May 8 2026

There’s Something About Mary…

Posted originally on CTH on May 7, 2026 | sundance

I have been asked to recap some of my research into cited formats of what I believe to be criminal conduct, with specific statutes against them. This is a recap of one key player who mysteriously seems to avoid scrutiny.

If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.

More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook. At a critical moment he was also the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.

When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’). That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important.

It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.

When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin. Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016). John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.

♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents. The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.

♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson. In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ. Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.

♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission. Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint. It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules. Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Michael Atkinson.

When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to? Mary McCord.

Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment. As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.

♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.

When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.

♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith. In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome. Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.

As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.

Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus? Mary McCord.

♦ SUMMARY: Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier. Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn. Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee. Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.

You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.

What happened next….

November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)

Yes, that is correct. After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.

But wait,…. Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team

That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.

First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court? ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application. In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing. See how that works?

Now, let’s go deeper….

When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.

The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.

Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?

This is where a big mental reset is needed.

Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue. In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so. There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.

So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?

Why did the DOJ-NSD even care? This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle. People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.

Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls. They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.

After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked. Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey. Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.

Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor. Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.

That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.

It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge. The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.

Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House. [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]

So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.

But wait, there’s more….

Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.

Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts. The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.

In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.

At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states. Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel. By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.

After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened. Sheldon Snook left his position. If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.

Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility. In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.

If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount. Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly. Which is exactly what happened.

The timeline holds the key.

BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.

I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:

Mary McCord said Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.

Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?

Mary McCord.

Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?

Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.

In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.

If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:

♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.

♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.

♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.

♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.

♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.

♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.

♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.

♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.

♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2

♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.

[Support CTH Research Here]

I’m still looking at silos, highlighting the networks that connect them, and emphasizing the common denominators.

Warmest best.

May 8 2026

Catherine Herridge Interviews James Trusty to Discuss “Grand Conspiracy Case”

Posted originally on CTH on May 7, 2026 | sundance

True character and integrity become most apparent when choosing between popularity and honesty, or between protecting revenue and speaking openly. That said, while I have little regard for a DC journalist who avoided meeting at the Trump International Hotel out of fear of being seen entering a venue deemed “controversial” by peers, at least Herridge keeps her act going by asking questions that play well with the crowd.

In an interview with former DOJ Prosecutor James Trusty, Ms. Herridge explores the potential for prosecuting those accused of deliberately targeting Donald Trump. Trusty points to 18 USC 242 as the key statute in the alleged “grand conspiracy” and considers how actions by former CIA Director John Brennan might have reset the statute of limitations. He also discusses James Comey’s recent “8647” threat indictment, possible additional false statement charges, and whether the underlying motive was to undermine an incoming President. WATCH:

CHAPTERS:
00:00 Intro
00:40 Legal Theory Behind “Grand Conspiracy” Against President Trump
01:30 Former CIA Director Brennan Investigation/Indictment
02:15 Florida Courts Are the Battleground

02:52 What is 18 USC 242: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
04:30 Brennan Alleged “Abuse of Authority” 2017 Election Interference Report
04:55 Former NSA Director Rogers Critical Witness
05:30 Justice Department Can Get Around Statute of Limitations
06:15 Did Brennan’s TV Appearances, Book “Restart the Clock” on Statute of Limitations?
07:45 Brennan Claims Politically Motivated, Selective Prosecution
09:00 Attorney General Bondi vs Acting Attorney General Blanche
09:40 Comey “Seashell” Indictment Can Survive First Amendment Challenges
11:32 Comey “Forfeiture of Assets”
13:28 Superseding Indictment Comey Case
14:05 Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman Liaison to Media
15:14 FBI Director Patel Declassified FBI Media Leaks Probe Codenamed “Arctic Haze”
16:00 Richman: Potential False Statement to Investigators?
16:50 Violations: Comey Memos About Trump/Russia Collusion Investigations
18:20 Was Comey the Source of Classified Leak?
18:45 President Obama: Trusty “Room for Potential Prosecution”
20:00 Defendants Strategy to Run Out the Clock
21:50 Legitimate Indictments vs. Moral Condemnation
23:10 White House Briefing: Taking the New Media Seat
23:55 Breaking the Legacy Media Hold on Washington DC Reporting

May 8 2026

President Trump Releases 2026 Counterterrorism Strategy

Posted originally on CTH on May 7, 2026 | sundance

The White House has published the official 2026 Counterterrorism Strategy with a foreword by President Trump. [SEE HERE]

Within the outline the White House breaks down the threats and strategies for each region. It is well worth reviewing the entire document which is written in plain language that avoids any misinterpretations.

[READ HERE]

Regionally, the White House outlines specific threats and policies. Given the current situation with drug and human trafficking cartels as well as regional conflict in the Middle East and vulnerabilities in Europe, each of these points of material interest should be highlighted (emphasis mine).

MEXICO – “We will continue our military and law enforcement campaigns against all the cartels and gangs designated as terrorist organizations by the President. At the same time, we will continue to target their finances and precursor supply lines to cripple their means of production and the movement of profits. We will do so in concert with local governments when they are willing and able to work with us. If they cannot, or will not, we will still take whatever action is necessary to protect our country, especially if the government in question is complicit with the cartels. Under President Trump, the United States will continue to dismantle the cartel networks and disrupt their recruiting and funding streams until they are neutralized and the regimes who helped them are no longer able to do so.”

Mid-East– “President Trump knows that all modern Jihadi groups, from al Qaeda to ISIS to Hamas, can trace their roots back to one organization: the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB is the root of all modern Islamist terrorism predicated on recreating the Muslim Caliphate and killing or enslaving non-Muslims. That is why he took the historic step of issuing an Executive Order that declared the original Egyptian MB chapter, along with the Jordanian and Lebanese chapters, as FTOs, soon to be followed by others. Given the Muslim Brotherhood’s key role in promoting modern terrorism, we will continue to designate its branches across the Middle East and beyond as FTOs to crush the organization everywhere it operates.”

EUROPE – “Unfettered mass migration has been the transmission belt for terrorists. Europe can be strong again if it rediscovers traditional principles of freedom of speech, has honest conversations about Islamism, devotes sufficient resources to mitigate terrorism and cartel threats within its nations, and then actively shares its threat intelligence globally and moves counterterrorism burden-shifting to take greater responsibility for its own security. This includes CT operations in Africa.

Europe must significantly increase its CT efforts immediately. It is clear to all that well-organized hostile groups exploit open borders and related globalist ideals. The more these alien cultures grow, and the longer current European policies persist, the more terrorism is guaranteed. As the birthplace of Western culture and values, Europe must act now and halt its willful decline.”

[Read Entire Counterterrorism Strategy Document Here]

May 8 2026

Trump’s ‘Project Freedom’ Paused Following Saudi Arabia Support Withdrawal

Posted originally on CTH on May 7, 2026 | Sundance

In recent developments President Trump’s ‘project freedom’ operation to open the Strait of Hormuz for captured shipping interests has been paused following Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal of support and their revocation of Saudi air bases for U.S. operations.

The issue behind the Saudi decision is not that complicated if you understand the longer-term background. However, the issue behind the Saudi decision also highlights a key ¹flaw in the Promethean analysis of the relationship (and the reason I caution everyone to sip slowly from this information source).

The cliff notes version is that Saudi Arabia and many of the Gulf States look at the negotiations between President Trump and Iranian interests with skepticism. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) wants a complete and final elimination of the threat Iran represents. They do not believe Iran can be negotiated out of that threat. The GCC view negotiations as an Iranian delay tactic.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salmon, the main voice in the GCC position, has clear eyes and a long historic view on the threat Iran represents. They accept the people in control of the Iran regime will do and say anything to pause or remove the military confrontation; but they will never stop building the arsenal for war. There is zero, absolutely zero trust in anything the Iranians say on this matter.

As a consequence, Saudi Arabia understands the intent of President Trump’s request to support ‘project freedom’, however Saudi Arabia is not going to accept continued missile attacks from Iran during this ‘humanitarian’ effort to reopen the Strait. [Remember, this is also a Muslim Brotherhood issue. The Brotherhood is the political network behind extremist Islam.]

President Trump is asking Saudi Arabia and the GCC states to view the continued Iranian attacks as small slights, small provocations, while he diplomatically tries to negotiate with the Iranian regime. MbS and the GCC are unwilling to take this position, to accept these continued attacks against their nations, simply to give President Trump the political benefit of his policy.

Again, the Saudi’s and GCC have been dealing with this extremist threat for decades. They are unwilling to compromise in order to give space for negotiations they view as futile. The U.S. can use all Saudi support venues to confront Iran militarily, but they are not going to support the political and diplomatic effort behind ‘project freedom’ while they are simultaneously expected to accept continued attacks from Iran.

NBC News reported that Saudi Arabia revoked U.S. access to its bases for Project Freedom, a mission to safeguard the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian threats. A call between Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman failed to resolve the dispute, forcing the administration to pause the operation. Political commentators described the move as a significant strategic loss for the U.S. in the Gulf region. (source)

Essentially, the U.S. cannot say to the GCC: “Please open your skies and bases,” thereby exposing their energy infrastructure, only for everyone to discover afterwards the actual American policy was apparently: “Oh by the way, if Iran attacks you with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones in several waves, we won’t retaliate because we are chasing a negotiated deal. And this is exactly what shocked the Saudis.

It was not the issue of the Iranian attack; after all, the UAE/GCC expect retaliation – this is Iran; no one in the Gulf is naïve about that. The shock came from the American reaction after the attacks against the GCC. Attacks against Emirati infrastructure, Fujairah was targeted, multiple waves involving drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles. And from their perspective Washington’s response was basically: “Meh. Minor incident. Let’s not escalate.” Minor incident?! From the perspective of the GCC this is madness. Thus, they withdraw support.

¹This is where it becomes critical to understand the position of the GCC as it relates to well over a decade of this Muslim Brotherhood/Iran extremist activity. It is not President Trump who triggered the GCC assembly to fight this radical Islamic extremism, a bastardized view of authentic Islam, it was Egypt and the GCC who have been confronting this stuff since President Obama triggered the “Arab Spring”.

Long before President Trump took office in 2017, Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi had confronted the Muslim Brotherhood and assembled a coalition of mid-east partners to address this Islamist threat. Sisi went to see King Salmon (MbS dad) first, to get his support. Egypt then assembled Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan to confront Qatar, who was the bankers for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The GCC with all stable Arab state support then economically and diplomatically boycotted and isolated Qatar. The Qataris finally acquiesced to the pressure and in September 2014 the exiled leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood who were living in Qatar were sent to Turkey.

Egypt and the GCC have been confronting all of the tentacles from the Muslim Brotherhood for more than thirteen years now. All of these factions of radical Islam, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and more, come from this political apparatus represented by the Brotherhood, which is ideologically and structurally aligned in common cause with the extremism represented by the Iranian regime.

This is the background context for Saudi and GCC support for President Trump to finish the “drive them out of power” approach that Trump himself spoke of in 2017 during the Arab assembly. From the position of the GCC, they have done everything they can to destroy radical Islamic elements, now they need the power of the USA to eliminate what remains of it in Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the GCC view Iran as an existential threat that cannot be dealt with diplomatically and they do not trust any negotiation.

The most positive data points in all the U.S. activity against Iran have been two facets. First, the complete support of the Gulf Arab states for President Trump’s military confrontation of Iran. Second, Qatar joining in strong alignment with the gulf states against both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Qatar always sat on the fence with one foot supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, and the other foot supporting moderate Gulf Arab states. The difference between Qatar in 2015 and Qatar in 2026 is, quite frankly, remarkable – IF IT IS TRUE (I’m not convinced).

The GCC started their long battle against the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, and frustratingly, they’re still standing on that same platform 15 years later. That’s why they’re not about to let Iran attack them while President Trump pursues a peace deal they see as worthless.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the GCC and even Qatar now holds the position that all political power structures within Iran must be destroyed.

It’s not just Israel urging President Trump to take action against Iran. In fact, history shows that support from Israel is actually less than the backing he’s getting from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC for ongoing military strikes against Iran.

Last point, that reality is also what makes the Tucker Carlson viewpoint look ridiculous and indicates he has some alternative motive behind his position.

Hope that helps.