Today Fox News is reporting exclusively, from their being leaked a copy of a letter from Bondi’s office, that Attorney General Pam Bondi has tasked a DOJ lawyer with presenting the declassified evidence to a grand jury. Details are scant within the article.
FOX NEWS – Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has learned.
Bondi ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings, and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury to secure a potential indictment, according to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News Digital and a source familiar with the investigation.
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the report of an investigation but said Bondi is taking the referrals from Gabbard “very seriously.” The spokesperson said Bondi believed there is “clear cause for deep concern” and a need for the next steps.
The DOJ confirmed two weeks ago it received a criminal referral from Gabbard. The referral included a memorandum titled “Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact’ the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure” and asked that the DOJ open an investigation.
No charges have been brought at this stage against any defendants. A grand jury investigation is needed to secure an indictment against any potential suspects. (read more)
Posted originally on CTH on August 4, 2025 | Sundance
Interestingly, yesterday I posited some random thoughts about accountability on Teh Twitter, noting that a few dozen random accounts know more about Russiagate individually than any person who has ever sat in a room with President Donald Trump. [FWIW – The author of this story I’m highlighting agreed.]
Miranda Devine notes in a New York Post article (Murdoch publication), polling shows more people are following the declassification of Russiagate documents than ever before [READ HERE]. That’s both a good thing from the perspective of an enlarged awakening but also holds a serious downside if people are focused on the delivery of accountability.
The series of documents declassified by the DNI (Gabbard), CIA (Ratcliffe) and FBI (via Grassley) has not changed the arc of the story; but they have provided strong evidence to support what was already obvious.
Essentially: the Clinton Campaign and the U.S. Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, conspired together to exonerate Clinton from her email scandal, and frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset to assist her election win in 2016.
Everyone who has walked the deep weeds of Russiagate/Spygate has essentially known this framework for seven or more years. The DNI, CIA and FBI evidence is providing receipts for the operation as it unfolded. The latest evidence has proven the conspiracy researchers accurate, and the corporate media participants who participated in the ruse are not happy.
Miranda Devine breaks down the data on who is following the story and what the releases have done to squash the defenses of those who tried to label the Clinton/FBI operation as conspiracy theory. All of this is a very positive outcome and a greater percentage of the public are now aware.
However, there’s a downside as a result of those who are new to these discoveries. Even more people are thirsting for accountability for the conduct, and those who are very familiar with the story are renewing expectations of criminal activity against the perpetrators of the fraud.
Those who carried out the operation did not leave a trail of signed documents outlining their misconduct. There is no one single element of the very complicated story that provides a ‘gotcha’ moment. Instead, there is an assembly of mounting evidence that showcases how the fraud was perpetrated. Each document release adding more layers of corruption to the pile of fraud as it was manufactured.
The Clinton campaign knew what they were creating. The Obama White House knew what was happening. The CIA could see what the Clintons and her FBI/DOJ allies were assembling, and the FBI was a willful participant. All of this is not refuted, despite the Gordion knot of plausible deniability they wrapped it in.
The problem for the Trump White House is not that Clinton and the IC collaborated to frame Donald Trump in 2016. The problem for the Trump White House in 2025, which now becomes a problem for the Dept of Justice, is that a large portion of the American public expect some form of legal accountability for it.
Absent of criminal liability, people with increased knowledge get angry at the lack of accountability. Simultaneous with this increased knowledge, people are susceptible to the influence of outrage voices amplifying the criminal accountability demand. It’s a precarious position for the White House and Dept of Justice.
If the Trump administration does not ‘punish’ the perpetrators, they run the risk of losing electoral support. However, when you look carefully at how the fraud was perpetrated, the criminal aspect is a very challenging hurdle.
The overarching defense of the perpetrators pertains to the baseline of the fraud itself, which is, essentially, that candidate, then President-elect and eventually President Trump was compromised by Russia.
The Obama White House, FBI, CIA and aggregate IC claim they were investigating whether Donald Trump and members of his administration were taking action to the benefit of a foreign adversary, Russia. Outwardly, President Obama famously warned his officials to make sure all things within their investigation were done “by the book.”
When the CIA or FBI failed to brief Trump-allied Republicans (ie. Devin Nunes), their justification is they were investigating something “sensitive” to the national security of the nation, and therefore unprecedented measures were taken.
Sure, you can argue the officials at the top of the CIA, FBI, DNI and DOJ knew Trump-Russia was nonsense, but how do you prove it… I mean, really prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with the mounting declassified releases, you end up in the Horowitz/Durham conundrum, saying “they should have known.” Unfortunately, that’s not criminal.
The CIA or FBI leadership lied to congress, misled congress or were “less than fulsome’ with congressional oversight. Again, they fall back on the unprecedented approach and sensitive national security threat – that’s the shield. Yes, we did not answer the question(s) accurately -even honestly- to the U.S. govt., because we were investigating the U.S. govt.
In these matters of potential national security compromise, the CIA can easily lie to congress and then claim the lie was necessary to protect the government against the threat, and the investigation thereof. The ‘we had to lie’ scenario.
All of the players within the fraud end up carrying some form of plausible deniability, so long as the originating context for the investigation remains valid, even if it is tenuously valid. Something akin to ‘we saw Russian intel intercepts outlining a potential plan by Clinton, but there was also the potential of the Trump-Russia collusion being real’, so we had to look into it…. and we did it, “by the book” where there was no “book” to guide us.
Those legal defenses, while frustrating to accept – and almost entirely based on lies, are valid and purposeful when outlined in legal proceedings. Unfortunately, that legal defense seems to cover all of the 2015/2016 and even early 2017 participants.
Keep in mind, Inspector General Michael Horowitz conducted three investigations with only one criminal referral, Kevin Clinesmith. [(1) IG investigation of Clinton emails. (2) IG investigation of FBI conduct in Clinton investigation, and (3) IG investigation of FISA abuse (Carter Page)]. Additionally, Special Counsel John Durham investigated the origin of Trump-Russia and was never able to penetrate any of the top names for criminal accountability.
All four of these extensive investigations end up as defensive legal shields against any indictment, and the media is already using them to full value. Factually, all those previous investigations create significant “reasonable doubt.”
Intwined inside this legal Gordion knot is the problem for the current Dept of Justice.
Making matters worse still, in a little-known court filing, which has not had enough scrutiny, the President Trump DOJ told the FISA Court in July 2018 that predication for the investigation of Carter Page was valid [SEE HERE].
If the Donald Trump Dept of Justice was saying the warrant against Carter Page was legally valid in 2018, a full two years after the FBI began investigating the Trump-Russia collusion, then how can the Donald Trump 2025 Dept of Justice claim the investigation of Donald Trump was invalid.
We essentially watched any hopes for Russiagate legal liability melt as a result of that July 12, 2018, letter. Which, stands on soapbox, is exactly why I was shouting about it when the letter was finally revealed FIVE YEARS AGO.
The Trump DOJ wrote the letter to the FISA Court after Inspector General Michael Horwowitz released his highly critical investigative findings into the Carter Page FISA application. The Trump DOJ told the FISA Court that despite the information from Horowitz the application was properly predicated. THIS IS IN 2018!
Keep in mind this letter to the court was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018. Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG; Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente was FBI chief-legal-counsel.
As you can see, there are a myriad of defenses for the Russiagate conspirators to draw from, including defenses directly from the Trump administration. Which brings me to the final two points.
For President Trump the most dangerous part of this entire storyline is pushing an expectation that criminal indictments could be possible. Instead, the possibility of criminal accountability is almost non-existent. Expectations need to be managed. Because if people get their hopes up and then nothing happens the collapse in morale could be politically devastating.
I am open to hearing counter opinions established in solid framework; however, based on current evidence, from my perspective the only people who potentially show any signs of legal accountability are the ones who come along AFTER Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann begin their 2017 coverup operation.
The court of public opinion is the venue for the rest.
Posted originally on CTH on August 4, 2025 | Sundance
CIA Director John Ratcliffe appears on Fox News with Trey Gowdy to discuss the latest batch of declassified documents that underpin the “Russia Collusion Hoax.” Director Ratcliffe notes what the Durham Annex was about and why it matters.
Additionally, CIA Director Ratcliffe notes more documents will be coming out after declassification. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on August 3, 2025 | Sundance
President Trump holds an impromptu press conference as he heads back to Washington DC. Topics included the Russia/Ukraine conflict, the fighting in Gaza against Hamas and more.
Presidential Emissary Steve Witkoff will likely be heading to Russia, at the Russian’s request for a discussion, mid-week. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on August 3, 2025 | Sundance
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer appears on Face the Nation with the ever-dramatic Margaret Brennan. Video and Transcript Below:
The part about Canada is very interesting.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by United States Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer. Ambassador, good to have you here.
JAMIESON GREER: Great to be here. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the President signed this executive order on Thursday, raises tariff rates on about 70 countries. Should we expect those to be negotiated down in the coming days?
JAMIESON GREER: I don’t, I don’t think they will be in the coming days. I think a lot of these, well I know a lot of these, are set rates pursuant to deals. Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country. So, so these, these tariff rates are pretty much set. I expect I do have my phone blowing up. There are trade ministers who, who want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States, but I think that we have, we’re seeing truly the contours of the President’s tariff plan right now with these rates.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was reading some interviews you had given, and you said at some point the President’s view is maybe a tariff is better than a deal. Are you saying there are countries that just, they have no shot of avoiding a tariff?
JAMIESON GREER: Well, I would say that, in fact, most countries in the world, they just have a tariff assigned to them, right? Whether it’s–
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’ll be the 10 percent or 15 percent.
JAMIESON GREER: 10 or 15 or the higher level tariff. Because, again, when the President is looking at this, he looks at potential deals, and we bring him potential concessions from countries and the things they might want to do. And he compares that to the potential tariff that might be applied to try to get that deficit down. And then talking to his advisors, he makes a call on this. And you know, sometimes a country will come back and make additional concessions that, that make it more appropriate. He’s trying to get at the deficit. He’s trying to reshore manufacturing. And so those are the factors he’s looking at when he’s looking at when he’s determining whether he’s just going to have a tariff or he’ll take a deal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Trying to reshore manufacturing, bring manufacturing jobs back to America. But we just saw in this unemployment data that while the level is pretty low overall, it’s pretty steady, good. Manufacturing in particular, we saw it contract for the fifth straight month in July, factory employment dropped to lowest levels in five years. What does that data indicate to you about the impact of your tariffs?
JAMIESON GREER: Yeah, I saw that and my own view is that I think a lot of companies were waiting to see if the tax bill was going to come through with the expensing for capital goods and things like that. And so I think now you know a lot of that data comes pre “One Big Beautiful Bill”. Now that we have “One Big Beautiful Bill”, and we have a better sense of where the taxes are going, I think we’re going to see a much, we’re going to see more investment, all the, all the commitments on investment we’ve seen countries making, that’s going to come through. And like you said, it’s a relatively small number. So I don’t, I don’t read tariff policy into that number. I think that is kind of pre-bill policy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you believe the executives are making strategic decisions with hiring, but the President just announced that the head of Labor Statistics is being fired because of the weak jobs report, claiming the data was faked.
JAMIESON GREER: Well, I think you know, and I saw what the president did, and he also talked about the, just the record from BLS, you know, last year–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Labor Statistics Bureau.
JAMIESON GREER: That’s right, yeah, exactly. You know, even last year during the campaign, there were enormous swings in the jobs numbers and so it sounds to me like the President has real concerns. You know, not just based on today’s but everything we saw last year. You want to be able to have somewhat reliable numbers. There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways. And it’s, you know, the President is the President. He can choose who works in the executive branch.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you were just saying you weren’t really doubting the data.
JAMIESON GREER: No, I wasn’t– You asked me what I thought about the data–
MARGARET BRENNAN:
Right.
JAMIESON GREER:–And was it reflected in the tariff policy? The answer is no. I mean, my view is, to the extent that there’s some kind of, you know, information about manufacturing jobs, you know, I think that we’re going to see a big increase in manufacturing jobs now that we have the “one big, beautiful bill” passed, now that we have the expensing going in. And I think that, you know, our manufacturers know that they have a clear and certain path forward on that now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you confident, though – because you have to deal in legal terms, in details, with facts and data when you are negotiating a legal agreement – do you trust that if you bring hard data to the president, he takes your counsel, even if it’s an inconvenient fact?
JAMIESON GREER: Always, yes. I mean, I’ve spent the- I spend many hours with the president almost every day, and that’s what we’re talking about is data. We’re looking – and I’m on the trade side, of course – and we’re looking at import figures, export figures, investment levels, et cetera. And that’s how we’re making this decision. So I’m very comfortable with that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’ve seen that Apple estimates, for the full year, tariffs are going to cost them more than a billion dollars. For the automakers – GM, Stellantis, Ford – they all came out and said they are going to take a hit from this.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, so that’s exactly the issue, right? We have, over decades, we’ve had these large manufacturers, advanced manufacturing, that have gone overseas. They’ve gone to other countries. They’ve taken advantage of unfair trading practices, and the fact that the US has had low tariffs while other countries haven’t, and they’ve taken advantage of that. That’s what businesses do. We’re all capitalists. And so if now they have to pay a tariff or build here, the President is creating incentives to bring them back here. That’s why GM has announced investments here in the United States, and that’s why we have all these companies and countries announcing investment in the US. Because the tariffs create the incentive to do so.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But reductions in profits come at a cost, right? And as CEOs are making decisions, how long do you expect this pain to last for corporate America?
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, you know, again, when we look at- you know, when we look at the numbers and the data, we’re seeing predictions of more investment here. That’s what we want. The President isn’t doing this so much for the companies. He’s doing it for American workers who have seen their jobs offshored to Mexico, to Vietnam, to China. So when we hear companies having to make hard choices about supply chain changes. We have to do that. I mean the status quo, where we keep making things overseas, because we can do it a little bit cheaper in the short run. That is not preferable to having that investment and employment here in the United States.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But we haven’t seen that reshoring happen.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, we have- we have announced AstraZeneca announced they’re going to have a $50 billion investment in pharmaceuticals. GM has announced $5 billion. Hyundai Steel has said they’re going to do a $21 billion investment in Louisiana. So this is- this is actually happening. These are things from the company saying it right, and they have to say it. And they have, you know, earnings reports, and they have and- they have filings. They can’t just make this stuff up. This is real investment that we’re seeing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about Canada, which is our second largest- largest trading partner. The president increased tariffs to 35%. It applies, though, to just about 10% of what Canada sells here. Why bother to do this now in the middle of negotiations?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So I would say, first of all, you know, Canada is subject to 50% tariffs on steel, aluminum. 25% tariffs on autos, and again, the 35% tariff on- on goods that don’t follow the rules of USMCA. And, you know, early on, the president posed a 25% tariff on Canada, and that was really about fentanyl and border issues, right? It’s- it’s- it’s a separate regime from the reciprocal tariff. And what did Canada do in response? You know, they talked about helping at the border. And I’m not, you know, I’m not the drug czar or anything. But what I do know, as the trade guy, is that Canada retaliated. The only other country in the world who retaliated on tariffs was the Chinese. And so if the president’s going to take an action and the Canadians retaliate, the United States needs to maintain the integrity of our action, the effectiveness. So we have to go up too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re talking about the things that the former Prime Minister Trudeau put in place, not the current Prime Minister–
AMBASSADOR GREER: — And are still in place–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — That are still in place. But the current prime minister has held off, largely, on retaliation here. That’s the guy you’re negotiating with and his team. So what’s the strategy here? And aren’t you worried that this will hurt the broader free trade deal if you truly do want to renegotiate it next year.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well- well, the President’s view with with every country, whether it’s Canada or Mexico, and regardless of the kind of trade agreement we have in place, is that the net result of the trading system, whether it’s our WTO agreements or our existing trade agreements, the net result has been that a lot of the manufacturing has gone overseas, and when that’s the net result, you can’t continue with that system. So you know, I’m not concerned that it’s going to complicate things with Canada. Our view is the President is trying to fix the terms of trade with Canada, and if there’s a way to a deal, we’ll find it. And if it’s not, we’ll have the tariff levels that we have.
MARGARET BRENNAN : So I hear you drawing distinctions when you say I’m the trade guy, I’m not the drug czar.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m the trade guy. I’m not handling these other things. But the President is kind of blending all these things together, because he cited fentanyl once again when it came to tariffs- to the policy with Canada. He also said on social media, Canada’s decision to back statehood for Palestine is going to make it hard for us to make a trade deal. How does that have anything to do with financial and trade agreements?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So, so- so, first of all, the president United States has his foreign affairs power where he can- he can manage relations under the Constitution with foreign countries. Second of all, you know, Congress delegated to the president the ability to take economic action in response to national emergencies in the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. And for example, the Treasury Department, they have a number of sanctions where they can actually cut off a country’s trade with the United States, prohibit goods, cut them off from our financial system for geopolitical reasons. So the fact that they can do that- almost certainly the President can do something that’s not as expansive and just- and just put a fee on those goods, which is a- which is a tariff. So if you–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But can and should are different things, right? And- and I’m asking this–
JAMIESON GREER: –But to- to go- but- but listen, if you’re going to sanction somebody and essentially prohibit trade, you almost certainly can do something that’s softer, which is to allow the trade and just put a tariff on it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So let me ask you about Brazil, because the U.S. has a trade surplus with Brazil. That means, you know, we sell them more than we buy from them. So it doesn’t seem to be consistent here, when you have the President put 50% tariffs on Brazil, one of the highest of any countries. And at the same time, the President is bringing up things that have nothing to do with trade when he’s justifying them. He sent a letter to the current government complaining about the prosecution of his ally, Bolsonaro, who is- who allegedly staged a coup when he lost the last election. The President called it a witch hunt. This seems politically motivated and not about trade.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, two things. First of all, there’s a 10% tariff on Brazil because we have a surplus with them. That’s the reciprocal tariff. And then there’s a 40% tariff that the President has chosen to do under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, like we would do any sanction where we see geopolitical issues. The President has seen in Brazil, like he’s seen in other countries, a misuse of law, a misuse of democracy, what one might call lawfare. It is normal to use these tools for geopolitical issues. I mean, sanctions, we’ve been using them for years with all kinds of countries, including countries we like–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You view tariffs and sanctions as the same?
AMBASSADOR GREER: They’re just different in degree. I mean, tariffs are actually lighter than a sanction- a sanction, you’re cutting off a country from your financial system. You’re prohibiting trade with them. A tariff, you’re allowing trade. You’re just putting a fee on it. It’s a- it’s a lesser
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But now
AMBASSADOR GREER: step than sanctions–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –You- you have moved far away from from dealing with the deficit. Now–
AMBASSADOR GREER: –Well the deficit has a 10% tariff–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –you are talking about politically motivated trade actions here. I mean, the president sent a letter to President Lula, saying that tariffs are due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on free elections. He also, at the same time, sanctioned the Supreme Court justice overseeing Bolsonaro’s trial. Why are you trying to influence a criminal trial of an ally of President Trump?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So, so, so the president of United States, historically, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican, they have used IEEPA to impose sanctions for all kinds of geopolitical reasons in all kinds of countries. Sometimes it’s countrywide, sometimes it’s specific to certain, you know, individuals and often foreign leaders and foreign officials. So this is not, this is not way outside the market. If anything, the President could have gone farther in the type of sanction that was used. Instead he just used a tariff instead of cutting them off from the financial system altogether.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you were fully on board with it. It sounds like.
AMBASSADOR GREER: With the president of the United States? My boss? Of course I am–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But with intervening in criminal trials–
AMBASSADOR GREER: –when the President–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — through trade policy.
AMBASSADOR GREER: When the President sees lawfare going on, he’s going to impose a sanction through IEEPA that’s been delegated by Congress. That’s his job as the president. He’s elected to assess the Foreign Affairs situation in the United States and take appropriate action. There’s just no question that it’s both from a legal perspective, it’s completely permissible. And from a policy perspective, that’s what he’s elected to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When it comes to trade, the big deal that is pending out there is how is the president going to deal with China? There’s an August 12 deadline, and if that deadline is not met, you have said tariff levels could snap back to above 80%. Is that deadline going to slide?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So that’s what’s under discussion right now. I would say that our conversations with the Chinese have been very positive. We have discussions at the staff level, at my level, you know, President Xi and President Trump have had conversations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They said that it’s sliding. The Chinese said it’s sliding.
AMBASSADOR GREER: That’s something we’re working toward. That’s what we talked about–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re not there yet.
AMBASSADOR GREER: And so, so they want to do that. We’re working on some technical issues, and we’re talking to the president about it, you know, I think it’s going in a positive direction. You know, I’m not going to get ahead of the President, but, you know, I don’t think anyone wants to see those tariffs snap back to 84%.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Did you get any commitments in those two days of talks in Stockholm?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So yes, we did. Yes, we talked about, and I won’t go into detail, because they’re, you know, confidential conversations between two, two governments, but they really focused on rare earth magnets and minerals. You’ve probably heard some about that, that China has put a global control on the world, and so for the United States, we’re focused on making sure that the flow of magnets from from China to the United States and the- and the adjacent supply chain can flow as freely as it did before the control, and I’d say we’re about halfway there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Greer, thank you for your time today.
Posted originally on CTH on August 3, 2025 | Sundance
White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Policy Advisor, Stephen Miller, appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo. Mr. Miller is outraged at the latest declassified evidence that provides evidence of how the intelligence apparatus was weaponized against Donald Trump 2016 through 2020 and beyond.
The outrage of Miller is righteous; however, the outrage of Miller also breaks down along partisan lines. “One outrageous felony after another,” Mr. Miller explains. WATCH:
The non-pretending take. Tulsi Gabbard was not really paying attention in ’17/’18 when each Trump-Russia granular detail was discovered. What she knew of it was surface level and suspect.
Fast forward… Tulsi Gabbard in 2025 is paying close attention. However, she (like almost all others) still has an overall information deficit; but the stuff she is discovering today seems enough by itself.
Think about what they don’t know: The SSCI stuff, the John McCain stuff, the Wolfe stuff, the Mueller/Weissmann stuff, the Waldman stuff, the Deripaska stuff, the Mifsud stuff, the Mary McCord stuff, the Michael Atkinson stuff and all the stuff Durham was not allowed to review.
Just the stuff they know looks bad, really bad. Yet, that’s the tip of the Iceberg…. AND that my friends is the problem.
Bartiromo has been trying to position herself outside the collateral damage blast circle for 3 weeks. She knows the “accountability” part will not happen, and she doesn’t want to go down with the ship of outrage sellers. Her current presentation style is strategic. I don’t blame her.
All three branches of govt. (Legislative, Judicial and Executive), and the leadership of both political parties, actively, willfully and purposefully participated.
You cannot parse this one.
In 2016, Obama hated Trump and the professional Republicans hated Trump. Just like the 2010-2012 Tea Party targeting, both the Democrat and Republican apparatus benefited.
The Trump-Russia conspiracy, took an all of government approach – including the Robert Mueller coverup. AND THAT reality is exactly why no one will be held accountable for it!
Remember, Democrats thirst for POWER. Republicans thirst for MONEY.
Democrats use money to get power. Republicans use power to get money.
Now, insert Russiagate.
Dems used money to create fraud. Republicans use the fraud to create money (current status).
That’s the frustrating circle we are stuck in.
We need a different approach.
Replace the truth managers. Keep Tulsi, indict the system.
A much more confrontational approach.
A group of people who will stand up and call the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch out for their duplicity.
The system needs to be indicted, using very specific evidence.
Confront Republicans and Democrats by name, by committee, with intensity and purpose.
Posted originally on CTH on August 3, 2025 | Sundance
First things first. It might not be the popular thing to accept, but it is increasingly clear there is no way to get to any form of accountability or legal exposure for Russiagate or the manufacturing of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, anywhere near former President Barack Obama. The concentric circles of plausible deniability are just too extensive.
Essentially, despite the evidence of the FBI participating in a manufactured investigation predicted on false pretenses, all now supported with hindsight evidence, the fact that key IC officials, namely CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, presented the illusion of credible concern, inoculates President Obama from scrutiny.
As the Supreme Court noted, the President is protected from liability for “official acts” of his office. Yes, we all know these officials knew it was a ruse; however, in 2016 the CIA and FBI were presenting the information to Obama and saying the investigative value was potentially plausible. As such, Obama would have been within his official duty to tell the IC officials to chase down the information (continue investigating it).
Then, the January 5th, 2017, meeting documented by the infamous “by the book” Susan Rice memo, further inoculates President Obama for telling the IC officials to follow careful procedures as they continued investigating whether or not the Trump-Russia collusion was a factual concern. All of these elements lead to various tentacles of plausible deniability. No court is going to find criminal action within the decision-making, regardless of how ridiculous it may look in granular hindsight.
Are all the characters guilty of perpetrating a fraud for the expressed intent of a political narrative, yes. Are they criminally liable for it, extremely unlikely.
The only criminal liability that appears visible is in the Mueller probe that came along in May 2017 to coverup the prior conduct.
The Mueller/Weissmann special counsel perpetrated fraud in legal filings, lied to the FISA court, and manipulated evidence.
As a result, we must ask ourselves what is the value in this ongoing reveal of information?
Because they were willing participants in the overall operation, the MSM media will never admit their role or culpability in the ruse. That leaves an echo-chamber of alternate media combing through the granular releases and discovering the trail of evidence represented within the declassification.
Put all that alternative media together and you impact 25 to 40% of the public. The rest don’t really care, and/or dislike President Trump too much to really care that he was targeted by the Intelligence Community. This is not ‘doomerism’, this is reality when you pull back from the ‘tick-tock’ grifting clickbait.
Worse still, it is clear the ‘tick-tock’ controlled release of information is in full swing again. When you hear John Solomon saying, “we are working to release more information,” it’s worth asking yourself who exactly is this “we” that Solomon is speaking of.
.
I’ve come to the conclusion the “we” consists of those within the clickbait industry who seek to make a living from the endless discussion. Solomon is not a reporter, he’s a participant.
Here’s another example, courtesy of Sean Hannity and Senator Lindsey Graham.
Posted originally on CTH on August 1, 2025 | Sundance
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. President Trump stops to talk to the assembled press pool about current political events as he heads to Bedminster, New Jersey.
President Trump answered questions about firing the labor statistics commissioner, tariffs, Ukraine, Gaza and possible prosecution of Hillary Clinton. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on August 1, 2025 | Sundance
♦ Five days ago, President Trump reduced the 50-day ultimatum to 10-12 days for Russia to stop bombing Ukraine and come to the negotiation table.
♦ Four days ago, Dmitry Medvedev (July 28) issued a statement that Trump’s “ultimatum game” with Moscow amounts to a threat to Russia and pushes the United States itself closer to war. “Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war,” said Medvedev, currently deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council. “Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.”
♦ President Trump responded today – “Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
“In order to approach the issue peacefully, it is necessary to conduct detailed conversations. And not in public, but this must be done calmly, in the quiet of the negotiation process.” ~ Vladimir Putin
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 