Wednesday, April 15, 2026

‘What Evil Lurks In The Hearts Of Men’ To Cause A Betrayal Of Country?


A popular early radio (1930–1954) crime-fighting program, “The Shadow,” began with a distinctive narrator’s voice uttering an iconic opening line, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!”

In the aftermath of the arrest of a former US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) civilian employee, Courtney Williams, 40, for an act of betrayal against her country, we can only wonder what evil lurked within her heart.

To become a SOCOM contractor, Williams took an oath of secrecy for life. It was a condition she had to accept before being given access to a range of classified information. There was nothing complex about the arrangement. Williams simply agreed never to say anything about what she learned from being granted access to classified files and personnel and, in exchange, the government would allow her to learn whatever she did while undertaking her specific project requirement.

Between 2010 and 2016, Williams held a top-secret clearance and worked on providing support for elite special operations forces, specifically a “special military unit”—i.e., Delta Force. Under the SOCOM umbrella, she was an operational support technician responsible for “Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures” (TTPs) that were used both in preparation for and during sensitive missions. The work she generated was to support warfighters and, as such, was not only classified as secret, but also as too sensitive to be shared with any foreign country.

Clearly, the last person SOCOM wanted Williams feeding TTP details to was a member of the media. However, between 2022 and 2025 that is exactly what she did, giving them to journalist Seth Harp who was writing a book. The same day the book was published—August 12, 2025—Harp also published an article for Politico magazine promoting it, and letting the TTP cat out of the bag.

An investigation was launched that reviewed over 180 messages and ten hours of phone calls between Harp and Williams, leading to the latter being charged with the unauthorized transmission of national defense information under the Espionage Act. Willliams was arrested on April 7, 2026.

The arrest date is telling. It occurred just two days after an intense high-profile race had ended, between Iranian search teams and Delta Force teams, to locate a second F-15E crewmember whose plane had been shot down in central Iran. Fortunately, the rescue was accomplished by Delta Force, but only after the crewmember had spent 36 hours on the ground evading his would-be captors. And, ironically, this occurred as he was following his evasion TTPs, not knowing the prior publication of Harp’s book had probably given the Iranians an edge on capturing him. Delta Force operators ended up extracting him from the country on April 5.

Iranian special forces experts seeking details about Delta Force operations would have wanted a copy of the Harp/Williams’ book. If obtained, it would have played an undeniably helpful role for the Iranians racing to find the F-15E crewmember.

Titled “The Fort Bragg Cartel” (which is where, in North Carolina, Delta Force is stationed), much of the book’s focus was on Williams’s personal experiences—describing them as a “living hell” and tossing in details of sexual harassment. While even publishing this information violated her oath, Harp suggests Williams was a justified whistleblower reporting on a toxic military environment.

This is outlandish as whistleblowing provides absolutely no excuse for Williams releasing TTP details. It serves no purpose other than to create a needless risk for these elite warriors. Basically what Williams did was to tell our enemies how best to capture any of our special force personnel who might be caught behind enemy lines.

We are left to wonder what evil lurked within the heart of Williams, motivating her to assist an enemy, especially a terrorist one like Iran, in capturing her own countrymen. By her outrageous actions, she contributed to the increased fear factor the F-15E weapons crewman experienced during his 36 hour run for life. He had no idea a TTP blueprint for that run had been made available for enemy review.

What could have motivated Williams to reveal TTPs critical to the survival of American special forces operating behind enemy lines? Was it fame? Was it greed? Was it a defiant act of retribution? Was it hatred for Trump?

Whatever it was, it involved callous thinking on her part. And there is no doubt she was fully aware of what she was doing. The complaint filed against Williams reveals concern she had expressed in messages to Harp such as, “It feels like an entire TTP was sent out in my name.” She was also forewarnedseveral times about revealing information. In a later communication with her mother, Williams said she was “probably going to jail for life” for what she had done. The risk of a ten-year prison sentence now hangs over her head.

The motivations of other Americans who had knowingly transferred classified material directly to an enemy are well known.

Retired Navy Chief Warrant Officer John Anthony Walker sold secrets to the Soviets (1967–1985) strictly for money. What he provided them reflected a heartless soul. Had war erupted, his actions would have enabled the Soviets to destroy our submarine fleet, killing the vast majority of Walker’s fellow sailors serving under the seas.

Another heartless American was Aldrich Ames—a CIA case officer who spoke Russian and specialized in Russian intelligence services. His became perhaps the most damaging spy story in U.S. history. A man who held greed in higher regard than loyalty, he helped Moscow identify most of the spies the U.S. had operating there. It led to the termination of over 100 CIA operations and the executions of twelve U.S. spies. Ames was convicted of spying in 1994.

Nor can the list of spies ignore the contributions made to the Soviet Union by Robert Hanssen. He worked for the FBI, providing his Soviet handlers with devastating information. While Hannsen benefitted financially from this relationship, other traits such as profound personal narcissism and the “high” of risk-taking—combined with a sense he was underappreciated at the agency—were all contributors in his selling America out, making him feel superior and powerful by doing so.

Deservedly, all three of the above received life sentences, serving 29, 32 and 22 years respectively before dying in prison.

But it is difficult to understand why Williams decided, six years after serving SOCOM, to violate her life’s oath to her country. Perhaps at trial we will learn the source of the evil lurking in her heart. But whatever it was, she selfishly and needlessly chose to impose an even greater risk upon our Delta Force warriors, limiting the operational area within which they function while in peril behind enemy lines.


Podcast thread for April 15

 


Guess what: There IS such a thing as too many surprises!!

Trump Finally Has Enough of the Podcast People


We’ve all heard the panicans shrieking about how Donald Trump’s voters are allegedly ditching him, but who is actually abandoning the president? Is it you and me? No, it’s not. We’re his normal supporters, the part of his coalition that’s in it for our country. Our agenda is America. We’ll vote for a normal Republican, just not a RINO. We’ll back the president’s plays even when it’s tough (and by “tough” I mean dealing with the ear-splitting volume of his critics crying like little girls). But there are other folks with a different perspective. To us, Trump is a vehicle to Make America Great Again. To them, Trump is a vehicle to drive up their clicks, to rev up their egos, and sometimes to run over the Jews. But now those people are being booted out of the big tent even as they were in the process of making their public, dramatic exits. I’m not one to want to exile anyone, no matter how offensive, but it’s hard to cry about someone getting what they have publicly and incessantly wished for.

If you tell Trump you are ditching him for being too mean to the mullahs and too nice to the Jews, what do you expect? Him to come begging you to stay, promising to never disappoint you again, agreeing to take on and champion your to-do list of personal policy preferences? Well, there’s this thing called a chain of command, and a bunch of podcaster types just learned, the hard way, that they aren’t in it.

When the president unleashed his rhetorical hellfire missile via Truth Social upon Tucker, Megyn, Candace, and Alex, it was long coming. Tucker has gone nuts. Megyn was never right-wing – she was copasetic with many of our social positions and on the perfidy of the Left, but she was never a hardcore rightie. Candace was always a calculating grifter eager to say whatever was going to help her at any given time – currently, she’s cashing in on ridiculous conspiracy theories for gullible doofuses. And Alex Jones? Whatever – he’s the pro wrestling of right-wing talk, a carnival freak show barker promising a glimpse at Nature’s Greatest Monster if you come up with a quarter.

They had been attacking Trump for a while. Apparently, they forgot about everything Trump ever said and got personally offended that he did not abide by his imagined promises to them. Trump has been talking about whacking Iran for decades – there are clips of him advocating this attack on our long-time enemy going back to the 80s. And the Iranian regime is our enemy. There’s this idea among the dumb and the loud that the only reason anyone could possibly hate us is if we had committed some alleged wrong in the deep, dark past. Oh, we were involved in a coup in 1953. We were just asking for the Beirut bombing!

Baloney. They hate us because we won’t submit to their false, pagan, jihadi religion. That’s it – and that’s enough. To think otherwise is childish and stupid and functionally indistinguishable from the ravings of the formally leftist people, as opposed to the functionally leftist people like these podcasters and their friends. It’s an understanding of America as inherently wicked and deserving of all misfortune while denying its right to defend its own interests in any way at any time. For example, Tucker has cavorted with Word War II revisionists insisting that we should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany (because I don’t listen to absolute morons, I am unclear how they deal with the fact that Nazi Germany declared war on us after their Japanese allies bombed us, but I expect they contend we were asking for Pearl Harbor, too). Now, if you can’t take America’s side in World War II, I can’t help you. And I’m not sure who can help Tucker. He’s not a dumb guy, but it’s becoming clear that he is an increasingly insane one. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute his turning on Trump (and America and us) to a mental breakdown. The others, not so much.

Megyn has always been leftist-curious. While she has plenty of solid conservatives on her show – and I hope they keep appearing – she has long championed the creepy and communist Glenn Greenwald. She’s an independent, not a Republican, and she’s open to pinko nonsense. She went with Trump for a number of reasons, including trans insanity and the cancellation culture she had personally experienced. But she was never right-wing in the way we are. When the heat is on, no wonder she wilted.

As for Candace and Alex, there’s little that needs to be said. Neither is a serious person. Neither is anything more than a spectacle. But they got too big for their britches. They imagined that they mattered, and they don’t. At least Tucker and Megyn had some heat once upon a time, though not to the extent they imagined. Trump was always happy to listen to them when they agreed with his inclinations. Their problem was that they expected him to pay attention to them when he was disinclined to, and Trump simply does not do things he is disinclined to do.

These are four individuals who have quit Trump in a huff and found themselves quited right back. But the real question is how many potential coalition voters they will bring along with them as they either sit out the midterms in a petulant huff, or find some goofy alternative candidate to back, or even vote Democrat because that will show Trump! And the answer may not be what they want to hear. Tucker’s favorability rating in one poll has dropped an astonishing 47 points among Republicans. I guess hating Israel isn’t the winning issue the voices in his head told him it was. And Megyn’s podcast was recently No. 129, not bad in the macro but not near what it used to be. Have you tuned into either one lately? I haven’t. I don’t hate them. I just don’t want to hear some goof with a ridiculous theory about how the Jews are to blame for not letting Muslim fanatics murder them hard enough, or some clown sharing the full benefit of his lack of tactical and strategic military experience regarding what those of us who are professionals know to be one of the most incredibly successful military campaigns in human history.

It’s anecdotal, meaning it is evidence only of anecdotes, but the people I talk to who have tuned in recently are doing it from morbid curiosity: “Tucker’s got an exorcist on who says demons run the Deep State.” Sure, it’s plausible, but this is not commentary. It’s novelty. It’s entertainment, and intermittent entertainment at best, because the next Tucker guest is going to be some whacko, pinko professor, and nobody is going to care.

Yeah, they’ll all still make money – there are Candace diehards who want to hear tall tales about Mrs. Macron’s alleged manhood or Alex listeners who mistake his bluster for insights, but it’s the influence that matters. If Tucker tells you not to vote for the GOP in November, are you going to salute? If Megyn insists you boycott Republicans in November, will you? If Candace talks about how MAGA is an Israeli plot and Alex talks about the crisis actors who want you not to vote, will you listen?

I’m betting you won’t. I’m betting you don’t care what any of them say, and that the vast majority of us don’t either. Some will, but how many? Will the exile of the odd podcasters matter? Clearly, Trump is betting “No,” too.


Popular Franchise Looks To Expand Fanbase By Changing What Made It Popular Franchise

Popular Franchise Looks To Expand Fanbase By Changing What Made It Popular Franchise

Image for article: Popular Franchise Looks To Expand Fanbase By Changing What Made It Popular Franchise
BabylonBee

HOLLYWOOD, CA — It's a simple formula: take an already wildly popular franchise and then tweak it a bit to attract even more fans.

"It seems like such a foolproof plan," said Nina Gibbs, showrunner of a popular franchise. "I mean, you have the fans who have loved the franchise for decades — so they'll watch no matter what — and then you just add things to attract other people who hadn't loved it before."

And all the additions seemed like smart ideas, like making the lead a woman to attract more female audience members, adding LGBTQ characters, and getting rid of some of the outdated ideas from the original that simply wouldn't work with the more sensitive young people of today.

But once again, as strangely happened with such mega-franchises like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, this has resulted in the decline of the series and even fewer fans.

"It's confusing," said Gibbs. "We got the old fans denouncing the new shows. I guess that just exposed they were bad fans, and we're probably better off without them anyway. The only problem is we're not picking up a lot of new fans."

It's unclear why, but media analysts think the problems are that the new female characters aren't "girlboss" enough, there's not enough lecturing about important modern issues, and that three gay subplots simply aren't enough for what audiences want.

"I mean, we got rid of all we thought sucked about the franchise and added in all those new things," Gibbs said. "But now it seems like the franchise is dead — maybe we were just too late. Anyway, time to find another franchise to try again with!"

At publishing time, Gibbs had made the shrewd decision to turn every character of a beloved franchise gay.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


Biden DOJ Cooked Up Prosecutions Against Pro-Lifers After Abortion Industry Asked Them To


The 882-page report details exactly how the Biden DOJ executed its years-long lawfare campaign against its pro-life political opponents.



At the behest of abortion activist groups, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice weaponized the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to disproportionately prosecute and jail pro-lifers for exercising their First Amendment-protected right to protest, a new report reveals.

The 882-page report released on Tuesday details, with five key findings, exactly how the DOJ under Biden executed its years-long lawfare campaign that put nearly two dozen of its pro-life political opponents in prison. The investigation was triggered by President Donald Trump’s February 2025 “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias” executive order and former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s simultaneous “Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice” memo.

majority of Americans admitted during the Biden era that the nation was ruled by a two-tiered system of justice. This lopsided application of rule of law was only partially remedied when President Donald Trump pardoned nearly two dozen of those targeted pro-lifers and the Trump DOJ swore it would only use the FACE Act in “extraordinary circumstances, or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors.”

The real hammer came more than one year later, the day before the lawfare findings debuted, when the DOJ fired the “personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act.” CBS News indicated at least one of the four prosecutors terminated was Sanjay Patel, who was already suspected by congressional Republicans of participating in the Biden administration’s weaponization scheme.

“This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement accompanying the findings. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

Lawfare Like No Other

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s leaked Dobbs v. Jackson decision, more than 90 lifesaving pregnancy centers, pro-life organizations, and churches suffered pro-abortion-fueled firebombings, vandalism, and other attacks. The Biden administration, however, aimed its prosecution power almost solely on people who were documented advocating for the protection of unborn babies at abortion facilities. This “biased enforcement” of the FACE Act, the report indicates, blatantly violated Americans’ rights.

The report notes that the heart of this FACE Act weaponization came from “career attorneys,” like Patel, in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division who were named to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.”

Perhaps the most damning revelation in the findings is that it was at abortion activists’ suggestion that this task force used the FACE Act to target the pro-lifers that later had to be pardoned by Trump.

“In each of the later-pardoned FACE Act cases, DOJ and the FBI learned of the possible FACE violations from abortion NGOs, rather than from the purported victims or local law enforcement,” the report states.

The task force director, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, Patel, and National Abortion Federation (NAF) Security Director Michelle Davidson were described as maintaining “routine communication.” In emails, Patel describes Davidson’ as a “wonderful contact for me as it relates to FACE Act investigations.”

“She has been an MVP bringing incidents to my attention, often in real-time, which usually result in an investigation/prosecution,” Patel wrote in November 2021.

By the time the Dobbs v. Jackson decision debuted, which Biden and his team sought to undermine, Patel and the task force had relied heavily on the NAF and other abortion group’s surveillance and dossiers of pro-lifers’ First Amendment-protected protests across the country to fuel their FACE Act prosecutions for years.

Emails indicate, against the NAF’s congressional testimony, that NAF employees such as Davidson directly fed Patel and other DOJ attorneys information to help the Biden administration build its case against people like Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising member Lauren Handy, a pro-life activist who received 57 months in prison and three years supervision, an extreme expansion of the usual punishment for such convictions, for her participation in a peaceful protest at one of Washington DC’s most controversial abortion facilities.

The DOJ also leaned into demands from abortion organizations such as the Feminist Majority Foundation, which listed off several “relentless acts of violence” to urge the DOJ to pursue “criminal charges and nationwide injunctive relief to prevent ongoing and future [FACE Act] violations.”

Malfeasance Abounds

The DOJ’s misconduct did not stop once the charges rolled in. According to investigators, Biden-era prosecutors not only “knowingly withheld” evidence from defendants’ legal teams, but also “falsely claimed to not have such information available.” In the DOJ’s case against pro-lifer Calvin Zastrow, prosecutors actively schemed to keep Christians off off the jury and private referred to people of faith as “culty.”

Previously disclosed in reporting was the DOJ’s use of “Aggressive Arrest Tactics,” including loaded guns, battering rams, and ballistic shields during the raid on the home of father Mark Houck.

Data showing that the Biden administration disproportionately focused its FACE Act prosecutions on pro-lifers who prayed, sang, and evangelized at abortion facilities. The findings additionally emphasized that the DOJ under Biden requested and ultimately secured longer sentences for pro-lifers, an average of 26.8 months and 14 months respectively, than pro-abortion defendants, who averaged 12.3 months and 3 months respectively.

The cherry on top of the DOJ’s FACE Act lawfare campaign was Patel’s repeat offer to serve as a reference for NAF’s push to secure “large” grant funding.

“We found no record of ethics approval for a DOJ attorney to take an interest in the financial
outcome of a party having business before the Biden DOJ. Indeed, it is doubtful that the Biden
DOJ could validly give any such ethical clearance for this conflict of interest,” the report concludes.


Newly Declassified Docs Reveal Trump Impeachment ‘Whistleblower’ Was A Democrat Crony


The anonymous whistleblower secretly met with the Democrat staff of Adam Schiff prior to submitting his complaint in August 2019.



A former inspector general who fast-tracked a “whistleblower” complaint that led to the first impeachment of President Trump in 2019 knew the whistleblower was a registered Democrat and Joe Biden loyalist yet still determined his complaint was “a matter of urgent concern that appeared credible,” according to newly declassified documents.

The documents also reveal the anonymous whistleblower secretly met with the Democratic staff of former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff prior to submitting his complaint in August 2019.

Yet under direct questioning, the whistleblower — later identified by RealClearInvestigations as intelligence analyst Eric Ciaramella — failed to disclose those contacts in interviews with IG investigators or on whistleblower forms, according to more than 350 pages of intel briefings Schiff classified as secret and locked up in a Capitol vault.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford released the papers this morning after National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard declassified them late last week. Justice Department insiders say the documents factor into an ongoing grand jury investigation into an alleged “grand conspiracy” by former Obama and Biden officials to illegally target Trump in political espionage activities.

Nonetheless, IG Michael Atkinson, then the intelligence community’s top watchdog, did not question the whistleblower’s political motivations, truthfulness, or credibility.

Atkinson conducted no investigation of his interactions with Schiff staffers to see if political bias played a role in the preparation of his complaint, which alleged that Trump “had clearly committed a criminal act” in a 30-minute phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. During that call, which was reportedly listened to by dozens of people, Trump told Zelenskyy, “I would like you to do us a favor,” and help investigate Biden’s son’s role in the Burisma scandal. It was later alleged that Trump held up Ukraine funding to force that assistance, which never came. The whistleblower was not in the White House at the time to witness the phone call and relied instead on the account of former White House colleague and political ally Alexander Vindman, who is now seeking a U.S. Senate seat in Florida as a Democrat

Secondhand Hearsay

An Obama holdover, Atkinson formally notified Schiff of the complaint in September 2019, paving the way for its release to the public.

By allowing a secondhand hearsay complaint to be processed, Atkinson bent the longstanding rules of his office, according to the declassified briefings.

He also transmitted the information to Schiff over the objections of then-acting National Intelligence Director Joseph Maguire, who had a legal opinion from DOJ which overruled Atkinson’s determination that the complaint was credible and urgent enough to warrant disclosure to Congress.

“The complainant’s allegations appear credible to me,” Atkinson insisted in a Sept. 19, 2019, briefing before Schiff’s committee.

Atkinson called then-FBI Director Christopher Wray’s chief of staff and briefed him on the complaint before filing a criminal referral with the bureau to investigate the allegations.

Atkinson also testified about the whistleblower and his complaint during a classified session held on Oct. 4, 2019, during which he stated, “The complainant was not politically biased in any way.”

The two committee briefings spanned more than 10 hours and were conducted behind closed doors in a secure underground facility in the Capitol. The contents of those classified sessions have long been the source of mystery.

Atkinson refused to disclose the identity of the whistleblower “even now in a classified setting,” because he said he felt compelled to “honor” his “request for confidentiality” — even though the IG has the authority to disclose such information in the course of an investigation.

At the same time, however, Atkinson revealed that the whistleblower disclosed under questioning by his team of three investigators that he was “a registered member of the Democratic Party [and] had a prior professional relationship with one of the Democratic presidential candidates for the 2020 election.”

Ciaramella is listed in voting records as a registered Democrat. He worked directly with Vice President Biden on national security issues involving Ukraine and Russia. Ciaramella was even involved in internal Obama White House discussions over Burisma and Hunter Biden, as RCI also first reported.

These facts did not raise flags with Atkinson.

“There is no indication of any misconduct by the complainant related to this disclosure,” Atkinson briefed the committee, adding that “the complainant has played by the rules.”

He noted, however, that getting the intelligence committees to investigate the Trump allegations “is what the whistleblower intends [to do].”

Atkinson did not respond to requests for comment. His bio at the Washington law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP, where he is a partner, states, “Michael has been publicly described as … one you ‘trust with investigations.’” Federal election records show his wife, also a D.C. attorney, is a regular Democrat donor who gave at least $900 to Joe Biden in 2020. 

CIA Detailee

Ciaramella handled the controversial Ukraine portfolio for Biden as an intelligence analyst detailed to the White House from the CIA. As RCI has reported, Obama CIA Director John Brennan was a key player in advancing the Russiagate conspiracy theory that claimed the Trump campaign had coordinated with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election. Ciaramella remained in the White House during the first several months of the Trump administration, where he worked closely with a national security analyst, Sean Misko, who went on to become a key impeachment staffer for Schiff.

Atkinson previously worked as senior counsel to Obama appointee Mary McCord in the national security division of the Justice Department. A Democrat, McCord was involved in the ouster of Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn, also based on snippets of a phone conversation he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The DOJ recently awarded Flynn $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit claiming he was the target of a political prosecution. McCord later worked as a legal consultant to Democrats in both impeachments of Trump.

Atkinson also worked closely with former DOJ official David Laufman, another Obama appointee and donor who approved the FBI’s opening of investigations targeting five Trump advisers as possible foreign agents.

Schiff — who now represents California in the U.S. Senate — sealed the transcripts of Atkinson’s testimony from public view during the impeachment proceedings. They are the only impeachment witness transcripts out of 18 that were never released.

Schiff classified the documents “Secret,” preventing Republicans who attended the Atkinson briefings from quoting from them. Even impeachment investigators were prevented from viewing it outside a highly secured room, known as a “SCIF,” in the basement of the Capitol. Members had to first get permission from Schiff, and were forbidden from bringing phones into the SCIF or from taking notes from the document.

Then-House Intelligence member John Ratcliffe, now CIA director, said Schiff’s office coached the whistleblower on how to file a complaint under intelligence community whistleblower protections before steering him to Atkinson, who facilitated the processing of his complaint, despite numerous alarms sounded by career Justice Department lawyers who reviewed it. 

The department’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled that the complaint involved “foreign diplomacy,” not intelligence, contained “hearsay” evidence based on “secondhand” information, and did not meet the definition of an “urgent concern” that needed to be reported to Congress. Still, Atkinson worked closely with Schiff to pressure the White House to make the complaint public.

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz said cloaking the Biden CIA detailee in the whistleblower statute provided him cover from public scrutiny. By making Ciaramella anonymous, he was able to hide his background and motives.

Disclosing Classified Information

Filing the complaint with the IC inspector general, moreover, gave him added protections against reprisals, while letting him disclose classified information. If he had filed directly with Congress, it could not have made the complaint public due to concerns about disclosing classified information. But a complaint referred by the IG to Congress gave it more latitude over what it could make public.

The whistleblower complaint was publicly released Sept. 26, 2019, after a barrage of letters and a subpoena from Schiff, along with a flood of leaks to the media.

However, the whistleblower never disclosed to Atkinson that he had briefed Schiff’s office about his complaint before filing it with the inspector general. He was required on forms to list any other agencies he had contacted — including specifically, “the congressional intelligence committees.” But he omitted those contacts and other material facts from his disclosure.

“The whistleblower did not check the box for congressional intelligence committees,” Atkinson told the committee in his Oct. 4, 2019, sworn testimony. “Our investigators also asked the complainant who knew about the complainant’s disclosure. The complainant did not identify the congressional intelligence committees.”

He also appears to have misled Atkinson on Aug. 12, 2019, when on a separate form he stated: “I reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committees directly,” when he had already contacted Schiff’s committee weeks prior to making the statement.

“The whistleblower made statements to the inspector general under the penalty of perjury that were not true or correct,” Ratcliffe said.

Schiff also kept mum about their scheme.

Ratcliffe said Atkinson appeared unconcerned after The New York Times revealed in early October 2019 that Schiff’s office had privately consulted with the CIA analyst before he filed his complaint, contradicting Schiff’s initial denials they had ever met.

According to the declassified transcripts, Schiff maintained that he merely “misspoke” and wasn’t trying to hide anything. “Please do not suggest by that that I, or anyone else, had an intention to deceive,” he said.

Ratcliffe told RealClearInvestigations that in closed-door testimony on Oct. 4, “I asked IG Atkinson about his ‘investigation’ into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower.” But he said Atkinson claimed that he had not investigated them because he had only just learned about them in the media.

On Oct. 8, after more media reports revealed the whistleblower and Schiff’s staff had concealed their contacts with each other, the whistleblower called Atkinson’s office to try to explain why he made false statements in writing and verbally, transgressions that could be punishable with a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up five years, or both, according to the federal form he signed under penalty of perjury.

In his clarification to the inspector general, the whistleblower acknowledged for the first time reaching out to Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint, according to an investigative report filed later that month by Atkinson.

“The whistleblower got caught,” Ratcliffe said. “The whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with Chairman Schiff.”

He said the truth about what happened is documented in the transcript of Atkinson’s testimony, which is why Schiff refused to release it.

“The transcript is classified ‘Secret’ so Schiff can prevent you from seeing [Atkinson’s] answers to my questions,” Ratcliffe told RCI previously.

Atkinson’s actions were instrumental to Schiff’s impeachment operation.

“Michael Atkinson is a key anti-Trump conspirator who played a central role in transforming the ‘whistleblower’ complaint into the impeachment proceedings,” said Bill Marshall, a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group that is suing the Justice Department for Atkinson’s internal communications related to the first Trump impeachment.


Uglification As Control: The Assault on Beauty

Uglification As Control: 

The Assault on Beauty

Giovanna Dell'Orto via AP

This morning at 4 am, something not unusual (for me) happened: I woke with an insight after falling asleep mid-chapter reading C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy. Ransom, his main character, was based on J.R.R. Tolkien, and I had been having a conversation with Professor Tolkien in my sleep. 

What I wrote down was this: Triptych: Wealth. Power. Beauty.

These are the three things humans desire. Beauty is generally within our reach. Wealth and power must be worked for but are achievable in our great Western civilization. And these are precisely the things that socialist and Marxist movements, or indeed any ideology that seeks control over others, work to destroy. It’s not that they hate the good and the beautiful so much as that the desire to dominate is more powerful. In The Lord of the Rings, Sauron and Saruman knew that domination of others is easiest when people are hungry, diminished, and surrounded by the drab and the ugly.

Of the three, I am most fascinated by beauty. 

Power and Wealth

Everyone knows about the first panel, wealth. As socialism creeps into a system, we see more and more confiscation of wealth: progressive taxation, expensive regulatory tangles, redistributionism, and equity. Promises of fairness harden into, as the hobbits in “The Scouring of the Shire” discovered, the powerful gathering far more than is ever shared back out. The ordinary man is “given” just enough to stay sated but hungry, kept dependent upon the government.

Power follows quickly. Bureaucracies centralize decision-making in government and industry. HR departments make cold decisions about employee relations. Grant bodies and cultural gatekeepers decide what projects are funded. The independent powers — families, churches, businesses, local private organizations, local communities — are crowded out or regulated into irrelevance. Eventually, only the central powers are granting permission for things that were once free.

Beauty is different. Beauty affirms the spirit and soothes the soul, affirms dignity and self-worth, and makes people hard to rule. 

The Uglification of the Shire

Tolkien shows us exactly how it works. The ruffians and “gatherers and sharers” that took over the peaceful Shire don’t just loot; they uglify. They close the old inns, fell beloved trees, replace hobbit-holes with ugly, mean brick houses, pollute the water, and craft and post ugly rules and propaganda. But why bother making things hideous? Why is it important to destroy beauty? 

Because beauty is quietly powerful. The ordinary hobbit could go outside in the evening and smoke his pipe, gazing out across the lovely green hills of the Shire. Daily, they saw that life could be ordered, delightful, and worth defending. Once beauty is ruined, there is less to care about, less to fight for. Compliance becomes normal — after all, the Party Tree has already been cut down and left to rot, so there's nothing to fight for. Quaint Bagshot Row is an open quarry. Gatherers take surplus and more, despoiling what they don’t take. The hobbits grumble, of course, but they are demoralized, hungry but not starving, and much easier to control because they just don’t care anymore.

We saw the same things in the old Soviet Union. Socialist realism, with its austere lines and solid colors, replaced real art with propaganda posters praising the USSR and the worker. Beautiful, graceful cathedrals and exotic Russian onion domes were replaced by brutalist concrete blocks. Fashion and music and gathering places, things of delight, were flattened into drabness, functional but not fun. Because the state could not redistribute beauty, and because beauty gives people joy and hope, beauty was pathologized, called bourgeois, and replaced with an antiseptic, dark aesthetic. The common man was given enough “culture” to be sated, but never enough to satisfy the hunger of his soul for beauty. Other, darker things filled that void.

Today’s Quiet Uglification

We’re watching a softer version play out in real time, especially in the cultural sphere. One of the most visible symptoms is the trend toward ugliness among segments of young liberal or feminist women in America and Europe, especially: deliberate androgyny, rejection of makeup or feminine presentation, garish and jarring hair colors, glorification of obesity under the banner of “body positivity,” and an overall embrace of what can only be called uglification. This is not simply a trend or fashion or a fad, but rather the same dynamic we saw in the Soviet Union and the Shire. But this dynamic uses guilt and fitting in as enforcement mechanisms. Striving for conventional beauty is “internalized patriarchy,” “fatphobia,” or complicity in oppression. The message is don’t try too hard, or you’re betraying the group. The result? Personal self-sabotage that signals virtue inside the subculture, transferring the ego boost young women once got from looking nice to the “you go girl” affirmation from her peers.

The same guilt weapon is now embedded in art, literature, film, and entertainment. Stories can no longer simply delight or transport; they must deliver “woke messages” or be dismissed as frivolous. DEI checklists in casting, publishing, and funding turn beauty, art, and craft into a delivery mechanism for ideology rather than an end in itself. The art becomes uglier not because the creators hate beauty, but because domination (cultural and ideological) is easier when excellence is flattened, and delight is politicized. The audience gets just enough competent spectacle to stay engaged, but never the full, unmediated joy of craft for craft’s sake.

What beauty actually does for us

Beauty is restorative, not frivolous. It lifts the spirit and quietly affirms worth. Psychological research backs this up powerfully.

This seems trivial, but it is not. Self-perceived beauty, even one little thing, can change one’s attitude. One study found that simple everyday grooming — something as basic as applying a fragranced deodorant or antiperspirant — significantly improved the accuracy of women’s and men’s self-perceived body-size judgments, especially among those who tended to overestimate their size. The effect was purely psychological: grooming altered the attitudinal component of body image in a positive direction, beyond plain hygiene.

Another line of research in neuroaesthetics shows that actively noticing and reflecting on beautiful things in daily life (nature, art, human behavior) reliably increases happiness and reduces depressive symptoms. Participants who practiced the “nine beautiful things” exercise for just one week reported measurable mood gains and lower depression, essentially hacking the brain’s reward system by feeding it ordered excellence.

Surround people with beauty in their bodies, their homes, their stories, their public spaces, and they feel more capable, more alive, more free. Strip it away or moralize it, and quiet demoralization sets in.

Protecting the triptych

The American founding vision understood this instinctively. The Constitution and the classical liberal order it embodies were designed to safeguard the earned pursuit of wealth, power, and beauty. Not equal outcomes, but equal rules under which individuals can strive, create, and enjoy free of centralized gatherers and sharers warping the panels for control. Property rights protect wealth. Fragmented, checked power protects agency. Free expression and the right to pursue happiness protect the cultivation of beauty in all its manifestations — personal, artistic, architectural — without ideological veto.

Pushing back is straightforward, if unfashionable: reject the guilt. Embrace beauty unapologetically: fit bodies, elegant style, well-crafted stories, harmonious public spaces. Defend the Constitution not as abstract law but as the practical shield that keeps the elements of the triptych from being gathered and rationed. The hobbits eventually scoured the Shire. We can do the same in our own cultural and political fields by refusing to let domination wear the mask of fairness and by insisting that the common man still deserves the full, earned delight of all three panels.

The 4 a.m. note turned out to be more than a midnight scribble. It’s a diagnosis, a warning, and — quietly — an invitation to regain what was always meant to be ours.