Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread.
Post whatever you got in the comments section below.
This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.
Sunday, February 22, 2026
German Court Rules X Platform Must Turn Over Data on Hungarian Govt Support
The European Union has a major targeting effort against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, an ally of President Trump who does not support giving additional funding to the Ukraine war effort. Hungary is having national elections in April.
Previously, USAID Administrator Samantha Power spent considerable time in Hungary organizing activist groups to conduct operations against the government {2023 – Go Deep}. Last week a German based NGO called Democracy Reporting International, won a ruling from a Berlin judge to force the X platform to turn over data related to support for Viktor Orban and the government of Hungary.
All of this opposition to Prime Minister Orban seems to be coordinated by quasi government agencies on behalf of Brussels and their interventionist intentions. We may remember it was also information from German intelligence, that was behind the nullification of the Romanian first-round election {GO DEEP}.
However, Viktor Orban is fighting back and refusing to approve the funding of the Ukraine war despite the massive pressure campaign from inside the European Union.
πΆ If the war ends, funding ends. Ukraine’s plan: make sure the war doesn’t stop.
— OrbΓ‘n Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) February 21, 2026
ππΊπ¨πΏπΈπ° Thankfully, common sense still prevails in Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. We will not risk our families’ future by sending € billions to fund someone else’s war.
The time for… pic.twitter.com/JXsd5bt43i
As noted by Hungarian Minister Zoltan Kovacs, “Many have asked how Hungary can block the €90 billion Ukrainian war loan if we are not participating in it. clarified that the loan does not affect Hungary and does not entail any financial commitment for us. As Hungary is not part of the cooperation, in most of the decision-making procedures we do not even vote. However, he pointed out that for the scheme to function, the EU’s seven-year budget guarantee rules must be amended – and this requires the approval of all 27 member states, not only the financing member states. We are now blocking this decision, without which the war loan cannot be disbursed.”
(Via Politico) – A court in Germany on Tuesday ordered Elon Musk’s social media site X to hand over data related to the upcoming election in Hungary to researchers for scrutiny.
The court in Berlin ruled in favor of rights group Democracy Reporting International in its bid to access data to research influence campaigns and disinformation in the election. The group took its case to court after X in November refused its data access requests.
The European Union’s rules for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, obliges big online platforms like X to grant external researchers access to data to scrutinize how platforms handle risks, including election interference. The European Commission in December fined X €40 million for breaching that obligation, as part of a €120 million levy. (read more)
This effort against PM Orban by the European Union is part of the reason why Secretary of State Marco Rubio was so strong in his words of appreciation and support for Orban during his recent visit to Budapest.
RUBIO: “The President has an extraordinarily close relationship to the prime minister. He does. And it has had tangible benefits in our relationship. I’m not going to speculate about the future. What happens in this country is up to the voters of this country to determine and decide, and we love the people of Hungary. But I’m not – but there’s no reason to sugarcoat it. I’m going to be very blunt with you. The prime minister and the President have a very, very close personal relationship and working relationship, and I think it has been incredibly beneficial to the relationship between our two countries.” {Source – Transcript}
Ukrainian Man Ran 'Upworksell.com' to Sell Stolen Identities for Overseas IT Workers
Oleksandr Didenko, 29, of Kyiv, Ukraine, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 60 months in prison for a years-long scheme that stole the identities of U.S. citizens and sold them to North Korean workers so they could fraudulently gain employment at 40 U.S. companies, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
Didenko, aka “Alexander Didenko,” pleaded guilty Nov. 10, 2025, before Judge Randolph D. Moss to wire fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. Didenko agreed to forfeit more than $1.4 million, which includes approximately $181,438 in USD and cryptocurrency seized from Didenko and his co-conspirators. Judge Moss also ordered Didenko to serve 12 months of supervised release and to pay $46,547.28 in restitution.
“Defendant Didenko’s scheme funneled money from Americans and U.S. businesses, into the coffers of North Korea, a hostile regime. Today, North Korea is not only a threat to the homeland from afar, it is an enemy within. By using stolen and fraudulent identities, North Korean actors are infiltrating American companies, stealing information, licensing, and data that is harmful to any business. But more than that, money paid to these so-called employees goes directly to munitions programs in North Korea,” said U.S. Attorney Pirro. “We should be holding accountable to the fullest extent of the law the individuals, like Didenko, who are knowingly assisting North Koreans so that they can amass more weapons to harm the United States and peace in our world. This is not just a financial crime; it is a crime against national security.”
According to court documents, Didenko ran a website using a U.S.-based domain, "Upworksell.com," designed to help overseas IT workers buy or rent stolen identities.
Beginning in 2021, the IT workers used the identities to get hired on online freelance work platforms based in California and Pennsylvania. The work platforms allowed users to advertise themselves as contract gig workers, create free accounts, advertise their skills and bid on IT work contracts.
“Oleksandr Didenko’s fraudulent activity inflicted systemic and deliberate financial harm on U.S. companies and American citizens to benefit not only himself, but a hostile nation state,” said Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI’s Counterintelligence and Espionage Division. “The FBI will not tolerate North Korea’s sustained campaign to victimize American citizens, businesses, and financial institutions to fund its authoritarian regime. Today’s sentencing demonstrates that the FBI will pursue full accountability for anyone found complicit in our adversary’s efforts to defraud and undermine American economic security, and we ask all U.S. companies that employ remote workers to remain vigilant to this new and sophisticated threat.”
Didenko paid individuals in the United States to receive and host computers at residences in Virginia, Tennessee and California.
Through his company, Didenko managed as many as 871 proxy identities and facilitated the operation of at least three U.S.-based “laptop farms.” He enabled his overseas clients to access the U.S. financial system through Money Service Transmitters rather than having to physically open an account at a bank within the United States, which was then used to facilitate the transfer of employment income to foreign bank accounts.
The IT worker clients were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work, much of which was falsely reported to the Department of Homeland Security, the IRS and Social Security Administration in the names of actual U.S. persons whose identities had been stolen.
On May 16, 2024, the Justice Department seized the online domain, Upworksell.com, and diverted all traffic to the FBI. Polish authorities arrested Didenko and on Dec. 31, 2024, extradited him to the United States.
“Oleksandr Didenko participated in a scheme that stole the identities of hundreds of people, to include United States citizens, which were used by North Korea to fraudulently secure lucrative IT jobs,” said Assistant Director in Charge James Barnacle of the FBI’s New York Field Office. “This massive operation not only created an unauthorized backdoor into our country’s job market, but helped fund the regime of an adversary. This case is an example of how the FBI continues to safeguard our critical infrastructure from foreign threat actors seeking to exploit our nation’s sensitive information.”
This case was investigated by the FBI New York Field Office, with assistance from the FBI Norfolk, San Diego and Knoxville Field Offices.
The matter is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen P. Seifert and Steven Wasserman for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District of California, Eastern District of Tennessee, and Eastern District of Virginia, the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs, and Trial Attorney Jacques-Singer Emory of the National Security Division’s National Security Cyber Section provided valuable assistance.
Alan Dershowitz, If Epstein was a CIA or Mossad Asset He Never Would Have Gone to Jail
This is a little surprising to hear in someone’s outside voice. According to Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, if his client had told him he worked for Israeli intelligence or the CIA Dershowitz could have gotten him off the charges with no jail time.
Essentially, Dershowitz is saying any sex criminals or pedophiles that work for intelligence agencies would never receive any prison sentences. WATCH (prompted):
As remarkable as it sounds, Alan Dershowitz is actually confirming what many people suspect. If a U.S. or Israeli intelligence asset commits a crime, they can leverage their position to get out of any criminal accountability.
Good grief. I’m not sure Dershowitz realizes we can hear what he is saying.
CIA Admits Political Bias in Obama-Era Intelligence. The 2017 Assessment Deserves Scrutiny
The CIA just did something you seldom see in Washington.
It admitted that its own intelligence analysis fell short of basic standards and had to be pulled back.
According to a February 20 press release, CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the official retraction or substantive revision of 19 intelligence products that “did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards” and “failed to be independent of political consideration.”
In its own words, the CIA conceded the following:
"Today, CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the official retraction or substantive revision of 19 CIA intelligence products that did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards and failed to be independent of political consideration. These products were identified by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), which conducted an independent review of hundreds of finished CIA analytic reports produced over the past decade. An internal review led by Deputy Director Michael Ellis agreed that they did not meet the high standards the American people expect from CIA’s elite analytic workforce."
That language is bureaucratic, but it is explosive. “Failed to be independent of political consideration” means politics seeped into analysis that was supposed to be insulated from it.
And note the timeframe: “over the past decade.” That period includes Barack Obama’s second term, the 2016 election cycle, and the transition into the Trump administration. That was not a neutral era for the intelligence community. It was the era when intelligence analysis intersected directly with electoral politics and when the line between assessment and narrative became dangerously thin.
The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was ordered in the final days of the Obama administration and released just before Donald Trump took office. It shaped the national conversation. It fueled years of investigations. It cast a cloud over an incoming president before he had even assembled his Cabinet.
Now we know that nearly twenty intelligence products from that same broad timeframe failed basic tradecraft standards and were not independent of political considerations. When analysis that guides presidents and shapes public understanding is compromised, that is not a clerical oversight. It is an institutional breakdown that reflects the leadership and culture of the period that produced it.
The reaction online was immediate and pointed.
Director Ratcliffe described the retractions this way:
“The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned. There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record. These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis.”
Strip away the diplomatic phrasing, and the meaning is unmistakable. Analytic rigor was compromised. Bias entered products that were presented to policymakers and the public as objective.
For years, skepticism about politicization inside the intelligence community during the Obama and early Trump years was treated as illegitimate. The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was framed as unimpeachable. Yet credibility is not restored by declaring something sacred. It is restored by applying the same standards as everything else.
If political considerations compromised nineteen intelligence products from the same era, then the most politically consequential intelligence document of that period cannot simply be presumed clean.
The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was ordered in the final days of the Obama administration, under leadership appointed during his presidency, at a moment when intelligence analysis collided directly with electoral politics. That assessment shaped public perception, fueled years of investigations, and framed the legitimacy debate around an incoming president before he ever took office.
That is not a footnote. It is a defining event.
If analytic standards were compromised elsewhere during that same timeframe, then the assessment that altered the trajectory of American politics deserves the same scrutiny now being applied to lesser reports. Accountability does not mean retracting what is convenient. It means examining what was consequential.
The CIA has admitted that bias entered its analytic work over the past decade. That decade includes the Obama years. Restoring credibility requires more than acknowledging errors. It requires demonstrating that no document, no matter how politically sensitive, is shielded from review.
If the standards failed once, they must be tested everywhere.
Anything less is not reform. It is containment.
CIA retracts 19 reports, raising scrutiny of Obama-era intelligence and 2017 assessment.
The FBI Mission and the “Library on Congress”
A repost from 2023 by request.
In roughly the past fifty years, the term “continuity of government” has been used with increased frequency describing how the United States of America, a constitutional republican system of government, contains internal mechanisms to protect the executive branch in the event of crisis, attack or disruption of leadership by adversaries.
The term ‘continuity of government‘ became much more common in the aftermath of 9-11-01 and the thunder shock of an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.
Within the very brief discussion period that led up to the 10-26-01 Patriot Act [pdf here], literally a structural reform of the entire domestic terrorist apparatus that created the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), a bill only debated for a few weeks, the baseline was the enhanced ‘continuity of government‘ in the event of an emergency.
As we have exhaustively outlined on these pages, the outcome of the Patriot Act was to create a system where every American was now viewed by our federal government through the prism of the citizen being a potential terrorist threat.
The federal government aligned all of our institutions and national security systems accordingly.
DHS was created to monitor American behavior, the TSA was created to scan American travelers, and the FBI was enhanced with resources to conduct surveillance despite our Fourth Amendment protections within our Constitution. Instead of the U.S. Govt protecting U.S. citizens from foreign threats, the Patriot Act changed the mission of government to protect itself from potential citizen threats.
In essence, We the People became the suspects, and all of the constitutional viewpoints within the FBI and Dept of Justice were modified to create monitoring systems.
The legislative branch was considered part of a this newly protected elite class of Americans, and the judicial branch deferred all scrutiny to the executive as long as they claimed, ‘national security.’ The secret FISA court system would grant the agents surveillance power over U.S. citizens.
As the foundation of this new surveillance state was just being finalized, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Eric Holder then entered government via the 2008 election and weaponized this system to target their domestic political opposition.
However, there is also a second element to this ‘continuity of government’ that flows with the first premise.
The continuity of a very specific outlook by government.
The continuity of a very specific construct of government.
The continuity of a view within government of how government should operate. This is part of the continuity of government not discussed.
You can argue it was the viewpoint of a very specific type of government “continuity” that led to the opposition against Donald Trump by Democrats and Republicans.
Trump would be a disruptive influence if introduced into a continuation mission that did not like change. This ‘continuity’ mindset then established the justification for every institution and element of the bureaucracy, including almost all layers of the people who run them, to oppose Donald Trump.
By the time the 2016 election arrived, We the People had already been defined by the Patriot Act outcome as a threat to government. If we the people did not select the right kind of candidate who would be approved by the continuity system, then our selection would be rejected by all of the operators of that administrative system. That’s what happened.
Every move by the U.S. federal government, from 2016 to now, has been contrast against the backdrop of a new awakening and visible understanding.
We the People are the threat, and those who control the DC power centers that determine the continuity of government, will not accept any modification or diminishment of their mission. This is how they justify their conduct in very real terms, including through application of law. This is also why the people who operate these systems are very visible with their conduct and do not have any reservations about showing their omnipotent mindset.
From their perspective, they are doing what they do, running government how they run government, maintaining the continuity the system was designed to protect, and we are what they consider futile and irrelevant voices.
Both the Republican and Democrat leadership hold this same view. This “continuity of government” is the core of their UniParty alignment.
Here is where this understanding gets really interesting.
In order to maintain this system, there has to be an internal monitoring system, a surveillance system to protect itself against any adversary. A domestic surveillance state has to exist as an outcome of the logical sequence.
Within this total surveillance state, the FBI is the federal agency – a national police force with a mission to run monitoring operations.
Everyone is monitored, and in case anyone would raise objection to being monitored, the corporate media provide protection against criticism by saying the agencies doing the monitoring need to be independent.
As we plunge deeper and deeper into this weaponized surveillance state, if you engage in any conduct to avoid monitoring, you run the risk of being caught in the DHS surveillance sweep. You run the risk of becoming a DHS subject of interest, just like candidate Donald Trump – only smaller. If you choose to fight against accepting the weaponized surveillance state, you will be considered a DHS subject of interest – just like the J6 detainees.
When the FBI was fighting against the release of the FD-1023 report, outlining the Confidential Human Source (CHS) that gave evidence to the FBI against Joe Biden, people missed something.
The DOJ/FBI reluctance to admit the FD-1023 report existed was not just about Joe Biden, it was also about a surveillance process this reporting would reveal.
The confidential human source (CHS) was a person giving information to the FBI for their files. This is the library on congress. There are hundreds of thousands of these FD-1023 forms created, as CHS’s undercover agent employees (UAE’s) and a myriad of resources, are deployed in this surveillance system.
It’s the breadth of this surveillance system that leads to the FBI saying, “The safeguards the FBI placed on the production of this information are necessary to protect the safety of confidential sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations. Today’s release of the 1023 [form] – at a minimum – unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source.”
As noted by the Federalist Margot Cleveland, “During Wednesday’s hours-long hearing, IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler both told lawmakers they had never seen the FD-1023. Significantly, Ziegler then stated: “There’s things that are contained on that document that could further corroborate other information that we might be having an issue corroborating because it could be regarding a foreign official. So, if we have information regarding that in a document or a witness, we can further corroborate later evidence.”
The reason the IRS agents were not aware of the CHS reports to the FBI, is because keeping the FD-1023 report hidden did not have as much to do with protecting Biden as it does with protecting this surveillance apparatus.
Who are all of these CHS’s and UAEs like Igor Danchenko, Patrick Byrne, Azra Turk, Carter Page, Joseph Mifsud, Ray Epps, 1% Watchdog, etc. etc. etc? There is a massive surveillance apparatus underway monitoring everyone, including an assembly of files against sitting members of congress and political leadership.
Keep in mind, the FD-1023 reports are not blackmail, they are reports of conduct and action.
Blackmail and/or leverage is an outcome of knowing information. The massive assembly of FD-1023 reports are the source information.
This was a big part of the reason why FBI Director Christopher Wray initially denied there was an FD-1023 report.
In the bigger of the big pictures, this Joe/Hunter Biden story was the tip of an iceberg showing how the FBI is a domestic surveillance operation assembling files on everyone; that includes members of Congress and key political leadership that could advance to power. Why is all of this surveillance taking place?…
….Because it is a very specific type of Continuity of Government that must be maintained.
Don’t look at the Potemkin village we call Washington DC.
Look for the people behind the construct.
Look for the people who are using these files.
