Featured Timeline Entries
October 29, 2025 - A new study exposes the Homeless Industrial Complex behind America's homelessness crisis

A homeless person lies on the sidewalk in New York on Dec. 27, 2024. (Credit: Selcuk Acar/Anadolu)

For years, Americans have been told that “compassion” for the homeless meant writing ever-larger checks – more money, more programs and far less accountability.

Now, at last, we have some answers for why homelessness has exploded even amid a tripling of public spending. 

A groundbreaking investigation, “Infiltrated” – backed by more than 50 pages of documentation from the Capital Research Center in cooperation with Discovery Institute – pulls back the curtain on a vast system of corruption. It reveals how billions in taxpayer funds intended to lift people out of homelessness have instead bankrolled radical activism and anti-American political agendas, betraying both the taxpayers who fund it and the homeless they were meant to help.

Despite unprecedented resources, homelessness in the United States now stands at its highest level in U.S. history. “Infiltrated” details how the nation’s most prominent “homeless advocacy” organizations have been weaponized against the very people they claim to serve – redirecting compassion into ideology and dependency into power.

It exposes how radical networks have quietly embedded themselves within leading homelessness nonprofits, sharing infrastructure, donors and ideology.

What began as a movement rooted in compassion has metastasized into what can only be described as a Homelessness Industrial Complex – a sprawling web of nonprofits, bureaucrats and activists feeding off the very crisis they claim to solve.

They’ve built an empire of corruption draped in “evidence-based” slogans that shield politics, protect paychecks and betray the vulnerable.

The report lays it bare: these networks posture as defenders of America’s homeless, yet in truth, they have become their greatest exploiters, dependent on failure to sustain power.

The origins trace back to 2013, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) enshrined Housing First as federal doctrine. Promising to “end homelessness in a decade,” HUD stripped away requirements for treatment and accountability, effectively institutionalizing a policy.

The result? Spending soared. Grants proliferated. Outcomes collapsed.

The Supreme Court’s Grants Pass v. Johnson case further exposed the rot. Over 700 nonprofits – collectively taking in $2.9 billion in government grants – filed briefs defending public encampments and opposing enforcement of anti-camping laws as “cruel and unusual punishment.” Their concern wasn’t compassion – it was the preservation of their money pot.

Private foundations joined the crusade.

Major philanthropic giants – Ford, Robert Wood Johnson and Gates Foundations – poured billions into Housing First and “equity” initiatives to promote ideology under the guise of helping the homeless.

Donor-advised funds masked the flow of money, enabling anonymous advocacy giving that blurred the line between charity and politics. (Read more: Fox News, 10/29/2025)  (Archive)

October 31, 2025 - O'Keefe Media: Interview with NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake

Interview w/ NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake | My Price Is My Life Ep #16

(0:00) Inside the NSA After 9/11

(7:00) The Trailblazer Scandal

(18:00) Blowing the Whistle

(24:00) The FBI Raid

(30:00) The Snowden Connection

(36:00) Contractor Corruption & the Deep State

(42:00) The Price of Whistleblowing

(48:00) Faith and Resilience

(55:00) Psychological Warfare

(1:03:00) The Nature of Power

(1:15:00) Lessons from History

(1:25:00) What It Means to Be Free

(1:50:00) Surviving the Fallout

(2:00:00) The True Price of Telling the Truth

@OKeefeMedia  @Thomas_Drake1

 

October 31, 2025 - Judge blocks Trump from requiring proof of citizenship on voter registration forms

Judge/Queen Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Credit: public meme)

In a decision by U.S. District Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly on Friday, Kollar-Kotelly “sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration” after the President issued an executive order in March entitled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” according to the Associated Press.

Kollar-Kotelly, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, claimed in her decision that “the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers,” and argued that “on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures,” the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give a “direct role to the President in either domain,” according to the outlet.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly said.

(Breitbart, 10/31/2025)  (Archive)

18 U.S.C. § 611, passed as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, (the IIRIRA) makes it illegal for most aliens to vote in federal elections.

October 31, 2025 - Techno Fog: Arctic Frost and the Financial "Crimes" Investigation

Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco and Christopher Wray each signed off on Arctic Frost (Credit: New York Post)

Thanks to releases by FBI Director Kash Patel and Senate Republicans (here and here and here), we are finally getting sunlight into the FBI’s overarching investigation of not only President Trump but of nearly everyone in his orbit – the investigation assigned the name “Artic Frost.”

(…) What has been lost is also that the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO), back in October 2020, assessed that “the use of American Made Media Consultants (AMMC) as a clearinghouse for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the Trump campaign) spending is likely vulnerable to campaign finance crimes by campaign-connected sub-vendors.”

This campaign finance investigation – which was opened by the FBI’s New York Field Office – stemmed from an AMMC member’s potential gambling activities, his efforts to allegedly evade federal $10,000 reporting requirements when cashing-in his winnings, and the alleged pay-off of a Senegalese government official. The FBI’s thought was that the party (the gambler) potentially used Trump campaign funds distributed through AMMC “for personal or unauthorized use.” It should be noted that the FBI’s October 2020 “Tactical Intelligence Report” made its assessment with “low confidence.”

In June 2022, the FBI re-assessed the financial investigation (or at least had renewed interest in the financial investigation), citing to the House January 6th Committee’s “investigation” into the Trump Campaign’s post-2020 election fundraising, which was promoted as the “Election Defense Fund.” See the FBI email below.

We mention campaign finance and the use of funds to challenge the 2020 election because of Senator Grassley’s recent release of 1700+ pages of grand jury subpoenas requesting financial records from a number of individuals and entities, including:

  • Donald J. Trump for President
  • Jeff Clark
  • American Voting Rights Foundation (which helped fund the Arizona audit)
  • Conservative Partnership Institute (which assists Republicans in training and educating staff, builds coalitions, and helps with staffing)
  • A large number of vendors and contractors involved with the Trump Campaign
  • Cyber Ninjas (who were involved in the Arizona election audit)
  • Sidney Powell
  • Individuals and attorneys who assisted with fundraising for, or distributing funds concerning, election audits.
  • MyPillow
  • Representation or legal fee agreements between fundraising committees and their attorneys
  • Dan Scavino
  • Mark Meadows

Some of these subpoenas were issued by the grand jury before Jack Smith was appointed Special Counsel. But most of them came after Smith’s November 18, 2022 appointment – some just days after.

It’s pretty clear what happened.

By April 2022 (at the latest), the Biden DOJ wasn’t just pursuing “election interference” charges against Trump, et al. They were going after conservative fundraising and groups promoting conservative causes, as well as the individuals associated with those groups and entities.

That’s why you see mail fraud – a statute used by federal authorities to charge fundraising-related crimes – in the April 2022 Artic Frost opening communication. (We’re fairly certain they also looked at wire fraud.) And through the use of the grand jury, the Biden Administration was able to reach every single group and individual that pursued truth in the 2020 presidential election.

But it’s not only that. The Biden Administration also targeted those groups formed after the 2020 election – such those groups who weren’t involved in “alternative electors” but who assisted and conducted audits.

The predicate for an expansive financial crimes investigation is not addressed in the Artic Frost opening communication. Nor is it addressed in Special Counsel Smith’s final report. It’s telling that a prosecutor as aggressive as Jack Smith found no financial crimes after receiving the records – an indication of just how weak the predicate was.

This wasn’t just about 2020. It was about 2024 and a plan to not only indict the former President and Republican frontrunner, but to kneecap his support and financial infrastructure. (Read more: Techno Fog/Substack, 10/31/2025)  (Archive)

October 31, 2025 - Elon Musk tells Joe Rogan ‘The Democratic party wants to destroy democracy’

Elon Musk railed against the Democratic Party’s immigration policy during a three-hour interview on “The Joe Rogan Experience” posted Friday.

President Donald Trump won the 2024 election on a platform of conducting mass deportations and reducing government waste. Musk defended the Trump administration’s efforts on the podcast while attacking the Democrats for their opposition, which he said was undemocratic in nature.

“If Trump had lost, there would never have been another real election again. Because Trump is actually enforcing the border … There’ll be cases where they’ve been overzealous in expelling illegals,” Musk said. “But if you say that the standard must be perfection for expelling illegals, then you will not get any expulsion, because perfection is impossible.”

Musk asserted that, in contrast to Trump, the Democratic Party wants more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. He said their desire was what motivated their decision to shut down the government on Oct. 1 and refuse to reopen it.

“The entire basis for the government shutdown is that the Trump administration correctly does not want to send … hundreds of billions of dollars to fund illegal immigrants in the blue states — or in all the states, really,” Musk said. “And the Democrats want to keep the money spigot going to incent illegal immigrants to come into the U.S. who will vote for them. That’s the crux of the battle.”

Republicans have repeatedly accused Democrats of shutting down the government in order to fund healthcare for illegal migrants, but they have denied the allegations. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in June that around 1.4 million individuals who would be removed from Medicaid under the reconciliation bill that Trump signed in July “would be people who do not meet citizenship and immigration status requirements for Medicaid enrollment but who would be covered under current law in programs funded by the states.”

Musk elaborated on his theory about the shutdown minutes later, appearing to shock Rogan.

“The reason you have the standoff is because if the hundreds of billions of dollars to create a financial incentive — to have this giant magnet to attract illegals from every part of Earth to these states — if that is turned off, the illegals will leave,” he said. “Because they’re no longer being paid to come to the United States and stay here.”

“Wow,” Rogan replied.

Musk added that he believed the Democrats would shed numerous voters if illegal immigrants lost benefits and decided to leave the country as a result.

“[I]n a nutshell, the Democratic Party wants to destroy democracy by importing voters,” he said. “And the Republican Party disagrees with that.”  (Read more: Daily Caller, 10/31/2025) (Archive)

November 2, 2025 - Trump's full interview on 60 Minutes and then the edited version

November 1, 2025 - Career intelligence officer confronts John Brennan about signing the "51 spies who lied" letter

(Credit: @amuse)

 

November 3, 2025 - Lindsey Halligan files public response to James Comey's motion to dismiss his indictment; damning evidence in Exhibits provided


James Comey, from his burner gmail with his alias Reinhold Niebuhr, states:

to me No need. At this point it would shouting into the wind. Some day they will figure it out. And as Jack and Ben point out, my decision will be one a president elect Clinton… pic.twitter.com/8tdx74YoHo

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 3, 2025

(Credit: public meme)

James Comey is cooked. He tried to dismiss his indictment and prosecutors went nuclear and fully exposed his knowledge and involvement in the Russia collusion hoax.

Let’s break down this new damning evidence:

– FBI letterhead notes in his handwriting: “Hillary Rodham Clinton plan to tie Russia to Trump.” Plain as day. He knew, he ran it, then lied to Congress.
– Notes stuffed in a burn bag, hidden deep in a secret FBI vault, ready to torch before President Trump and Kash Patel arrived.
– Burner Gmail alias “Reinhold Neighbor” leaking classified dirt to the New York Times, illegal, denied under oath to Congress.
– Emails to FBI Special Government Employee Daniel Richman: “Well done, my friend. Who knew this would be so fun?” And: “President-elect Clinton will be very grateful.”

These filings eviscerate Comey’s defense. There is no doubt superseding indictments are locked and loaded.

He engineered the fraud, buried the evidence, and lied.

The cover-up always gets you. Comey’s done.

November 4, 2025 - Trump White House starts website that features illegal aliens who receive Medicaid benefits

President Donald Trump has launched a revolutionary new website designed to pull back the curtain on the massive scam of illegal immigrants sucking up billions in Medicaid benefits at the expense of hardworking U.S. taxpayers.

The website went live Monday night, publishing the names, mugshots, and criminal charges of illegal immigrants receiving benefits from the federal health program.

Some of those criminals were convicted of heinous offenses, including murder, rape, burglary, and assault.

According to the website:

The Trump administration has intensified enforcement against criminal illegal aliens receiving taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits, arresting hundreds of unauthorized individuals since taking office, including those with serious criminal records who exploited taxpayer-funded Medicaid illegally or through loopholes. This crackdown, driven by executive orders prioritizing public safety and fiscal responsibility, has led to the swift deportation of many individuals convicted of heinous acts, ensuring that precious resources meant for American citizens are no longer diverted to subsidize violent criminals.

Compounding the crisis, Democrats have refused to pass a clean budget bill to end the shutdown unless Republicans concede to their demands for $1.5 trillion in new spending, including restorations to Medicaid expansions that would effectively extend coverage to over 1 million illegal aliens, funneling an additional $200 billion to such programs over the next decade at the expense of U.S. families. Below we’ve highlighted some of those criminals convicted of heinous crimes like murder, rape, burglary and assault.

You can visit the website HERE.

Below are some of the illegal immigrants posted on the website:

This explosive launch comes hot on the heels of yet another Democrat denial fest, where far-left politicians and their media mouthpieces insisted that no illegal aliens receive Medicaid benefits.

As Vice President J.D. Vance declared during a Fox News interview, Democrats “shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.” (Read more: Gateway Pundit, 11/3/2025)  (Archive)

November 5, 2025 - The hidden transcript of Intelligence Community IG Michael Atkinson testimony is the key to reveal CIA targeting of Trump

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 (Credit: public domain)

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 this year, 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.

Eric Ciaramella shakes hands with President Obama. (Credit: public domain)

♦ Key point:  Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016. Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of this year.

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.

Michael Atkinson (Credit: public domain)

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.

Vaughn Bishop (Credit: Wikipedia)

Courtney Simmons Elwood (Credit: Wikipedia)

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

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 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 recent 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 SSCI had a change of position and agreed to confirm John Ratcliffe.

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.

The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed.

The truth has no agenda.

We have one ally.

I’m doing all I can…

(Conservative Treehouse, 11/5/2025)  (Archive)

November 5, 2025 - Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump's Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments

HERE WE GO!!!

🚨 Supreme Court Justices Grill Trump’s Tariff Authority in Oral Arguments

Given what I just heard and following this case, I believe The Supreme Court is LIKELY to UPHOLD the President’s authority to impose tariffs.

🔻 Breakdown:

– Justice Kavanaugh questions the “odd donut hole” in the statute: why the President can shut down all trade or impose quotas with every country but not a 1% tariff, arguing it lacks common sense.

– Benjamin Gutman argues tariffs are a fundamentally different power—akin to taxation for revenue—while the statute authorizes controlling or freezing trade, like embargoes, not revenue-raising measures.

– Gutman emphasizes context matters; no other federal statute uses “regulate” to authorize tariffs or taxes, and tariffs fall under commerce power, not taxation, citing historical figures like John Marshall and Joseph Story.

– Justice Barrett notes the interpretation allows embargoes on global trade but bars minor tariffs, probing if tariffs undermine the statute’s goal of controlling transactions during emergencies.

– Gutman clarifies embargoes ensure hard limits (e.g., no more than 1,000 units imported), while tariffs only add costs without guaranteeing control, potentially allowing trade to continue.

– Justice Jackson challenges why blocking all trade isn’t a bigger deal than a small tariff, and questions reliance on the Algonquin case, which was statutory interpretation, not constitutional.

– Gutman responds that Algonquin looked at text, context, and legislative history, suggesting Congress intended emergency powers for stopping trade, not revenue generation.

– Justices discuss framers’ concerns: revenue-raising powers were core to Article I, posing different risks than trade controls, and tariffs might create incentives misaligned with emergency goals.

🔻Overall Lean of SCOTUS Judges:

Remember, this is a bite sized morsel of the entire argument.

– Conservative Justices (e.g., Kavanaugh, possibly Alito based on related reports) appear more open to the administration’s interpretation, questioning the limitations on presidential tariff authority and expressing concern about removing it from the “suite of tools” for economic emergencies.

– Liberal Justices (e.g., Jackson, possibly others) seem to be probing the breadth of presidential power, potentially leaning towards a narrower interpretation that aligns with historical and constitutional concerns about revenue-raising authorities.

🔻 My Educated Guess on the Decision:

Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the oral arguments, it is likely that the majority WILL SIDE with the administration, upholding the President’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The conservative majority, particularly Kavanaugh and possibly Alito, seem concerned about limiting presidential tools in economic emergencies, and the historical and contextual arguments presented by Gutman may resonate with them.

However, the end decision might be narrow, focusing on the specific statutory interpretation rather than broadly expanding presidential power, to garner a majority that includes some swing votes like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett.

🔻 When to Expect an Answer?

Given that oral arguments occurred on today, we can expect a decision sometime between late May and early July 2026, likely closer to June 2026, as is customary for major cases. May even be earlier given the importance.

I’m feeling very good about this. Don’t pay attention to the doom and gloomers. This is destiny!

Howard Lutnick: KABOOM 💥

President Trump will WIN the SCOTUS Tariff Case and the economy will go 🆙🆙🆙!

If by chance SCOUTS rules against him, “there’s something called section 232 which is also about tariffs, so there are plenty of tariff rules that the President has no matter what. The answer is, these judges are going to side with Donald Trump.”

**Section 232** refers to a provision in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (specifically, 19 U.S.C. § 1862), which grants the U.S. President broad authority to impose tariffs, quotas, or other trade restrictions on imports deemed a threat to national security.

It empowers the President to act unilaterally if imports could impair U.S. national security, such as by weakening domestic industries critical to defense (e.g., steel or aluminum production). –

The Department of Commerce conducts an investigation (typically 270 days) to assess the impact of imports. If a threat is found, the President has 90 days to decide on remedies, which could include tariffs or negotiations with trading partners. –

Notably invoked during the Trump administration in 2018 for 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum imports from various countries, citing national security risks to U.S. manufacturing. Similar actions have occurred under other presidents, though less frequently. In the context of your quote, Section 232 underscores the expansive executive powers on trade policy—often bypassing Congress or courts—allowing a president like Trump to pursue tariffs even amid legal challenges, as it’s framed as a national security tool rather than pure economic policy.

November 6, 2025 - Trump holds closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans; tensions running high

President Donald Trump had heated words with GOP leadership, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, left. (Credit: Alex Wong / Getty Images; Samuel Corum / Getty Images)

Tensions are running high in the Republican Party following a special election Tuesday that did not go the way they had hoped.

In the aftermath, President Donald Trump sees one, clear-cut solution to these newfound GOP woes: Ending the filibuster.

And any Republican who wants to get in the way of that is now facing Trump’s unbridled ire.

According to Axios, Trump held an “eerily silent” and “uncomfortable” meeting with Republican senators Wednesday morning.

Trump reportedly laid into his party, noting that the GOP was losing the PR battle over the ongoing government shutdown.

The president also warned that Republicans would “get killed” and be viewed as “do-nothing Republicans” if they don’t end the filibuster (Senate rules currently call for 60 votes for most legislation).

“If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” Trump told GOP senators during the public portion of this meeting.

According to Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio, things got more intense once reporters were asked to leave:

(Read more: Western Journal, 11/6/2025)  (Archive)

November 7, 2025 - Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani, others involved in bid to challenge 2020 election

President Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani on November 7, 2025. (Credit: video clipping)

President Donald Trump has pardoned a number of prominent figures involved in his effort to challenge the 2020 election outcome, according to U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin on Nov. 9.

A proclamation document shared by Martin on social media named more than 70 individuals, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and attorneys Sidney Powell and John Eastman, all accused of involvement in Trump’s bid to challenge the 2020 election results.

The pardons apply to conduct tied to the individuals’ involvement in activities surrounding the 2020 presidential election, as well as any conduct related to “their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election,” according to the document.

“This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation,” the document states.

The pardon only covers federal charges brought against those listed. The proclamation also explicitly states that the pardon does not apply to Trump.

The proclamation was signed by the president on Nov. 7, according to the document.

In an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the individuals were targeted by the Biden administration “for challenging an election, which is the cornerstone of democracy.”

“Getting prosecuted for challenging results is something that happens in communist Venezuela, not the United States of America, and President Trump is putting an end to the Biden regime’s communist tactics once and for all,” Leavitt stated. (Read more: The Epoch Times, 11/10/2025)  (Archive)

November 7, 2025 - Grand jury subpoenas Brennan, Strzok, Page as part of federal Russiagate probe

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, among others as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Fox News Digital has learned.

Sources told Fox News Digital Brennan; Strzok, the FBI’s former deputy assistant director of counterintelligence; and Page, a former FBI lawyer, were served with federal subpoenas on Friday.

Law enforcement sources told Fox News Digital that up to 30 subpoenas will be issued in the coming days relating to the investigation.

The grand jury is out of the Southern District of Florida. U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe.

Fox News Digital first reported this summer that Brennan was under criminal investigation. (Read more: Fox News, 11/6/2025)  (Archive)

November 6, 2025 - Nancy Pelosi announces her retirement; how she got filthy rich while in Congress

Nancy Pelosi raps the gavel she used in the House of Representatives 14 years earlier when the Affordable Care Act was passed during a news conference to mark the anniversary at the U.S. Capitol on March 21, 2024 (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Democratic California Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s wealth grew by at least 2,292%, largely through stock trading, during her 37 years in Congress.

The former House speaker, who announced Thursday that she will retire from Congress in 2027, had a $2,675,036 minimum net worth in the year she began serving and a $63,996,050 minimum net worth in 2024, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of assets and liabilities listed in her congressional financial disclosures. An analysis by Quiver Quantitative estimates her current net worth more precisely at $278,760,000 million.

Pelosi’s maximum net worth in 2024 was an estimated $311,443,000, her filings show. Lawmakers did not report maximum dollar amounts in 1987, the year Pelosi served her first term.

The 85-year-old congresswoman’s portfolio nearly doubled the S&P 500’s growth in 2024, the DCNF previously reported. Her wealth prompted calls for reforming the rules on lawmakers trading stocks, as well as suspicion that she engaged in illegal insider trading based on advance knowledge about industry trends. Her office denied such claims, saying she does not personally own stocks or have prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in transactions. Her husband, Paul, manages her trades.

Pelosi’s office did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. (Read more: Daily Caller, 11/7/2025)  (Archive)

    November 7, 2025 - Congressman reveals FBI informants warned of armed violence, Antifa presence before January 6 "insurrection"

    (Credit: Jag Reporter)

    Numerous confidential informants alerted the FBI prior to the Jan. 6, 2021 riot that there was the strong possibility of “armed” conflict at the U.S. Capitol, but that intelligence was not disbursed aggressively enough to force a change in security that fateful day, the first congressman to review those source reports tells Just the News.

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee investigating Jan. 6 law enforcement failures, said he was floored to see the specificity of threats and the consistency in warnings that multiple confidential human sources provided the FBI and that the intelligence was serious enough that it should have prompted more security and possibly even a cancellation of President Donald Trump’s speech that day on the Ellipse.

    Loudermilk said the intelligence reports came weeks and days in advance of the Capitol riot from about two dozen informants embedded in radical groups around the country and that many of those informants came to the Capitol to keep assisting the FBI.

    “I was surprised that we found this significant intelligence that was derived from these people embedded in these organizations,” he said Friday night in an expansive interview on the “Just the News, No Noise” television show. “There is no way that at least the Washington Field Office or the FBI headquarters was not aware that there were elements, not the entire crowd. There were elements of people coming to Washington, DC with the intent of attacking the Capitol of the United States.”

    The Georgia lawmaker credited current FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi for giving him access to the intelligence reports of the informants and said that it opened a whole new avenue of inquiry into whether some elements inside the FBI withheld intelligence that could have helped Capitol Police better prepare or repel the violence that occurred that day.

    “We’re really having a hard time finding really any tangible reports that were sent to the Capitol Police or other agencies. And so my question is, what did they know? When did they know it, and what did they do with the information?” he said.

    “I can tell you unequivocally, they had to know that there was something not only bad going to happen, but the reports coming from these confidential human sources, not just one, but multiple sources from multiple organizations across multiple field offices across the nation, were reporting the same thing,” he added.

    Loudermilk said the informants made clear to their FBI handlers “that not only was there going to be violence in Washington, DC, at the Capitol on January 6, most of the reports were it was going to be a whole lot worse than what actually it turned out to be.”

    Pressed further, Loudermilk said he was waiting to have documents further declassified but confirmed multiple informants told the FBI that groups were planning an armed attack on the Capitol, lawmakers or law enforcement during the certification of the 2020 election results that cleared the way for Joe Biden to become the 46th president.

    (Read more: Just the News, 11/7/2025)  (Archive)

    November 7, 2025 - Key details about how the systems of the intelligence apparatus were weaponized against Trump

    Many people have asked for videos to outline key details about how the systems of the intelligence apparatus were weaponized against President Trump. Well, friend of the Treehouse John Spiropoulos is doing exactly that.

    These video segments are not outlines of supposition, guesswork or possibility.  In true CTH mission focus, Spiropoulos makes his presentations full of fact-based citations for scrutiny and review.  Citations, timelines and verifiable receipts are how truthful information cuts through the AI silo filtration; the tech effort to control speech by controlling reach.

    John is working hard to put much of the information from our research library into accurate video context.  This is 30 minutes of actionable information. There are both YouTube Links Here and Rumble links Here. WATCH:

    (Conservative Treehouse, 11/7/2025)

    November 9, 2025 - USAID's Domestic Color Revolution Network

    MAJOR BREAKING: International actors are involved in the State Department led color revolution 🚨🚨

    This is not speculation; it’s straight from a recorded call.

    Ex-USAID employees describe how, before January 20, they moved internal groups off government systems and into encrypted Signal chats, then quickly linked with foreign partners and NGOs after the inauguration. This attempt at creating a color revolution isn’t new news; this part was already reported in NOTUS earlier this year.

    But what’s not reported is the international aspect. One participant explicitly frames it as “a global anti-authoritarian movement,” connecting U.S. officials with “colleagues from around the world who have dealt with this directly.”

    They reference coordination with Johns Hopkins, “international democracy and conflict mitigation spaces,” and efforts to mobilize across borders against what they perceive as domestic authoritarianism.

    At what point does this become treason?

    As always, patience as I pull together this thread.

    Mike Benz does a stunning deep dive into DataRepublican’s thread:

    Censorship Industry Annotated 106 — The Bigger The Front, The Bigger The Back. In this subscriber stream, I went through DataRepublican’s viral thread and added context, color & details about USAID cells plotting to use domestically the Dept of Dirty Tricks tactics they were formerly trained & tasked to do abroad.

    November 9, 2025 - The reason why Democrats are forcing a government shutdown

    (Credit: public meme)

    Many Americans are asking why Democrats forced another government shutdown. The truth is simple: it’s political theater.

    After months of fading media attention and a struggling campaign season, Democrats needed a headline. The shutdown guarantees it.

    But beneath the political noise lies a calculated strategy—one that hinges on expanding Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants and weaponizing public sympathy for future elections.

    The debate began when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a sweeping reform designed to close long-standing loopholes in federal spending. One of the most consequential provisions stopped states from passing Medicaid costs for illegal immigrants onto federal taxpayers.

    The law required states to cover these costs themselves, eliminating a system that blurred eligibility lines and wasted billions of dollars each year.

    Democrats want that provision repealed. Their refusal to pass a funding bill without restoring those payments is what triggered the shutdown.

    Behind the rhetoric about “healthcare for all” is an effort to restore a hidden subsidy—one that forces law-abiding Americans to finance benefits for those who entered the country illegally.

    California provides a striking example of how this system was abused.

    In 2023, the state budgeted $3.9 billion in Medicaid spending for illegal immigrants. Because the federal government reimburses roughly 70% of state Medicaid expenses, most of that cost fell not on Californians, but on taxpayers from other states.

    To inflate reimbursement further, California raised hospital and nursing-home taxes, recycled the funds back through Medicaid, and claimed it as new spending.

    The maneuver created the illusion of a budget increase to qualify for more federal aid—a financial shell game that allowed the state to spend little of its own money while draining federal resources.

    New York and Illinois soon followed. In 2024, New York allocated $2.4 billion to expand full Medicaid benefits to illegal immigrants under 65, while Illinois extended coverage to noncitizens over 42.

    The pattern is identical across each blue state: raise spending artificially, capture more federal dollars, and redirect those funds to individuals who are not legally eligible for the program.

    The result is a program riddled with inefficiency and corruption.

    (…) Medicaid now consumes more than $800 billion annually, accounting for over 15% of all federal spending.

    (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 11/9/2025)  (Archive)

    November 9, 2025 - Data Republican: International actors are involved in the State Department led color revolution in America

    🧵🚨 MAJOR BREAKING: International actors are involved in the State Department led color revolution 🚨🚨

    This is not speculation; it’s straight from a recorded call.

    Ex-USAID employees describe how, before January 20, they moved internal groups off government systems and into encrypted Signal chats, then quickly linked with foreign partners and NGOs after the inauguration. This attempt at creating a color revolution isn’t new news; this part was already reported in NOTUS earlier this year.

    But what’s not reported is the international aspect. One participant explicitly frames it as “a global anti-authoritarian movement,” connecting U.S. officials with “colleagues from around the world who have dealt with this directly.”

    They reference coordination with Johns Hopkins, “international democracy and conflict mitigation spaces,” and efforts to mobilize across borders against what they perceive as domestic authoritarianism.

    At what point does this become treason?

    As always, patience as I pull together this thread.
    👇