If you have followed the construct of the Trump-Russia collusion story, you are likely outraged that accountability has not followed.  There’s a very frustrating reason for that, and I will explain how two distinctly different issues are being conflated.  Separating them is the key.

The first issue is the FBI’s illegal surveillance of presidential candidates, including candidate Donald Trump.  The second issue is the Clinton campaign inspired Russia-Collusion story, that led to Crossfire Hurricane, colloquially known as “Russiagate.”  All investigative emphasis, including John Durham, has been on the latter which takes you into a DC silo construct where all tentacles lead to dead ends and inaction.

Russiagate was a Clinton-inspired political smear campaign that was given the patina of credibility by the FBI opening the investigation called “Crossfire Hurricane.”  If you focus on that storyline, you end up with zero accountability and endless talk that goes nowhere.

However, if President Trump and DNI Tulsi Gabbard reveal the first element, the FBI’s illegal surveillance of candidate Donald Trump, that path has a physical trail and documents that cannot be deflected by political obfuscation.

♦THE FBI SURVEILLANCE – The original agreement between Clinton and Obama, going back to 2008, was for Obama to take the nomination, the presidency and then eventually support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election bid.

Obama would be President. Obama would appoint Clinton to Secretary of State, Hillary would then use her office to build wealth for herself and her family, and then HRC would exit the Dept of State to begin her presidential run.

John Podesta would enter the Obama administration as Hillary left (post Benghazi mess) in 2013.  Podesta would look out for Hillary’s interests from his position inside the Obama White House.  The Clintons and Obamas never fully trusted each other.

Barack Obama would put all the mechanisms into place that would transition his administration into Hillary Clinton’s.  That was always the plan running in the background.

(more…)

As we have watched things unfold, we have noticed that Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio seem to be the most effective at delivering results despite the efforts of the entrenched control mechanisms of the deep state intelligence community.  Actions speak louder than words, and while the words of many are strong, it is the actions of Gabbard and Rubio that show focus.

Previously Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard removed the National Intelligence Council from the CIA and removed the heads.  In the latest development, the intelligence apparatus is in a state of apoplexy because DNI Gabbard has experienced the politicization of the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s network (ICIG), and she is now taking bold actions around the silo control mechanism.

Before getting to the substance, it is worth reminding everyone of clear politicization within the ICIG when Michael Atkinson changed the CIA whistleblower rules in order to facilitate a false accusation against President Trump using CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman. Atkinson worked with his former boss in the DOJ, Mary McCord, to frame the construct of an impeachment against President Trump.

Also remember, Atkinson’s testimony to the House impeachment committee was sealed and classified by co-chairs Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler who were part of the framing.  That transcript has NEVER been released.

In the latest development, DNI Tulsi Gabbard has installed a key ally, Dennis Kirk, into the ICIG apparatus.  Kirk is in place to monitor the political operations of the Intelligence Community and report to DNI Gabbard so that she can eliminate the bad actors.  To say the Deep State IC embeds are apoplectic would be an understatement.  The Inspector General system within the Intelligence Community is a critical control mechanism for politicization of intelligence.

The leaks to the media are to the Washington Post, because this core part of the IC is a CIA element.  The CIA uses the Washington Post as their public relations and narrative distribution network.

(more…)

An interesting interview between Tucker Carlson and Former CIA Counterintelligence Operations Officer John Kiriakou about being targeted by the CIA and FBI after telling the truth about CIA torture ops.

Kiriakou outlines how no U.S. President ever controls the CIA, and why politicians are seemingly afraid of holding them accountable. WATCH:

Chapters:

0:00 Introduction
1:41 Speaking Out Against the CIA’s Torture Program
7:20 Why the CIA Loved Obama
19:05 Why John Brennan Hated Kiriakou
23:23 The CIA’s Torture Techniques
32:01 How the FBI Tried to Bait Kiriakou Into Committing Espionage

(more…)

I have been requested to update and revisit my outline from summer 2024 when I discussed the potential for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a position now occupied by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.  As a new White House strategy begins to surface, perhaps revisiting what is possible will provide a perspective not often discussed.

Confronting a weaponized Intelligence Community is of great interest, because it is a component battle against the main tools of the Fourth Branch of Government.  The IC influence is in every policy related to Trump’s domestic and foreign agenda. Taking control and neutering the capabilities of the IC and CIA specifically, is an important undertaking.

Again, as I originally noted in 2024, “This is going to be a little odd, because factually almost no one knows what the position of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is about.”  Sometimes you have to wait until people reach a point of frustration, when they turn around and say, “Hey, about that thing”…

The ODNI was created as an outcome of the 9-11 Commission recommendations.  In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. 

When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

Here is the weird part.  The ODNI was formed in 2004, with the intent for the office to be the pivot point of a national security radar.   The DNI was intended to provide information to domestic agencies about foreign terror networks that would prevent something like 9-11 from happening again.  However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has never, not for one day, operated on this intent.   This is why they are such a critical position from my perspective.

The office was new, not established yet as a functioning silo, when Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived in 2009.  They quickly dispatched an idiot, James Clapper, into the operation so they could weaponize around the office’s fulcrum point.

Prior to the DNI office existing, the CIA radar would sweep externally and then report to the Office of the President. The DNI was intended to take external radar sweep (CIA) and make it a full 360° circle, adding a sweep inside the USA that would be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security.

The DHS sweep and the CIA sweep would then be combined into a central collection hub called the ODNI.  Everyone with responsibility for “national security” could access the ODNI material. Essentially, and presumably, post 9-11 nothing like jihadists practicing flying airplanes would be missed again – at least that was the intent.

(more…)

The National Security Council is a ¹cushy job inside the White House filled with bureaucratic analysts and people who are in place in an attempt to steer policy.  Many of those detailed to the NSC represent the interests of the Silo agency from which they originate.

The National Security Council contains approximately 350 full-time employees.  The National Security Advisor, now Marco Rubio, is in charge of the NSC.  Secretary Marco Rubio just fired more than 100 of them.  A few quotes from Axios are beautiful, and telling:

[…] “The NSC is the ultimate Deep State. It’s Marco vs. the Deep State. We’re gutting the Deep State,” the official said of the move, which will cut the NSC staff to about half of its current 350 members. “The right-sizing of the NSC is in line with its original purpose and the president’s vision,” Rubio told Axios in a statement. “The NSC will now be better positioned to collaborate with agencies.” [link]

WASHINGTON DC – The Trump administration has put more than 100 officials at the National Security Council at the White House on administrative leave on Friday as part of a restructuring under interim national security adviser and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to two US officials and another source familiar with the matter.

[…] An email from NSC chief of staff Brian McCormack went out around 4:20 p.m. informing those being dismissed they’d have 30 minutes to clean out their desks, according to an administration official. If they weren’t on campus, the email read, they could email an address and arrange a time to retrieve their stuff later and turn in devices.

(more…)

I’m not sure why they choose Hannity but given that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now also the interim National Security Advisor, it’s worth quickly visiting his perspectives in this new dual role. WATCH (prompted):

.

(more…)

The question can be asked, has President Trump ever had a National Security Advisor who was not compromised?

Unfortunately, some people are rushing to the Mike Flynn redo. As a consequence, some context for why Flynn can never be in the administration again is needed. In brief, he’s a fibber.

In November of 2016 CTH first warned of the issue when it was rumored that Flynn would be selected as Trump’s NSA. [SEE HERE] We knew even before the election this could be a problem.  As far as we could surmise at the time – the Trump Campaign and subsequent President-Elect transition team, had no idea that campaign advocate and campaign adviser Michael Flynn was also being paid to lobby in DC on behalf of the government of Turkey, and ultimately put a positive perspective on Recep Erdogan.

The Flynn lobbying arrangement, a corporate lobbyist, then a foreign agent lobbyist, was beyond sketchy.  Before the 2016 election Flynn penned an op-ed advocating heavily for Recep Erdogan –SEE HERE–  The content was entirely disconnected from the assembled foreign policy outlook of Candidate Donald Trump. The Flynn Op-Ed was actually counter to candidate Trump’s policy views.

If you go read the Op-Ed now, you will notice a very specific editors note: “On March 8, 2017, four months after this article was published, General Flynn filed documents with the Federal government indicating that he earned $530,000 last fall for consulting work that might have aided the government of Turkey. In the filings, Flynn disclosed that he had received payments from Inovo BV, a Dutch company owned by a Turkish businessman with ties to Turkey’s president and that Inovo reviewed the draft before it was submitted to The Hill. Neither General Flynn nor his representatives disclosed this information when the essay was submitted.”

(more…)

The move and shift in National Security Advisor responsibility makes sense on a couple of different levels.  First the U.N position carries “prestige” softening the ouster of Waltz; second, with the foreign policy run from the White House, a dual Secretary of State/NSA role works under currently assigned responsibilities.

[SOURCE]

The combined nature of the SoS and NSA position makes good interim sense; both would have essentially been traveling the same itinerary.  However, putting the former head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence into place as National Security Advisor, well, that’s a level of trust that has never before been witnessed.

Mike Waltz becomes the Nikki Haley of term-2.

Optimal solution.

(more…)

CTH said in November 2024, I doubt he could succeed.   I said in December 2024, he would be the first to get fired.  I have said over the past several weeks it was obvious Mike Waltz was no longer in a position of National Security influence, and that President Trump had an NSA “in name only.”

Today, Trump fired National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and his deputy, Alex Wong….

VIA CBS – National security adviser Mike Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, will be leaving their posts in the Trump White House, according to multiple sources familiar with their departure.

[…] One source familiar with the situation at the National Security Council said the president thinks sufficient time has passed since the Signal incident that Waltz and Wong’s departures can be framed as part of a reorganization. The president has been hesitant to oust Waltz over the perception that doing so could be seen as bending to outside pressure.

Wong served in the first Trump administration as deputy special representative for North Korea and also as deputy assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the State Department. In announcing his appointment, Mr. Trump said that Wong helped negotiate his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (more)

I’m not going to repeat all the issues that made this outcome transparently predictable from the first day of then President-elect Trump’s announcement.  You can read the background HERE and HERE and HERE.

(more…)

I am trying to avoid my own confirmation bias, which is difficult in this case, because when Congressman Mike Waltz was announced as NSA to President-elect Donald Trump, immediately I thought he would be the first to exit the national security team; his ideology just doesn’t mesh right.

Following the fiasco with Signal and his Jeffrey Goldberg foul up, it looked like Waltz was pushed out of the immediate circle of influence and instead told to focus on restructuring the National Security Council.  His proximity still exists, but his immediate role appears -at least outwardly- to have shifted; he seems less influential as a direct emissary for President Trump to foreign intelligence peers and leaders.

I have this horribly annoying affliction to noticing small details and taking notes, and all indications point in that direction.  When you start to notice this shift, what becomes evident is within the verbiage used as a proximity person begins describing events as if they were an observer, not a direct participant. [The “we” is lost.] Listen to how Mike Waltz describes current geopolitical events, he sounds like a pundit not a participant.

.

If my suspicion is accurate, President Trump has a National Security Advisor in name only.

(more…)