Partition Greenland!

Townhall 

President Trump’s contention that Greenland is vital to the national security of the United States is unassailable. With the continuing – beneficial – natural warming of our planet over future decades, and our increasing reliance on missile and space-based defense, the requirement of controlling Greenland for our national defense and other critical interests cannot be overstated.

In response to this clear national priority within our own hemisphere – which, in turn, would benefit and protect the entire West, the security of which has been guaranteed virtually entirely by the United States since 1945 – the Danish and other Western European governments recently have proclaimed inviolate “red lines” purportedly to protect the “territorial integrity” of the Kingdom of Denmark. This reflexive and prideful response – based on anachronistic historical events with little or no relevance to today’s world – is unacceptable. Unless and until Western Europe is prepared to guarantee its own security – which, of course, today cannot even be imagined – the priority of its governments must be to ensure the strength of NATO and the resulting collective security of its members. Under current and foreseeable circumstances, this requires that the United States must own and thereby fully and forever control Greenland.

But does the United States need all of Greenland? I’m not sure we do. Greenland conveniently is divided between Arctic Greenland – the island’s huge land mass lying north of the Arctic Circle – and Sub-Arctic Greenland, its much smaller triangular tip projecting southward from the Arctic Circle. The vital security interest of the United States lies in Arctic Greenland, which comprises over 80 percent of the island. This is the massive area that controls increasingly accessible Arctic shipping lanes, and is closest both to Russia and to the North Pole, with all of their geographic and astronomical significance to our national defense. There simply is no question that the United States, as the world’s superpower and primary defender of Western Civilization, must own and fully control Arctic Greenland.

At the same time, roughly 80 percent of Greenland’s population of approximately 57,000 people resides – not surprisingly – in Sub-Arctic Greenland, primarily in towns such as Nuuk (about 18,000), Qaqortoq, and Paamiut. These are the vast majority of Greenlanders who enjoy the “Scandinavian welfare system” recently extolled by the Danish Foreign Minister, and who now are marching in the streets of Nuuk to remain part of Denmark.

So why not partition Greenland along the Arctic Circle, with Denmark selling – or, more appropriately, gifting – Arctic Greenland to the United States while retaining sovereignty over Sub-Arctic Greenland? Denmark occupies less than 17,000 square miles, whereas Sub-Arctic Greenland comprises approximately 280,000 square miles – an area more than sixteen times the size of Denmark itself! So the Danes hardly could be heard to complain that the “territorial integrity” of their Kingdom has been violated if it continues to include such a huge non-European land mass upon which four of every five Greenlanders live.

Furthermore, although I’m not qualified to intelligently address military matters, as a lay person, it seems that – with ownership and control of Arctic Greenland – the United States could ensure that Sub-Arctic Greenland never will fall under the hostile control of China, Russia, or any other adversary. Thus, ownership and control of Arctic Greenland seemingly would meet our vital national security requirements.

It is true that most of Greenland’s presently known rare Earth minerals have been found south of the Arctic Circle, and the United States should share in this natural wealth, given our historic role in protecting Greenland from the Nazis and others. But, as President Trump just said in Davos, those minerals lie below a deep layer of ice – making them particularly expensive to extract – and we do not currently need them for our vital economic or security interests. Moreover, this wealth could and should benefit Greenlanders themselves. And, as four-fifths of the island lies north of the Arctic Circle, it seems likely that additional deposits of important minerals and other resources will be discovered in Arctic Greenland as well.

Certainly, partitions have not always successfully resolved international disputes. The foolish neutering of Israel by partition in 1947 was one of the most disastrous (and historically baseless) decisions in modern history. At the same time, however, few would question the wisdom of having created Pakistan and, subsequently, Bangladesh by partition from India. Czechoslovakia was successfully partitioned into the peaceful and prosperous neighboring nations of Czechia and Slovakia. And partitions have resolved a number of African disputes.

So here’s my humble suggestion: We should partition Greenland into Arctic Greenland, to be owned by the United States, and Sub-Arctic Greenland, to be owned by Denmark. I believe this would satisfy the vital interests and objectives of both countries.

Podcast thread for Jan 23

 

Stay safe out there!

President Trump Redefining What It Means to Be Presidential, Putting Predecessors to Shame

Trump’s unapologetic, America-first action—even when politically incorrect—should serve as the blueprint moving forward and the new standard to which all future presidents are held.

American Thinker 

Following President Trump’s “unambiguous” response to a disrespectful heckler at a Ford plant in Michigan, Democrats attempted to deflect from his many recent accomplishments by resurrecting tired talking points about his alleged lack of “presidential” temperament. This label first emerged during the 2016 election cycle, when Hillary Clinton failed in her effort to dissuade voters from supporting our now 45th and 47th president by arguing that his temperament would be detrimental to American interests. In the ten years since, Trump has proven that his temperament is not merely unproblematic but, in fact, one of his many strengths—redefining what it means to be “presidential” in the process.

In the modern age, political correctness is antithetical to a successful presidency. America is tasked with defeating a godless Democrat ideology at home—one that encourages irreversible gender mutilation surgeries for minors, removes guardrails from the American election system, and espouses rhetoric that demonizes law enforcement, among many other overt evils. Abroad, a wave of dystopian leftism continues to claim countless victims while attempting to spread its influence into the U.S. as well. Given this dire state of affairs, how a president confronts these challenges should determine whether they are “presidential” or not.

Unfortunately, the term continues to be conflated with political correctness. Nonetheless, President Trump prioritizes duty to country over appearances more than any president of the past fifty years, which is why he is, without a doubt, the most “presidential” of them all.

Throughout the Trump era, revisionist historians have effectively rebranded the tenures of past presidents. If a Trump predecessor possessed a poor policy record, the anti-Trump establishment in both government and media focuses on perceived character. If character was lacking, its importance is downplayed in favor of “the measurables.” Regardless of how scandalous or unsuccessful President Trump’s predecessors’ terms were, many are now spoken of favorably through empty platitudes designed to serve the anti-Trump mission of diminishing his historic support.

For decades, Jimmy Carter was rightfully tethered to his abysmal economic record as well as his poor handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. Now, he is most often spoken of as a great humanitarian and humble peanut farmer. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s economic record is frequently touted while the generational scandal that brought immense shame to the nation is downplayed.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden failed mightily from both a policy and character standpoint, yet both have seen their failures downplayed and their images reimagined. Obama steered the American healthcare system down a path toward socialism while weakening America’s standing abroad. He also divided a nation that had been united in the years following the September 11th attacks by ushering in an era of race-baiting anti-Americanism. Biden carried on the Obama legacy by choreographing the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal while presiding over an economic disaster that saw inflation rise at a greater rate than during the abysmal Carter years. He, too, divided the nation by directly attacking Americans who aligned with the MAGA agenda, labeling those who opted against the COVID vaccine as hospital-bound extremists, and brought further shame and embarrassment to the country by nurturing a period of transgender insanity—along with countless gaffes in the presence of the media and world leaders.

Democrats are unsurprisingly protected by the media (the evidence supports this). What requires more contemplation is why previous Republican presidents—viciously attacked while in office—are now astonishingly held in high regard by their former detractors. Ronald Reagan was vilified by the media throughout his terms for various policy stances, and his mental acuity was repeatedly questioned due to his age. By 2016, that same media was quick to spotlight his sons as voices of reason when they claimed our 40th president would disavow Trump if he were alive. Both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were constant media targets due to their economic records and handling of foreign affairs. They also endured character assaults, with H.W. labeled as out of touch and wimpy, and W. widely regarded as unintelligent because of his many “Bushisms.” Yet when it was revealed that neither voted for then-candidate Trump in 2016, their reputations were reframed to depict relatable former public servants living simple lives and championing “bipartisanship” through personal friendships with the Clintons and the Obamas.

Citing Trump criticism from previously chastised Republican presidents would be too glaringly hypocritical without this sudden about-face. Therefore, it is a necessary step in furthering the narrative of “condemnation of Trump from both sides of the aisle.”

The good news for America is that this coordinated effort has failed. That is because, since throwing his (red MAGA) hat into the political arena in June of 2015, President Trump has exemplified what it truly means to be presidential: unapologetically acting in the best interests of the nation’s people, regardless of resistance. That core principle has remained at the heart of Trump’s actions throughout his candidacies and presidencies. His 2016 candidacy was a direct call to action against corrupt and entrenched institutions. His 2016 victory proved that an elite, condescending class of faux experts in media and politics—who dismissed the cries of the “average” American—was far less influential than a nation fed up with its lack of options. His subsequent actions as president have only reaffirmed this pivotal principle. 

In addition to staving off multiple impeachments, indictments, and assassination attempts, President Trump—forced to pause his momentum between terms due to the fraudulent 2020 election—has saved America from two historically destructive presidencies. He closed the porous southern border and shored up America’s immigration system to prevent further entries while carrying out a multi-million illegal-alien deportation operation. He stood up for American industry by enacting tariffs that secured trillions of dollars in U.S. investment. He worked to address the Biden-era affordability crisis by lowering costs for food, gas, mortgage rates, and beyond. He protected America through a zero-tolerance stance on crime that resulted in the largest single-year drop in murders ever recorded just one year after reclaiming the Oval Office. Abroad, he brought an end to several major conflicts by demonstrating the power and precision of American military capabilities. These accomplishments—and countless others better suited for analysis in a long-form book than a single article—were achieved while exposing widespread waste, fraud, and abuse across state and federal governments at the expense of Americans.

No recent president has proven more capable of the task than President Trump. Because of this, he has become the model for what it truly means to be presidential. He has changed the presidency much as he has changed the nation as a whole—for the better. High scores on the political correctness scale while failing to deliver on substance as other countries take advantage of the U.S., should no longer be considered “presidential.” If it is, then the term itself should be rendered meaningless. Instead, Trump’s unapologetic, America-first action—even when politically incorrect—should serve as the blueprint moving forward and the new standard to which all future presidents are held.

The True Meaning Behind All The Rage

It’s not that lefts are angry, incoherent dimwits (although many are). However, for most, rage is their power source, and their goal is America’s destruction.

American Thinker 

With all that’s happening in the world, why am I writing about the video of a Karen repeatedly cackling “F off” to a cluster of duck hunters? Because it proves the broader point that leftists cannot present fact-based arguments about the issues successfully. Even the few who can choose not to because the goal isn’t to win the debate but to prosecute the violent overthrow of America. Screaming, swearing, violence, and mayhem facilitate that more than a genteel conversation in the public square.

But first, a confession: I’m no prude when it comes to swearing and have been known to throw the F word around with reckless abandon. But I wasn’t raised that way.

I was raised to believe and believe to this day, even as the filthy words spill out of my mouth, that swearing is not only uncouth and demonstrates a lack of decorum, but also that it can reflect a lack of education or creativity in expression. My parents wisely counseled my siblings and me that, to be taken seriously, we needed to find ways to express ourselves without swearing, explaining that one day we’d appear before a judge, boss, or client and would have to make a convincing argument without cussing.

That sentiment was once universal in American culture, but not so today. Swearing seems to have become an accepted form of expression, ubiquitous in contemporary music, on most TV shows, and all over the internet. Our politicians and entertainers openly swear. Even our presidents!

How often are you in a public place surrounded by certain individuals loudly talking on the speaker phone, and every other word is the F word in all its permutations?

This video of a Karen approaching a gaggle of male duck hunters on what looks like a beach (literally) squawking “F off! F off! F off! F off!” demonstrates my point.

She is laughable and ineffective and, instead of engaging them in spirited debate, ends up being ridiculed and scorned. When she does manage to speak, all she comes up with is that the hunters aren’t welcome on public property.

Something happens to these Karens when they interface with conservatives, especially white men with guns. They allow their rage to dictate their behavior. The rage is almost otherworldly, coming from a place of profound guilt for being a privileged white liberal, but it’s a guilt that is at odds with the self-righteousness these women feel entitled to express, as they remake the world as they think it should be. 

To conservatives, it might appear at first blush that these anti-ICE radicals and DNC Commiecrats are all about the F word. It seems to reflect unimaginable rage and irrational hysteria relating to an issue about which the radicals are so passionate that all reasonable expression is abandoned. Don’t be lulled into believing, though, that the beginning and end of these incoherent, obscene rants is that they’re suffering from some serious lack of creative expression or a mind-wiping anger. It’s more than that.

They have a mission beyond the superficial rage they would have us focus on.

Tea Party rallies were done with fun, love, and kindness, and we cleaned up after each event. We cooperated with law enforcement and abided by restrictions on our right to assemble. We were just as passionate about liberty, the Constitution, free markets, and low taxes as Commiecrats are about their issues.

But we weren’t remaking, revolting against, or re-imagining America as it should be. Instead, we were intent on restoring America to constitutional governance.

We didn’t occupy public or private property and call it our own, refusing to leave. We didn’t smash windows and destroy small businesses owned by the very people we claimed to be standing up for. We didn’t burn down buildings or obstruct law enforcement.

In a constitutional republic speckled with principles of democracy, it may take longer to effectuate change amicably, legally, constitutionally, and peaceably, but that is preferable to the destruction and hate that comes through the kind of violent revolution being advocated by nearly every Commiecrat out there except for maybe John Fetterman...and five years ago I never thought I’d be saying that.

When the left protests, there’s more than rage or frustration. There’s seething enmity. We saw it with the Pussy March when Trump was first elected, during the impeachments and prosecutions levied against him, during the George Floyd/BLM/DEI protests, and now with the ICE insanity.

Every time a congressional Commiecrat, the governor of a blue state, or the mayor of a blue city speaks, bile drips out all over. Journalists and talk show hosts spew their anti-anything American venom daily and with impunity. Don Lemon did it at the church invasion in Minnesota and then brazenly lied and hid behind his immunity as a “journalist” and the fact that he is a gay, black man. Do I hear Jussie Smollett, anyone?

It’s more than rage about the issues or mental illness, prescription meds, weed, or street drugs driving the behavior. It’s even more than demonic possession. Again, these are the things they want us to perseverate on, while they pursue their mission: a collective determination to destroy.

It’s easy to think of our Commiecrats as zombie-like, reacting in lockstep, converging on something en masse, walking in hordes over cliffs and into raging rivers. The impression they give is that they’re not responsible for their actions. That lets them off too easily.

Look at today’s anti-ICE Commiecrats. Their horde mentality is intentional. We see it when their comrades in the press disseminate a narrative in lockstep; when a protester gets on camera shouting “F off,” and the rest follow suit; when a car is weaponized, and it becomes the tactic du jour. Now that they’ve stormed a church, I’m sure more will follow.

They don’t do this merely out of rage about an issue but because it is the only path to revolution and cannot be brought about by polite debate and collegial cooperation.

Minneapolis’s leaders are pushing constituents to take to the streets and rage against our nation’s foundations—embraced by 90% of the country—because they are a crucial cog in the wheel of revolution. These useful idiots are hardcore activists networked and funded (often by foreign governments in Qatar, Iran, Russia, China) so they can mobilize in minutes for the sole purpose of sowing chaos in our streets...with the ultimate goal being a general strike and a Marxist revolution.

They don’t need the facts or stats, logic, or reasoning to accomplish their goals. Just a place to compulsively and convulsively shout “F you” while destroying everything in their way—not just buildings and property, but love of country, American culture, and resilience—courageously remaking this nation as they believe it should be, as Obama once said.

So, when you hear a Karen ranting, “F you,” it’s not anger about the American Dream slipping away, but about the fury needed for their Marxist Utopian Dream. And make no mistake: they relish in that fury.

If you doubt me, listen to Minnesota Church Stormer-in-Chief William Kelly rant about death threats against him, inviting people to “Go ahead, kill me...because...you can kill the revolutionary, but you can’t kill the Revolution.”

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

It’s Time to Call The Baby Ugly – Someone Needs to Tell President Donald Trump

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

As most of you know for several years, I have been on the trail of the intelligence community role in the targeting of President Trump.  Part of that research involved locating evidence to show exactly who was inside the intelligence apparatus and what they were doing.

Simultaneous to my effort, I notice there has been growing frustration over the fact that none of the participants in the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” construct have been brought to justice.

I’m going to explain as best I can why accountability is not happening, while disclosing the latest information I have to share.

Just as the location of Devin Nunes’ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report into the formation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was unknown until last year, so too was the location of the transcript containing testimony from Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson similarly hidden.

The HPSCI report on the ICA was buried in the security vault of the CIA.  Following the change in administration, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard found it and released it.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony about the CIA whistleblower is also buried; only now we know where the House Impeachment Committee co-chair Adam Schiff hid it.  The transcript is in a sealed classified vault inside the HPSCI.

The transcript is being read this week, it may have already been read.  I am confident the reason for Adam Schiff to classify it and hide it will become transparently obvious to the reader.  However, then we as a nation face a problem.

Now, we could drag this out, wait to see how it plays and remain quiet while we watch.  However, too much time has been wasted; so let me just cut to the chase.  The transcript is one key part of the information that proves the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind the August to December 2019 impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.

In late 2019, President Trump’s own CIA, our government, was trying to weaken and remove President Trump.

The full background of the situation is described below, with citations.  I strongly suggest we all think about the implications.

In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.

Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan; ultimately it was constructed by Julia Gurganus.

Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.

You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump.  However, in 2016 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.

♦ The key point to remember here is that Eric Ciaramella was one of the fabricators of the fraudulent ICA; constructed late December 2016 and presented in January 2017 as part of the foundation for the Trump-Russia narrative.

Earlier this year, DNI Tulsi Gabbard began to drill down onto the issue of the fraudulent ICA and how it was constructed.  Current CIA analysts within the former National Intelligence Council (NIC) and CIA Directorate of Analysis began to notice Tulsi was going to declassify background documents, including the two-year House Intelligence Committee report revealing the fraud.  Tulsi Gabbard became a target.

Julia Gurganus was an active government employee at the time Tulsi Gabbard began making inquiries.  The CIA (NIC) changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025 to that of a “covert” operative, in an effort to protect Gurganus.

The CIA changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025, reclassifying her as ‘covert’, specifically because of the ODNI’s intent to reveal the fraud within the 2016 Russia election investigation.  This, the CIA thought, would forcibly stop DNI Gabbard from exposing Ms. Gurganus and taking action.  The 2025 CIA effort did not work.

In late July of 2025, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA.

On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.

In August 2025, DNI Gabbard then declassified and released the CIA work product, and then later removed Julia Gurganus security clearance.

The CIA embeds at the NIC and directorate of analysis were furious, and subsequently leaked a false story to the Wall Street Journal saying DNI Gabbard had compromised a covert CIA operative working in government – a familiar ploy that had worked for them in the past.  However, this time it did not work, because her work history clearly showed Julia Gurganus was a known CIA employee.

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016, released in January 2017, just before President Trump took office. Ms Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of 2025.

Back to Ciaramella…

In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman also responsible for Ukraine, Russia Eurasia affairs, told CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella a fictional narrative about President Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to provide dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election.

Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019.  You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.

Facebook, Google, META, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter all deleted any mention of Eric Ciaramella as the anonymous whistleblower, and banned any account that posted the name.  However, something else was always sketchy about this.

As the story was told, Ciaramella blew the whistle to Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. It was further said that Atkinson “changed the CIA whistleblower rules” to permit an “anonymous” allegation; thereby protecting Eric Ciaramella.

Knowing, in hindsight, that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was one of the main people who constructed the 2016 fraudulent ICA, suddenly the motive to make him “anonymous” a few years later in 2019 for another stop-Trump effort makes sense.

Until today, the commonly accepted narrative was that ICIG Atkinson changed the CIA rules arbitrarily.  This is the main narrative as pushed by the media, allowed to permeate by the larger Intelligence Community, and supported by the willful blindness of a complicit Congress.

It never made sense how an IC Inspector General, especially one that involves review of CIA employees/operations, could make such a substantive change in rules for an agency that is opaque by design. There is just no way any IG can make that kind of decision about the CIA without the Director, the Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel being involved.

Someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint.”

♦ Now, things are going to start getting a little dark here, because the implications are serious and the aspect of ICIG Atkinson’s testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) being sealed is a little more than alarming when you consider what they were trying to do – impeach a sitting USA President on a fabricated issue.

Some context is needed.

Inspectors General do not operate in a vacuum.  They are authorized to conduct investigative oversight, as an outcome of permissions from the cabinet agency heads themselves.  The ICIG office, formerly headed by Michael Atkinson, falls under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

As the Inspector General of the Dept of Justice does not operate without the expressed permission of the U.S. Attorney General, so too is it required for the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to have permission to operate in CIA functions with the expressed permission of the CIA Director.

To give you an example: You might remember when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder created the Dept of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), they did not permit the DOJ Inspector General to have any oversight or review.

The 2009-2017 public reasoning was “national security interests,” as the DOJ-NSD was in charge of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC) operations as well as Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) reviews and investigations.  The factual, evidence-based reason was the DOJ-NSD running political surveillance operations using FISA and FARA as weaponized targeting mechanisms to keep track of their political opposition, ie Lawfare. [But that’s another story]

In fact, in 2015 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

You see, the Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) was not allowed to investigate anything that happened within the NSD agency of the Department of Justice. See the ‘useful arrangement‘?  Yeah, Funny that.

It was not until 2018, when the OIG was tasked by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump to look into the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page, when the OIG was finally given authority to review activity within the Dept of Justice National Security Division.

♦ The two key points here are: #1) ICIG Michael Atkinson does not make unilateral decisions to change the internal rules within the CIA, without the expressed permission of the CIA Director, CIA Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel. #2) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would also know of the changed rules and arrangement therein.

At the time of the impeachment allegation and investigation by the House (Aug to Dec 18, 2019), the CIA Director was Gina Haspel (May 21, 2018, to January 20, 2021). The CIA Deputy Director was Vaughn Bishop, and the CIA General Counsel was Courtney Simmons Elwood.  In addition, the Acting DNI was Joseph Maguire.

We can reasonably be certain that CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood and Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not sign-off on changing the CIA rules permitting an anonymous whistleblower, because published media reports at the time outline both offices as NOT supporting the effort of ICIG Atkinson.

In fact, as the story is told (and investigatively affirmed) CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was frustrated because he talked to CIA General Counsel Elwood about the leak from Alexander Vindman, and Elwood did not respond to his claims.

Instead, of following chain-of-command, CIA Analyst Ciaramella went to the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and relayed the story as told to him by Vindman.  The 2019 conversation between Ciaramella, the CIA analyst who previously fabricated the fraudulent Russia ICA in 2017, and Adam Schiff who fraudulently pushed the Trump-Russia narrative in 2017, took place prior to the CIA whistleblower complaint being filed.

Now we get to the crux of the story.

♦ On October 4, 2019, ICIG 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 Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.

That Atkinson testimony was then “classified” and sealed under the auspices of “national security” by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, the same guy who Ciaramella talked to before filing the complaint.

If congress, or more importantly the American public had known CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was both the key author of the fraudulent 2016 ICA and the later 2019 CIA complaint, it’s doubtful any impeachment effort would have moved forward.

From within the CIA, Eric Ciaramella was both the impeachment narrative creator and the Russian interference narrative creator.  In short, a political fabricator of intelligence within the CIA.

Again, ICIG Atkinson could not change the ‘whistleblower’ regulations on his own.  Someone had to sign-off on that, giving him the authority.

Additionally, Atkinson a former legal counsel to the Deputy Asst Attorney General within the DOJ-NSD, is not going to go out on such a limb without a cya to protect himself.

The only person likely to give that authority within the structures and confines that operate inside our government was then CIA Director, Gina Haspel.  The Deputy CIA Director is not going to make that kind of a decision, especially given the circumstances, and the CIA General Counsel was not touching it.

That outline of events means the 2016/2017 CIA ‘stop-Trump’ operation under CIA Director John Brennan, was effectively continued by CIA Director Gina Haspel in 2019/2020.

[SIDENOTE: Now, does the 2020 CIA operation known as the “51 Intelligence Experts’ who denied the Hunter Biden laptop story take on context?  Now, does the 2025 reaction, the angry outburst by former CIA Director John Brennan about the ICA construct take on some context?]

This is where doors slam and DC officials run out of the room.

This is where ‘pretending not to know‘ takes on another meaning entirely.

♦ IMPLICATIONS: CIA Director Gina Haspel had no way to know if the 2019 impeachment of President Trump was going to be successful.  Just as the ICIG needed a CYA to protect himself, so too would Director Haspel want a legal defense mechanism in case the entire fiasco blew up.  Enter the only oversight agency that can provide Haspel cover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Underneath all of these machinations, there’s no other way for Director Haspel to protect herself other than to use the primary mechanism within the functions of IC oversight, inform the SSCI chair and vice-chair of her changed rule guidance to ICIG Atkinson.  That Occam’s Razor scenario puts SSCI chairman ¹Richard Burr and SSCI vice-chair Mark Warner in the silo-system loop.  If things blew up, Haspel could always defend herself by pointing to her informing the mechanism for CIA oversight, the SSCI.

• DNI Dan Coats resigned from office when the Trump impeachment effort was announced, August 2019.

• Acting DNI Joseph Maguire was appointed by President Trump to replace Dan Coats.

• Following the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 5th, 2020.

• On Feb 20, 2020, President Trump replaced acting DNI Joseph Maguire with acting DNI Ric Grenell.

• On February 28, 2020, President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe to be DNI.

• Ratcliffe was confirmed May 26, 2020, and took office.

Before the impeachment effort began, Congressman John Ratcliffe was President Trump’s first choice to replace outgoing DNI Dan Coats in 2019. However, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said they would not confirm John Ratcliffe.  President Trump was forced to appoint “acting DNIs.”

Somehow, within an unexplained reversal, after the impeachment effort ended, the senate intelligence committee (SSCI) had a change of position and agreed to confirm congressman John Ratcliffe as Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

As the fully confirmed DNI, in 2020 John Ratcliffe would have full control of the ICIG, including an understanding of what took place within the CIA that led to the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.

As Chair of the SSCI in 2019, it is highly likely that CIA Director Gina Haspel informed Richard Burr of the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.  ¹Richard Burr was replaced by Marco Rubio in May 2020.

John Ratcliffe is now CIA Director.  Marco Rubio is now National Security Advisor.

UPDATE: The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed inside the Republican controlled House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI.

Republicans in the House have not released the Atkinson transcript since they took control.

As a consequence…. How can the story of the CIA targeting the President of the United States get told?

Even if an executive branch intelligence leader read the transcript from inside the HPSCI, and considering the separation of powers (evidence inside legislative branch), and considering that information is sealed and classified (would require a full committee vote to unseal), and considering the ramifications that would rain down upon anyone who would make that request to release; well, who exactly is going to tell that story, under what conditions and facing what consequences?

People of great trust; people of great power; people currently very close to President Trump, would themselves be at risk from the release of the information showing the 2019 President Trump CIA was deliberately targeting President Trump to weaken him and/or remove him from office.

Think about this very carefully.

The jaw-dropping reality of this situation will explain why we have seen no action or accountability by DC toward any of the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” activity.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The truth has no agenda.

I’m doing all I can…