after the hand-off to Robert Mueller, Joe Pientka was transferred to the FBI San Francisco field office; hence, the regional alignment with Swalwell [CITATION].  Sometime in mid 2019, Joseph Pientka was promoted by FBI Director Christopher Wray and transferred to the San Francisco FBI Field Office where he showed up on their web page. END SIDENOTE]

Bondi wouldn’t need to tip off Swalwell. Pientka, currently working for Swalwell, would already know the ins/outs of every detail therein. [It’s a red herring]

FBI Director Kash Patel couldn’t start to review (or re-review) Swalwell activity without triggering one of those inside contacts aligned with Pientka.

(more…)

To say this report has been widely shared on conservative media would be an understatement; but something just doesn’t sniff right.

[Tweet Below: Samantha Power in Ukraine, October 2, 2024]

The essence of the reports is that Ukraine officials discussed a scheme to receive money from USAID, essentially from the CIA, then launder the money through fake Ukraine ‘clean energy programs’ using various front groups, eventually culminating with the money being transferred to the Joe Biden reelection effort.  That’s the gist of the report.

However, as much as this story is of great interest to me, for reasons outlined below, there are multiple red flags which should indicate serious caution needs to be applied.

First red flag.  Every single report about the issue links back to the original John Solomon report, written mostly by Jerry Dunleavy. [SEE HERE].  There is no follow-up reporting from any other outlet or source on this exceptionally explosive claim.

Second red flag.  Despite the report centering around a “declassified intelligence intercept” under review by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, there is no citation for the interpretation of the information itself.  There is no visibility into a declassified report, which if genuinely declassified would be easy to share with readers.

The absence of citation for the core claim, while simultaneously stating the information has been declassified, is a significant flag.  This type of reporting relies on the reader accepting the interpretation of the author who chooses -without saying why- to keep it hidden.

Third red flag.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not commented on the declassified originating information, nor on the reporting or interpretation of it by Solomon.  This is not to say the reporting itself is inaccurate, but simply to note that no one is going on the record to substantiate it; and again, the information is hidden.

Fourth red flag.  If the core information was accurate, it would be attacked (spun and shaped) in a defensive posture by the leftist media who have direct contacts with allied intelligence officials who would know about it.  When an explosive IC claim is ignored by leftist media (NYT, WaPo, Politico, et al) generally that means they want to see the narrative advance or be emphasized.  This posture of advancement is generally made when information is being wrongly interpreted, and that plays positively toward their interests.

(more…)

Washington DC uses a system of decades-long constructed silos to control and ultimately hide information adverse to the interests of the DC system itself.  Put another way, people within our government have constructed layers of systems to hide the corruption that takes place.

This silo system is challenging to understand; but thankfully many more people have started to comprehend how it works. The constitutional separation of power mechanisms has been weaponized by the corrupt actors, as we outlined in the example yesterday of Adam Schiff hiding the transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson.

All of us have been frustrated to hear politicians in the legislative branch talk about “sending criminal referrals” to the Dept of Justice, and yet nothing happens.  Part of this is created by ‘stakeholder equities’, specific ownership of the underlying documents that do not accompany the referral (locked in a non-compliant silo).  The intelligence community is notorious for classifying and hiding the evidence of wrongdoing.

Without the direct and specific evidence, and without an aligned intent from the receiver, the referral itself is more of a legislative fundraising narrative than an actionable event.  A pitch without a catcher, and sometimes even without a ball.

You are not alone in your frustration.  However, you might remember CTH providing a very specific outline of how a key position within government could be used to change things.  {GO DEEP} The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, shutting down the IC from hiding evidence is key.  An honest and truthful arbiter of intelligence is a paradigm shift in the DC system; it is also a threat.

With Executive Branch DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassifying purposefully hidden intelligence equities, in combination with the Legislative Branch providing source material from their own silo equities, what you get is an unimpeded flow of information to the Dept of Justice.

(more…)

In 2023 Lt Gen Michael Flynn filed a $50 million lawsuit against the DOJ for wrongful prosecution.  Yesterday, the DOJ settled with Flynn for approximately $1.2 million.

As many of you are aware, the former National Security Advisor to President Trump was targeted by the FBI and DOJ during the Russiagate phase of the Trump targeting effort.

Michael Flynn was investigated by Robert Mueller and prosecuted, wrongly, for lying to FBI agents Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap about the content of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  Flynn was also investigated for FARA violations.

When the Mueller team threatened his family, in November 2017 Michael Flynn signed a guilty plea which he later withdrew as more evidence of FBI and DOJ corruption began to surface.

(VIA AP) – WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has settled for roughly $1.2 million a lawsuit from Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump who pleaded guilty during the Republican’s first term to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian diplomat and was later pardoned.

Court papers filed Wednesday do not reveal the settlement amount, but a person familiar with the matter, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to disclose nonpublic information, confirmed the total as about $1.2 million. (read more)

The granular details showing Flynn’s malicious prosecution were researched and highlighted on CTH for years.  There is no doubt Flynn’s targeting by the DOJ and FBI was entirely political in nature.  In 2018 attorney Sidney Powell took on the mission to defend Flynn that eventually led to the DOJ dropping the case.  President Trump then pardoned Flynn.

Following the announcement of the DOJ settlement, Michael Flynn and family released the following statement:

(more…)

For the past several years I have been advocating for ‘sunlight as the best disinfectant.’ Since September of 2025 I have been working through a painfully slow and convoluted process to share research, assist truth tellers and guide those who have the authority to deliver the sunlight. Today, I can happily report on progress.

In 2019 an impeachment effort against President Trump was triggered when a member of the National Security Council named Alexander Vindman coordinated with a member of the National Intelligence Council named Eric Ciaramella to fabricate a false claim that President Trump leveraged his power and authority to demand Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy release information on Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt financial dealings in Ukraine.

At the time of the 2019 impeachment construct Eric Ciaramella was working for the CIA as an analyst within the National Intelligence Council (NIC).

Two years prior to the 2019 impeachment construct, in January 2017, the same CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, had worked on the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the behest of CIA Director John Brennan.

[SIDEBAR: In 2025 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, working with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, removed the NIC from inside the CIA.  To provide greater overall transparency within the intelligence community, the National Intelligence Council was moved into the purview of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)].

Key point: Eric Ciaramella was one of the key analysts who constructed the fraudulent ‘Russian interference ICA’ (2017) and later the fraudulent impeachment effort (2019).  Eric Ciaramella became the “anonymous CIA whistleblower” in the 2019 impeachment effort.

Before 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson changed or modified the ICIG rules permitting Ciaramella to remain anonymous and make a claim that ultimately led to an impeachment effort.

Eric Ciaramella allegedly fabricated intelligence information, shared it with Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), and then remained anonymous. HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff was said to have assisted him.

On October 4, 2019, as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation. One of the key questions to ICIG Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.

During later questioning by then-Congressman John Ratcliffe, as part of the House impeachment effort, it came to light that Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous ‘whistleblower’, had lied about key details when questioned by Atkinson. WATCH VIDEO: 

(more…)