For the past 72 hours I have been attempting to draw attention to the big picture.  The CIA tried to remove a sitting United States President.

The evidence has been released. The long-debated issue is no longer a matter of opinion or question.

The CIA tried to remove a President.

Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.

I see a lot of punditries missing the forest as they peer intently at the trees.

The CIA tried to remove a sitting President.

We now know the real reason CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella’s name was never ¹permitted to be mentioned. It’s not the name Eric Ciaramella that presented the issue, it’s the organization where he was working, the CIA – That’s what needed to be protected.

[¹The Biden administration created the Dept of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board to interact with Social media and create content controls.  That’s where Nina Jankowicz comes in.]

There was/is documented evidence showing the CIA tried to remove a sitting President from office.  CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella, the anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’ worked with Joe Biden on Ukraine policy.  Biden appointed DHS Nina Jankowicz worked inside Zelenskyy’s campaign HQ.  Just a coincidence?

Don’t get lost in the details or the politics of this. When you peel back all the layers of DC, at its epicenter this was an operation to impeach a sitting President that came from within the CIA, and it almost succeeded.

In the details, an impeachment effort against President Trump was triggered when a member of the National Security Council named Alexander Vindman coordinated with a member of the CIA National Intelligence Council named Eric Ciaramella to fabricate a false claim that President Trump leveraged his power and authority to demand Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy release information on Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt financial dealings in Ukraine.

At the time of the 2019 impeachment construct Eric Ciaramella was working for the CIA as an analyst within the National Intelligence Council (NIC).

Two years prior to the 2019 impeachment construct, in January 2017, the same CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, had worked on the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at the behest of CIA Director John Brennan.

Outlining Ciaramella’s activity not only hits CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper, but it also hits former President Barack Obama.

The National Intelligence Council was the internal sub-agency within the larger Intelligence Community, that was constructing all of the fraudulent analysis to support the 2016 Russian Election Interference narrative.

Ciaramella was doing what John Brennan, James Clapper and Barack Obama wanted him to do. That’s why his story is so much more important than just his fabrication and lying to ICIG Michael Atkinson, who was also a participant in the endeavor and the false construct of the 2019 impeachment effort.

Former DOJ-NSD lawyer Michael Atkinson and former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord were at the heart of the operations against Trump in 2017, and then both surface again against Trump in the 2019 impeachment effort.  Mary McCord was working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler at the time of the impeachment in 2019.

Michael Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to the IC OIG specifically for this operation.

Before this operation in 2019, CIA analysts weren’t allowed to anonymously make claims against political officials. The reasons are obvious. Because of the sensitive information they handled, any allegation of wrongdoing based on intelligence had to be made with their name attached. Without anonymity, inside the Intelligence Community oversight system, the Ciaramella connection to both IC operations could have been made. His anonymity as a whistleblower served a purpose.

Having switched locations to IC IG, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson independently changed the ICIG rules permitting Ciaramella to remain anonymous and make an “urgent concern” claim that ultimately led to an impeachment effort.

Eric Ciaramella fabricated intelligence information. ICIG Atkinson shared it with Congress and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  Representatives of HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff met with Ciaramella and assisted him during the construct.

ICIG Michael Atkinson never even read the transcript of the call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy that formed the basis for the Ciaramella complaint.  The complaint was also criminalized by Atkinson and sent to the Office of Inspector General for the DOJ for review.  Unlike Atkinson, the DOJ reviewed the Trump-Zelenskyy transcript and said there was no issue.

On October 4, 2019, as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their pre-impeachment investigation. {Transcript Here}

One of the key questions to ICIG Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.  Atkinson had no reasonable explanation.

The Intelligence Community Office of Inspector General (Atkinson) also altered the whistleblower form within months of the July 2019 Trump/Zelenskyy phone call to no longer require firsthand knowledge as a prerequisite for reporting complaints.

This indicates forethought and specific intent.  Michael Atkinson knew a ‘second-hand’ complaint was coming.

From all appearances, IC IG Atkinson was organizing the operation in advance.  CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella provided the story.  With Adam Schiff prepared to receive the complaint, and Mary McCord prepared to weaponize the complaint, collectively they ran the operation to impeach a sitting President on an entirely fraudulent basis.

[Executive] The CIA tried to impeach President Donald Trump; the aggregate Intelligence Community was there to assist.

[Legislative] The HPSCI and HJC, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler were prepared to organize the impeachment construct. Mary McCord working as staff.

[Judicial] Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not let Eric Ciaramella’s name be spoken at trial.  Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, was working for John Roberts at the time.

This was a coordinated impeachment effort across all three branches of government.

The CIA tried to remove a President.

Unfortunately, now we watch the silence.

We have known this for all long time; what we lacked was the specific evidence.

Now, we see the evidence and yet it is almost more alarming to notice the silence than it is to absorb the reality of the events that evidence describes.

The CIA tried to remove a President!

By The Last Refuge – https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/15/the-cia-tried-to-remove-a-sitting-president/

President Trump should double down on “peace through strength” with immediate, targeted military, economic & diplomatic pressure rather than chasing another round of endless talks that are only buying the Iranian regime & its CCP weapons depot time.

Like this war or not (and I do not), what is good for America is to figure out the best way to declare victory & turn this gas station over to those who benefit most.

Face it, the regime won’t voluntarily surrender its nuclear insurance policy nor its ability to extort the world via the Strait of Hormuz. That will not be happening.

Here’s my initial take on the next moves, based on the facts on the ground right now:

1. Remain absolutely rock steady.

This is not a time to blink. Enforce the ultimatum with calibrated strikes. Let Iran know as well as China & North Korea and any other bad actor that deadlines are not suggestions. They have meaning & they have teeth.

2. Execute a maximum economic pressure campaign.

Essentially strangle the regime’s revenue. Reimpose & expand secondary sanctions on anyone buying Iranian oil or helping evade restrictions. The reopening of the Straits of Hormuz issue is economic warfare. Keep it open by naval presence if needed but place demands on those nations who benefit the most to step up & provide security guarantees. Iran’s economy is hurting now so pair sanctions with public messaging that relief only comes after verifiable nuclear dismantlement & cessation of support for proxy groups (these groups have not only attacked Israel, they’ve attacked & killed/maimed thousands of Americans over decades). Starve the IRGC & the mullahs, don’t subsidize them as previous administrations have done.

3. Execute a strategic messaging campaign amplifying support for the Iranian people.

Regime change from within is the long game (face it Mr. Trump, there hasn’t been any sort of effective regime change yet). However, there are clear cracks in the regime. Broadcast that the U.S. stands with Iranians who want to ditch the theocracy, and not with the Supreme Leader’s successors. There will be no U.S. “boots on the ground”. Instead smartly apply asymmetry and hybrid aspects of warfare (ie., info ops, cyber support, shrewdly backing opposition voices, etc). History shows authoritarian regimes crack when their own populations turn on them. This isn’t neoconservative nation-building, it’s leveraging America’s soft power where it works.

4. Initiate diplomatic isolation, instead of getting into endless talks.

Work the partnerships & alliances that matter (some in Asia have little choice due to energy needs). Many of these partners want Iran contained anyway. Like it or not, even reluctant players in Europe must be engaged. Only use back channels if Iran shows real movement. No more “frameworks” or 10-point plans that buy the regime time. They haven’t worked in Ukraine, they most certainly won’t work with Iran. The U.S. has great leverage (superior military, energy independence, & strong alliances) while Iran has none, except short-term disruption.

Mr. Trump, you already said it, they have “no cards.” Act like it. This isn’t warmongering, it’s realism.

The JCPOA-era carrots first approach was a spectacular failure. Iran enriched closer to weapons-grade while pocketing billions of U.S. dollars in cash. President Trump’s first-term pressure campaign brought them to the table before. Now, post-strikes, & with a fresh ceasefire broken on their end, hesitation just invites more attacks on shipping, proxies, & eventually a nuclear fait accompli.

President Trump‘s instincts here have been right so far (project strength, set clear terms, and don’t negotiate with weakness). Follow through decisively & Iran folds or collapses. The alternative are more talks while they rebuild. That’s how we got here in the first place.

As you said Mr. President, the U.S. wins either way. Time to make it obvious.

The American voter marches to the polls, casts a ballot, waits through the clamor of campaigns and the cacophony of media prognostication, and delivers a verdict. Then, in an instant, a solitary figure in a distant courtroom raises a gavel and attempts to erase the people’s command. No cavalry charges. No tanks roll through the streets. No banners are lowered. Yet power changes hands all the same. This is the modern coup by injunction, and it is corroding the very foundations of the Republic.

The Founders created three equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – with each designed to check the excesses of the others. They did not create a judicial aristocracy empowered to nullify the expressed will of millions of voters whenever a single federal judge finds the prevailing political winds disagreeable. Yet that is precisely the egregious distortion now metastasizing across the nation. A handful of unelected jurists, often selected through naked forum shopping by ideological litigants, now presume the authority to suspend national policy with the flourish of a pen.

This phenomenon is commonly sanitized under the antiseptic phrase “nationwide injunction” but in truth it’s something far more pernicious. It is a black robe veto; the substitution of personal jurisprudential predilection for democratic consent and the will of the people. It is the elevation of one judge’s worldview above the mandate conferred by an electorate numbering in the tens of millions.

There was a time when judges decided the controversies before them. They interpreted statutes, adjudicated disputes, and applied the Constitution to concrete facts. They were not intended to function as a permanent supervisory board over the executive branch. They were not commissioned to operate as a roving council of philosopher kings empowered to supervise every presidential decision, every regulatory initiative, every enforcement priority, and every administrative act.

Yet modern America has drifted into precisely that absurdity. One federal judge in one courthouse can freeze immigration enforcement nationwide. Another can halt energy policy across fifty states. Another can suspend military regulations affecting thousands of service members. Another can impede election procedures in jurisdictions far beyond the parties before the court. This is not constitutional equilibrium. It is jurisprudential imperialism.

The defenders of this arrangement drape themselves in the language of law, but their true objective is transparent: when they loan election they disregard the results of the ballot box and seek sanctuary in the courthouse. When voters reject their program, they solicit judges to impose it indirectly. When elections deliver outcomes they disdain, they resort to litigation as a substitute for persuasion. The courtroom becomes the annex of defeated politics.

To be clear, the judiciary has an indispensable and honorable role. Courts must restrain unlawful action. They must protect rights. They must enforce constitutional boundaries. But there is an immense chasm between legitimate judicial review and the routine arrogation of national policymaking authority. That chasm has been crossed repeatedly.

Equally corrosive is the cynical practice of forum shopping. Activists and administrations alike scour the map for jurisdictions likely to produce ideologically congenial rulings. Cases of immense national consequence are steered not by neutral principle but by strategic geography. Litigants do not seek justice so much as they seek a favorable draw. The result is a legal carnival in which the venue often matters more than the merits. Public confidence withers under such conditions.

The consequences are severe. Elections become attenuated spectacles rather than decisive instruments of self government. Citizens cast ballots for programs that may never be implemented because an unelected judge in a distant district chooses to interpose personal doctrine between the people and their chosen representatives. Campaign promises become provisional suggestions, contingent upon the indulgence of the judiciary.

No republic can endure long under such a dispensation. Sovereignty cannot reside simultaneously in the electorate and in a scattered cadre of life tenured magistrates issuing contradictory decrees. One must prevail; either the people govern through their elected institutions or judges govern through perpetual injunction. The current drift favors the latter.

This distortion also invites escalating retaliation. Each party, once aggrieved, adopts the tactics it once denounced. The precedent established today becomes the weapon wielded tomorrow. What one faction celebrates as judicial heroism in the present it will condemn as tyranny in the future. Thus the cycle of institutional degradation accelerates. Respect for the courts declines, not because judges are too restrained, but because too many have become conspicuous political actors while pretending otherwise.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) must eventually confront this metastasis with clarity and vigor. Nationwide injunctions should be sharply cabined. Relief should ordinarily extend no further than the parties before the court. Sweeping national decrees should be rare, extraordinary, and justified only by the most exacting constitutional necessity. Anything less invites continued chaos.

Congress possesses remedies if it can rediscover courage. Jurisdictional reforms, venue reforms, and procedural limitations lie well within legislative competence. But courage is scarce in a city where too many legislators prefer judges to make contentious decisions for them. Judicial overreach often flourishes because elected officials welcome the abdication.

The larger issue, however, is cultural and civic. Americans must decide whether they still believe in self government. If they do, then they must reject the notion that every contested election result should be relitigated before sympathetic judges. They must reject the conceit that robes confer omniscience. They must reject the fiction that democracy is preserved when democratic outcomes are endlessly suspended by procedural fiat.

The ballot box is not meant to be subordinate to the courthouse docket. The consent of the governed is not a decorative phrase to be discarded whenever elites are displeased. The Constitution does not establish a judicial guardianship over an infantile citizenry incapable of choosing its own course. It establishes a republic of accountable institutions deriving legitimacy from the people themselves.

America neither needs, wants, or deserves a black robe regency. America does not need judicial mandarins hovering above every election, ready to annul what voters have ordained. America needs judges of restraint, judges of humility, judges who understand that the robe is not a crown.

When one judge governs the nation, self government becomes theater. When injunction replaces election, liberty becomes pretense. When courts become political citadels, the republic itself is imperiled. The time has come to restore constitutional proportion before the black robe veto becomes permanent.