For the past 72 hours I have been attempting to draw attention to the big picture.  The CIA tried to remove a sitting United States President.

The evidence has been released. {GO DEEP} The long-debated issue is no longer a matter of opinion or question.

The CIA tried to remove a President.

Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.

I see a lot of punditries missing the forest as they peer intently at the trees.

The CIA tried to remove a sitting President.

We now know the real reason CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella’s name was never ¹permitted to be mentioned. It’s not the name Eric Ciaramella that presented the issue, it’s the organization where he was working, the CIA – That’s what needed to be protected.

[¹The Biden administration created the Dept of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board to interact with Social media and create content controls.  That’s where Nina Jankowicz comes in.]

There was/is documented evidence showing the CIA tried to remove a sitting President from office.  CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’ worked with Joe Biden on Ukraine policy.  Biden appointed DHS Nina Jankowicz worked inside Zelenskyy’s campaign HQ.  Just a coincidence?

Don’t get lost in the details or the politics of this. When you peel back all the layers of DC, at its epicenter this was an operation to impeach a sitting President that came from within the CIA, and it almost succeeded. {GO DEEP}

In the details, 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 CIA 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.

Outlining Ciaramella’s activity not only hits CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper, but it also hits former President Barack Obama.

(more…)

I’m going to try and keep this short.

You can tell from the transcripts of the testimony from ICIG Michael Atkinson that at the time of his testimony, September 19, 2019 and October 4, 2019, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) was not in a classified session; simply closed-door.

In fact, during the October 2019 deposition, Ranking Member Devin Nunes went out of his way to clarify the status of the hearing itself.  Chairman Schiff reemphasized this was not part of the impeachment inquiry, simply a hearing to clarify questions from Republicans to ICIG Atkinson about the nature of the complaint created by CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.

This is interesting, because that means at the time of the hearing itself in 2019 any one of the members could have immediately gone to the microphones and discussed all of the information gained from within the questioning.   They didn’t.

Later on, Chairman Adam Schiff classified the Atkinson testimony in order to bury it.  The Lawfare impeachment crew, led by Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mary McCord, Dan Goldman, Barry Berke, Stephen Castor and Norm Eisen also weaponized the “ongoing investigation” classification to keep the CIA/ICIG report hidden during the impeachment effort.

President Trump was not even allowed to see/review the classified IC IG information that was being used to impeach him.

Now, as you can see from the attendance above, John Ratcliffe was present for both Atkinson depositions.  Despite his immediate silence, we know John Ratcliffe was concerned about the content within ICIG Atkinson’s statements as he relayed in a series of questions during a public hearing December 9, 2019 {SEE HERE}.

Ratcliffe questioned both Dan Goldman and Stephen Castor who were part of Adam Schiff’s staff and present during the October 2019, testimony of ICIG Atkinson.  WATCH THIS: 

(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…)

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…)

Democrat party leadership, bowing to pressure from their base of supporters, have previously announced their plan to reopen the border, dismantle Customs and Border Patrol and completely defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of the larger strategy to maintain the maximum number of illegal aliens as possible.

According to the Democrat plan, this approach has the support of the majority of Americans. However, President Trump, Speaker Johnson and Senate Leader Thune are working together on another approach.

[Via Truth Social] – “Republicans fully support our Great Men and Women of Law Enforcement, maybe the word should be, LOVE! America thanks each and every one of our wonderful Police, Border Patrol, ICE, and others, for their work to protect our Cities, Towns, Streets and, indeed, our Country itself.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats want to DEFUND the Police, Border Patrol, and all Immigration Enforcement. They want to allow Criminals, the Mentally Insane, and Lunatics from all over the World to come into our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, putting Americans in serious danger.

That’s why we are going forward to fund our incredible ICE Agents and Border Patrol through a process that doesn’t need Radical Left Democrat votes, and bypasses the Senate Filibuster (which should be repealed, IMMEDIATELY!), working in close conjunction with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune. We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us.

We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st. Our Law Enforcement Officers and the American People should not have to wait until the Democrats see reason or, learn the hard way through the Polls. Hopefully, everyone will be voting REPUBLICAN for the Midterms. Through simple unification, Republicans can do this without the Democrats!

In the meantime, we will continue to use funding from THE GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL, which is giving Record Tax Rebates to Citizens all over the Country, to ensure that ICE and Border Patrol Agents are paid ON TIME, and IN FULL, as we have been doing for them throughout the Democrat Shutdown. Immigration Enforcement will continue, and our Border will remain secure, with no Murderers, Drug Dealers, or Criminals of any kind entering our Country.

(more…)

I shared with readers last year that if CTH felt confident DC engagement would lead to positive results, I would take you on the journey.  Having spent so many years inside the rabbit holes of the DC intel matrix, We The People deserve to fully understand just how this corrupt system operates.  Well, as promised….

When you mention sensitive intelligence and the whereabouts of corrupt evidence that could expose the state of our weakened Republic, one of the first things you notice is that almost everyone in DC is afraid—both personally and institutionally—to acknowledge it.

The Deep State relies on this fear.

You can find this fear promoted in the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer when he said in January 2017, “when you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at ya.”

Schumer said this two weeks before Donald Trump first took office, aiming to drive home a key point – the DC intelligence system is built to go after anyone who threatens the interests of those overseeing it. Basically, if you try to take on DC corruption, there are guards in place ready to take you down.

President Trump, you, me and all Americans spent the next several years watching that dynamic play out in real time.

After a long stretch of exhausting research, endless digging, and getting lost in the rabbit holes created by the IC, you eventually figure out how to face the fear they stir up. The real issue isn’t the fear held by those providing the information—it’s the fear carried by those who receive it and are tasked with acting on it.

Taking on the intelligence community requires two key things. First, a fearless person in a position of authority who can stand strong against the intense manipulation they may unleash. Second, a strategy that makes telling the truth a personal mission.

(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…)

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…)