This afternoon, King Charles III will become the first British monarch to address the U.S. Congress since his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in 1991. Livestream Links Below
.
Today is not a good day for the Canadian trade team.
It started with Quebec’s new Premier in Washington DC meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer {citation} in order to talk trade {SEE TIMELINE} saying on Twitter, “Quebec wants a renewal of the [USMCA] to ensure a stable and predictable framework for our economic exchanges.” However, Mrs. Christine Fréchette (pictured left) then bragged about having strategic discussions with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. {citation}
For those who might not know, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a parasitic Wall Street and K-Street lobbying organization that has been locked out of trade influence since President Trump took office in 2017. It was the U.S. CoC who sold out our manufacturing base, paid-off prior administrations and wrote the actual trade language in almost every trade deal that destroyed U.S. manufacturing.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying organization who focuses on the bottom-line profits of U.S. multinational corporations, and they don’t care what happens domestically to American jobs, American manufacturing and American wages. The CoC is the organization who created the rust belt and destroyed our manufacturing base under the guise of promoting a “service driven economy.”
If Canada want’s a successful trade negotiation with the USA, the Chamber of Commerce is the last organization they should be strategizing with.
Then comes Prime Minister Mark Carney who not only steps on a rake, but he also publicly insults President Trump and the entire U.S. trade team by saying every country in the world privately tells him they regret making a trade agreement with President Trump. ¹{Citation at 28:10 of Video}
I’m going to post the entire video of Prime Minister Mark Carney discussing USMCA (Canada calls CUSMA) trade negotiations because the tone deafness of it is off the charts. That includes the Canadian Prime Minister saying that Section 232 national security reviews are a violation of the U.S-Canada trade agreement. Carney believes any independent U.S. trade position that negates trade with any Canadian sector is a violation of trade rules, yet he is afraid to sue over Sec 232 because he doesn’t want to discover the flaw in his mindset.
There is still no warrant requirement in the newest version of the FISA(702) reauthorization bill as proposed [SEE HERE]. The new modifications are only nine pages, and I would recommend all interested parties to review the language.
The House proposal is for a three-year extension of 702 with a new structural compliance report process that requires the FBI to submit a monthly report to the Civil Liberties Protection Officer (CLPO) within the office of the Director of National Intelligence. Essentially, the ODNI becomes the compliance auditor for how the FBI uses the process.
The CLPO reviews the names and summaries of intents that have been searched through the use of FISA (702) as submitted -monthly- by the FBI. If there are any violations or concerns the CLPO notifies the Intelligence Community Inspector General for investigation. Both the CLPO and the ICIG report to the ODNI (Tulsi Gabbard, currently).
“The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community shall investigate each query referred … to determine whether the query constitutes a violation of laws, rules, or regulations or an abuse of authority.” It’s another layer of compliance review intended to stop search abuses within the database that is held and maintained by the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command.
Here’s the issue with that part: The FBI can only submit the names that were searched if they are aware of them. Meaning, the FBI doesn’t maintain the audit trail, so the FBI only knows who was searched using 702 based on the FBI ‘searcher‘ reporting their search.
This compliance process doesn’t address unlawful database searches that are not reported because they are unknown to the FBI compiling the report.
The NSA and Cyber Command would still need to be monitoring and auditing the searching of the NSA database; and those searches may, or may not, be done by FBI officials who are filling out reports telling the DNI of their activity.
If a non-FBI person is abusing the database; or if an FBI agent simply doesn’t report his search; that/those search(es) would not show up on the monthly report to be delivered to the CLPO. Hence, how would the Civil Liberties Protection Officer even know?
That layer of compliance just doesn’t make sense.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a public hearing on matters related to the FBI Arctic Frost targeting of President Trump supporters. The hearing will be chaired by Senator Eric Schmitt and new documents were released today {SEE HERE} in connection to this hearing.
Jeffrey Clark will be one of the people testifying at this hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 10:15am ET. {Committee Link With Video} Livestream Links Below:
.
The summary is: the Democrats ActBlue fundraising apparatus is a scheme to launder foreign funds and hide large donor activity through a process of straw (fake) small amount donors. The House Judiciary Committee investigated as media reports of the fraud began to surface. The House sent subpoenas to five key ActBlue witnesses. The witnesses showed up and plead the fifth – Twitter Summary Here.
WASHINGTON — ActBlue employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right at least 146 times in depositions with congressional committees investigating alleged donor fraud on the fundraising platform, according to an explosive report released Monday.
Two ActBlue officials, one of whom formerly served as VP of customer service, and three of its former lawyers “declined to answer a single one of the Committees’ substantive questions,” stated the interim staff report from the House Administration, Oversight and Judiciary Committees.
“Their unwillingness to testify only amplifies the Committees’ concerns,” the report added of the depositions between July and December 2025, also citing ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Wells’ seemingly “false statements to Congress” and withholding of documents pursuant to a subpoena for records. (read more)
Acting on his own investigation, media reporting from the New York Times as well as his own state investigation, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtron has filed a lawsuit against ActBlue.
Late last night (midnight) the House members were called back to session in order to vote on a procedural rule to facilitate a negotiated FISA(702) extension. The advancement vote failed to pass the House (200-220) collapsing the bill, which is not a bad outcome all things considered.
House Republican leaders posted a compromise FISA amendment just before 11 p.m., and then called the House members to vote. The Amendment would have extended FISA (702) for five years and did include language that would have strengthened criminal penalties for misuse of the program, and some language that would have required warrants under certain circumstances.
However, there is strong opposition in the House to a FISA(702) extension that doesn’t contain a full warrant requirement when the FISA search targets, directly or indirectly, an American citizen. A rather eclectic group of Republicans including: Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Andy Harris (Md.), Darin LaHood (Ill.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa), Zach Nunn (Iowa), Andy Ogles (Tenn.), Scott Perry (Pa.), John Rose (Tenn.), Keith Self (Texas), Mike Turner (Ohio) and Jeff Van Drew (N.J.) voted against the bill.
Leftists are voting against anything Trump supports, though there are some democrats who are consistent in their efforts to stop FISA (702) for many years. You can tell from the Republicans who opposed last night’s bill, that there is also a wide divergence of opinion on the issue.
My personal opinion is that most of the legislature, both parties, don’t have any honest understanding of how FISA (702) is used, has been used, and will likely continue to be used. While this effort at reauthorization may have failed, it’s not really a bad thing and more time for lawmakers to get educated on the core issue is always a good thing.
The root of the issue is the Fourth Amendment and ultimately the process that FISA (702) touches on, which is electronic surveillance.
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.
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:
Taking a break from the DC hate mail, to review other current events.
[SOURCE]
He’s “deeply sorry.”
You have to remember how close they are in all their collaborative efforts in order to truly appreciate the level of disingenuous gaslighting present in this effort to create distance.
Throughout Spygate, Russiagate and all the impeachment nonsense, Adam Schiff was Batman to Eric Swalwell’s Robin. They were/are peas and carrots, partners in every sense of the word.
Schiff and Swalwell organized together, planned and conducted media hits together, schemed together, shared the same staff together and were fundamentally side-by-side in everything. However, now that Swalwell’s perverted zipper problems and rape tendencies have become the talk of California and Washington, DC, Schiff retracts:
The wheels on the bus go, whomp, whomp, whomp.
Swalwell’s staff is now making public pronouncements about his horribleness, despite their years of knowing about his gross sexual escapades.