Tag Archives: Lawfare

Feb 2 2026

Sunday Talks: Deputy AG Responds to Questions About Epstein File Release – Video and Transcript


Posted originally on CTH on February 1, 2026 | Sundance

President Bill Clinton appears in multiple documents throughout the Epstein files.  President Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, George Stephanopoulos, questions current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about the ongoing releases of Epstein information.

Specifically concerning to Stephanopoulos this week is the rushed nature of the 3.5 million-page document release by the DOJ, and victim information.   Last week Stephanopoulos was complaining about the lengthy delays in the release as DOJ officials worked to redact victim information.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks, Pierre Thomas, for that.  We’re joined now by the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, thank you for joining us this morning.

As you know, your release on Friday has already received a response from the victims, from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. I want to show the statement right now. It says, “survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. This is outrageous. The Justice Department cannot claim it is finishing releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed.”

Will there be more releases?

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: I mean, look, first of all, we took great pains, as I explained on Friday, to make sure that we protected victims. This was a — we are talking about a review of 3.5 million pieces of paper that were released on Friday.

Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectified that. And the numbers we’re talking about, just so the American people understand, we’re talking about .001 percent of all the materials. And so — and we knew this. I said this on Friday, that — that, of course, the nature of this type of review was — the volume of materials that were reviewed, that there would be times when this happened. And so we’re working hard to make sure that we fix that. And I expect that that will continue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Will more documents be released?

BLANCHE: We have released — there are a small number of documents, as I said on Friday, that we’re waiting for a judge to say we can — we’re allowed to release because of a protective order. But there are — this review is over. I mean we reviewed over six million pieces of paper, thousands of videos, thousands — tens of thousands of images. And — which is what the statute required us to do.

You know, it’s interesting. Leadership on the — on the Hill, Congressman Massie, Senator Schumer are quick to complain. There is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produced, because I know the materials we produced. We produced them on Friday. By Saturday, they’re already complaining about what we did? And by the way, apparently Massie and others wrote a letter to come and review unredacted materials. I didn’t get that letter yet. They leaked it to the press before they actually sent it to me.

But, yes, that’s absolutely totally fine. We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to hide. We never did. And our doors are open if they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was going to be my next question. So, thank you for answering it.

I do want to move on right now.

We have some video right now showing Liam Ramos, that five-year-old boy who was detained by ICE in Minnesota, being released today. He’s on his way back home to Minnesota after a judge ordered him released. And it was a pretty blistering order from the judge, Fred Biery, down in — the U.S. district judge — district court judge down in Texas.

He showed a photo of Liam, included some biblical passages, saying “Jesus wept,” and then went on to say, “civics lesson to the government: administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. This is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”

What’s your response?

BLANCHE: Well, look, that’s an active litigation, so I’m limited. But I will say this, the immigration law, the body of immigration law is much different than our typical criminal process because of the administrative nature of what we do every day. And so, to the extent that we need to appeal that judge’s decision, I promise we will.

But you see thousands and thousands of administrative actions happening every single day in this country. And you just highlighted a single one and not the thousands and thousands of others that happen. And so, this is — what we’re doing is tough. What we’re doing is difficult. I mean, we’re talking about a situation where millions and millions and millions of undocumented illegal aliens have flooded our country and we are trying to find them basically one by one.

And so, you know, I don’t have a comment specifically on what that judge said yesterday, but generally speaking, we are complying with the law every single day.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal records, but about 70 percent at least of those who have been detained don’t have criminal records.

BLANCHE: Well, just — hang on. The fact that they’re here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don’t have criminal records, they are — by their presence being here without status, having come into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so, we have to be careful.

And you’re right, there is a schism in the law right now about whether an illegal alien can be held pending their proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there’s a bunch of appellate cases.

So that’s another example of something where a number of district court judges have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellate court and ultimately, probably the Supreme Court that will be asked to interpret that. So — so, we should be — we should wait before we withhold judgment until the appellate courts have had their opportunity to weigh in.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I should say, to clarify, the lawyer for Liam Ramos and his father say they were following the legal process for asylum.

BLANCHE: I mean, I don’t know what that means. They were following legal process, and yet the judge disagreed with us —

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum.

BLANCHE: Excuse me?

STEPHANOPOULOS: They applied for asylum, and they were going through the legal process.

BLANCHE: Well, there’s — so that’s not true. That is not true. There’s a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum.

And again, I do — I cannot get into the — the specifics of this litigation, but you can read the same briefs I can. And what you just said is not true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. That’s what his lawyer says. So, they — I’m sure they’ll have a response to that as well.

I also want to ask you about the situation. Just this week, Don Lemon was arrested, the journalist Don Lemon was arrested, along with another independent journalist. And he was — this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge in an appeals court refused to approve the request. And the Chief Federal District Judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.

So, when do you believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity?

BLANCHE: Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question. So — and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause.

That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that that Mr. Lemon did. I am not going to comment on the charges specifically because it’s not appropriate.

But it’s interesting that — that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right a freedom of religion which is just as important as any other right that we have. And, George, I don’t know if you’ve — if you’ve watched the videos or read the indictment about what it’s alleged that Mr. Lemon did, but if anybody in this country thinks that that is, quote, “independent journalism,” I would like to have a conversation with you.

Now, he obviously has a very good lawyer. He can raise defenses in court to the extent he wants to, but nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we’re just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen.

It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a former CNN journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re a rioter. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re confident he’s going to be convicted and the case won’t be dismissed?

BLANCHE: I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate. He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis, and he’ll have — have his day in court like everybody else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: During your confirmation hearings, you made a strong statement against partisan political investigations and prosecutions. And I want to show it for our audience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: Partisan lawfare in our justice system wastes taxpayer money, makes communities less safe, and ruins lives. This should never happen in America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ve got your commitment there — there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it.

BLANCHE: I commit to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since then, as you know, a number of targets of President Trump, have been publicly targeted by President Trump, have been prosecuted or investigated. I want to show that right now. It includes the former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Senators Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin, Governor Tim Walz, and Mayor Jacob Frey.

So, how do you respond to those who say you’ve broken your commitment?

BLANCHE: You just showed a handful of investigations or grand jury indictments that have been brought. We are — we are investigating tens of thousands of individuals and cases every single day. They are not political in base. The fact that you cherry-picked a handful that some people in the media have said, “Oh, those must be political,” is absurd and not fair.

I mean, don’t forget, George, when I walk into the Oval Office right now, I look around. And oftentimes every single person in that room was heavily attacked and gone after by the last Biden administration. And so, when I said to Congress and when I say to you right now that what we’re — there’s not a whiff of political partisanship in what we’re doing, I mean that. The mere fact that some Democrats, or some individuals who have spoken out against President Trump are being investigated is because there — that’s what the Department of Justice does. It doesn’t make it political because we’re investigating. And that — and that’s something important we’re doing. We have — we have brought down crime. We’re making America safe again. We’re working hard every day. And those handful of investigations or cases you just show don’t change that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Those indictments of James Comey and Letitia James came after the president explicitly said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served right now. They came after career attorneys refused to bring the indictments, and both cases have been dismissed.

BLANCHE: I mean, when you — I don’t know what it means to say they’ve come after people. I mean, listen, if you’re a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, you are expected to effectuate this administration’s priorities, like every single prosecutor in every administration. There are some prosecutors within the department who have chosen to leave. They don’t want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you’re going to work in this department, you are going to execute on the president’s priorities, and that’s what we do.

And yes, there are cases that have been dismissed by judges. They’re under appeal. That’s what happens in our system. And that doesn’t make the cases wrong or right, it just means that they’ve been dismissed and they’re under appeal.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you just — you just actually made my point right there. You said it’s the president’s priorities. The president calls for them publicly to be prosecuted, says they’re guilty as hell, and then they’re prosecuted.

BLANCHE: Now that’s not the president’s priorities. That’s a truth that he sent out. The president’s priorities are executing on making America safe again. And that’s what we’re doing.

And so, when we go to prosecutors and we say, you are going to do violent crime. You are going to do fraud cases out of Minnesota because that’s a horrible thing that’s happening there. If individual prosecutors say, no, I don’t want to do that, they need to leave. And they do leave. And that’s what I meant when I said that.

I’m not — I’m not saying that we — under no circumstances do we turn to a prosecutor and say you need to go after somebody because they are politically one way or another. We have never done that, and we won’t do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the president said it. The president is the one who said they’re guilty as hell and justice must be served.

BLANCHE: You’re reading a small part of a — of a truth. The truth said a lot of other things to, and many other truths have said the thing. What the president has said publicly, and what he says to me, and what he says to the attorney general, and what he says to the American people is, he expects investigations to be fair. He expects investigations to be done right. But he also doesn’t expect that we investigate. He expects that we — that we do the right thing and that we root out the corruption.

I mean, we had a — an incredibly corrupt Department of Justice when we came into power last year. There can be no dispute about that. There can be no dispute that the Garland Department of Justice did not do the right thing in many cases.

And so to now be judged a year later because of a truth the president said is not appropriate, we can look at our body of work and the work that we’re doing as a department every day. And I know that we’re making this country safer again. We are bringing integrity back to the department, notwithstanding what those in the media say differently, and we’re going to continue to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask you about a report breaking in “The Wall Street Journal” overnight. I want to show the headline right now. It’s — the headline saying the “Spy Sheikh Bought Secret Stake in Trump Company.” “A $500 million investment for 49 percent of World Liberty came months before UAE won access to tightly guarded American A.I. chips.” It’s referring to the national security adviser at the UAE, Sheikh Tahnoon. And he made this investment just before President Trump was inaugurated.

The article goes on to say, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” This is the company of President Trump’s family. Eric Trump is the — is the president of the company. Trump — President Trump is listed as the founder emeritus, though he’s not running it directly right now.

How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?

BLANCHE: I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before, as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.

So, I — look, I saw that article. I don’t have a comment on it beyond President Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.

And so, there — there’s nothing unprecedented about a — about the Trump Organization going out and trying to make investments that basically all will come back to the American people and jobs in this country. And so this idea that there’s something untoward or unprecedented is just a repeated story that that isn’t true. And that’s — and I think that that — the American people know that. And the fact that we’ve talked about unprecedented, and this is something that doesn’t happen is just not true. And it’s — it shouldn’t be said by these so-called newspapers that are saying it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the president doesn’t run the company, but he does profit from it. His financial disclosure show he’s received funds from that. And law professor Kathleen Clark is quoted in the article saying this sure looks like a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Ty Cobb, who served as President Trump’s lawyer in — during the first administration, said, quote, “My advice as an ethics lawyer would have been clear. You don’t do business deals with the families of the leaders of foreign countries. It taints American foreign policy.”

How do you respond to Mr. Cobb?

BLANCHE: I don’t have a response to that guy. I mean, that guy hasn’t said a nonpartisan thing in the past four years. I mean, I could have predicted what you just said he would say. That’s what he says every time anything comes out about the president. I don’t have a — the president is ethical. He talks more to the press. He says what’s happening more than any president in history. You have a question about it, you can ask him. He gaggled on the plane last night at midnight for like 20 minutes. OK?

So, like the fact that Ty Cobb claims that he would have counseled something different to the president, OK. I mean that guy. I mean, I don’t have response to that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the questions the president also took last night when he was on Air Force One was questions about his suing the Treasury Department, the IRS for $10 billion for leaking his tax returns. And he’s — he suggested that there could be some questions about the conflict. He says it’s an interesting question.

How do you respond to those who say that’s a conflict of interest for the president to be seeking funds from those who he’s administering?

BLANCHE: Look, we’re looking at how to handle that. I mean, he’s not wrong, and I don’t think even you think he’s wrong, that what happened there is horrible. The fact that his tax returns were leaked. No American should have that. And you do have Americans, whether you’re the president or just a — anybody in this country, has a right when something like that happens. And so I very much sympathize with what the president talked about and we’re looking into as a department how to address and make sure that type of thing never happens again to anybody, much less a former president or a current president. And we’ll go from there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It is wrong for a president to have his tax returns leaked, for anyone to have their tax returns leaked. I agree with that. The president is also seeking $232 million from the Justice Department, saying his rights were violated during the 2016 campaign.

And I just wonder how you think you’re going to handle that. Both you as the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, have served as President Trump’s personal lawyers in the past. Doesn’t that pose at least the appearance of a conflict? And should you be involved in dealing with that in any way?

BLANCHE: I mean, I haven’t talked whether I’m involved with that at all anyway. I mean, it’s — that’s a fair question, George. And we all — we obviously talk about conflicts and what I’m allowed to do, what the attorney general is allowed to do because of what we’ve done in our past. But there are limits to those — to those conflicts. And I do have a job to the American people and President Trump as a deputy attorney general. And so, I — you know, we will — we will navigate that appropriately and consistent with the ethical rules and get to a just result.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Blanche, thanks for your time this morning.

BLANCHE: Thank you, George.

[END Transcript]

Jan 31 2026

National Race Agitator Don Lemon Arrested in Los Angeles for His Role in St Paul Church Attack


Posted originally on CTH on January 30, 2026 | sundance 

National race antagonist, Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was arrested last night in Los Angeles. Lemon’s arrest comes after he helped organize and coordinate a group of agitators to attack a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mr Lemon has said he was reporting as a journalist when he entered the Cities Church on January 18. However, video evidence shows he was working in conjunction with the group of anarchists who entered the church to terrorize the worshippers. The antagonistic group claimed the church’s pastor worked for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and therefore was selected as the target for their attack.

Attorney General Pam Bondi released the following statement via X: “At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. More details soon.”

Don Lemon’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, another man of radical disposition, released a statement saying Lemon was taken into custody by federal agents in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards. “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” he added. “Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”

.

Jan 29 2026

Conniving Effort – Alexander Vindman Launches Democrat Senate Campaign in Florida


Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance |

This is infuriating, and entirely due to something else in the background {GO DEEP}.  Former National Security Council member (Russia/EurAsia desk) Alexander Vindman is running for a Florida senate seat against Republican Ashley Moody.

First, Alexander Vindman doesn’t stand a chance at winning; however, that’s not his objective with this announcement. Here is where it becomes important to understand the game.

Vindman is directly tied to the background issue of the fraudulent impeachment effort, which I have been working to bring to the forefront.  Progress is agonizingly slow but moving forward.

Alexander Vindman has two primary objectives in announcing this effort: (#1) to give himself the political defense against any accountability for his involvement in the IC coup against President Trump in 2019.  By running for the Florida Senate seat, Vindman will claim evidence is only coming to light as an outcome of his seeking elected office, i.e. it is a political attack.  And (#2) running for office allows Vindman to accept campaign donations that will ultimately be used in his defense against #1.  This is how they roll.

FLORIDA – MIAMI — Democrat Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide who helped trigger President Donald Trump’s first impeachment, announced his Senate campaign in Florida on Tuesday to challenge GOP Sen. Ashley Moody.

Vindman’s entrance into the race pulls Trump’s agenda and record to the forefront of the Senate contest in Florida, bringing a national focus to a race in the president’s home state — one now widely seen as Republican-leaning.

[…] Vindman, born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, was an aide on the NSC during Trump’s first term. He testified before Congress about Trump’s 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the president floated an investigation of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump appeared to tie future U.S. aid to Ukraine’s willingness to launch and announce a probe that would be damaging to Biden.

The Senate acquitted Trump in that case, and Vindman, an Army combat veteran and lieutenant colonel, was fired from his position with the NSC.

[…] Any statewide Democratic candidate faces an uphill climb in Florida, given that Republican voters in the state outnumber Democratic voters by around 1.4 million people. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also classified the Senate seat in Florida as being in the “Solid R” category — the most GOP-friendly ranking available. (read more)

Former AAG Mary McCord (working for Schiff/Nadler), McCord’s former staff lawyer, Michael Atkinson (working as ICIG), Alexander Vindman (NSC) and CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella (fraudulent ICA organizer turned anonymous CIA ‘whistleblower’) worked together to construct the fraudulent impeachment operation.

In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman 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.

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 recently 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.”

[…] 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.  The key question to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office to change the CIA whistleblower rules permitting Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.  Who gave Atkinson permission?

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.   MORE...

Once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.

Jan 29 2026

FBI Executes Sealed Search Warrant on Fulton County, Georgia, Elections Office


Posted originally on CTH on January 28, 2026 | Sundance 

This is an interesting development.  The FBI executed a federal search warrant today at the election offices of Fulton County, Georgia.  Previously, the DOJ sued Fulton County to force them to turn over records from the 2020 election.  Details of the search warrant parameters are not immediately available.

VIDEO of the Search Warrant being executed.

CNN has a brief story on the matter: “The FBI is serving a warrant Wednesday at an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, as it probes alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election.”

“A source familiar with the matter told CNN that the search is related to an effort by the Justice Department to seize election records and search of alleged voter fraud in the county, including Atlanta, which has long been a centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

The Justice Department previously sued Fulton County officials to force them to hand over records related to the 2020 election. A judge has not ruled in the case yet.” (link)

Jan 23 2026

The Moment Jack Smith Admitted to Congress He Had No Legal Case Against President Donald Trump


Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance 

The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boiled down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.

To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election.  That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”

However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.”  The key word here is “believe.”  Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election.  WATCH: 

This is what CTH previously pointed out from the deposition of Jack Smith. {GO DEEP}

If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief.  Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.

It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.

The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.

Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.

Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.

In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.

Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.

Jack Smith sought to define “truth” and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.

The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.

Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.

A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.

[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]

When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.

Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.

Stop the Division!

We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.

It’s not about Trump. It’s about us.

Jan 15 2026

President Trump Responds to Criticism He Is Not Focused Enough at Home


Posted originally on CTH on January 14, 2026 | Sundance

During an interview in Detroit with “CBS Evening News” anchor Tony Dokoupil, President Trump responded to the accusation that his success in foreign policy is distracting the administration from focusing on domestic policy objectives.

To be clear, I do not assess any reasonable credibility to this type of claim. Factually, the closed border, growth in real wages, containment of inflation, use of tariffs to change corporate behavior to benefit Main Street, expanded growth in GPD and American manufacturing, the shrinking of the trade deficit, a smaller budget deficit, ongoing ICE operations and deportation goals, etc. are all happening at the same time President Trump is delivering on foreign policy issues that tie into all the above.  Economic Security is National Security.

Yes, the Dept of Justice under Pam Bondi, and the FBI under Kash Patel, is not performing at the same level of skill and urgency as other cabinet heads.  This is frustrating.  That said, Bondi and Patel also took over these two agencies following a decade of work by Barack Obama, Eric Holder and their allied Lawfare operation, and they never forcefully took the public position to emphasize the corrupt nature of the institutions they lead. On the domestic agenda DOJ and FBI are the weakest links; they are also the institutions closest to the DC UniParty operation.

That said, nothing about this issue will change as long as Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is setting the day-to-day agenda.  However, I have been told this message has penetrated the membrane constructed around the Oval Office.  Approximately ten days ago, President Trump became aware of scale and scope of the MAGA frustration.  This background is most likely the reason Wiles was unable to block Tucker Carlson’s White House visit on the day of the oil executive roundtable.

President Trump responds to Dokoupil, asking the question about Susie Wiles foreign policy creating a lack of focus on the domestic agenda at 02:11 of the video below (prompted):

.

Jan 9 2026

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Press Conference – 11:00am ET Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on January 8, 2026 | Sundance 

As the Democrat political apparatus, leftist agitators and all foot soldiers have been activated to trigger national protests, outrage and George Floyd type violence in response to the ICE shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good (37), DHS Secretary Kristi Noem will hold a press conference.

Minnesota officials and activists are using the shooting to change the topic from rampant fraud and criminal theft centered in the ethnic Somalia enclaves of the Minneapolis community, to the issue of federal law enforcement shooting an anti-ICE activist.  The scale of the Democrat reaction is in direct proportion to the scale of the Democrat fraud they are distracting from.

Livestream Links Below. WATCH:

.

.

.

Jan 6 2026

Facing Expanded Federal and State Fraud Investigations, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz Announces He Will Not Seek Reelection


Posted originally on CTH on January 5, 2026 | Sundance |

As both federal and state fraud investigations expand, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz announces he will not seek reelection in 2026.

The announcement was made in a four-page post on X.  Methinks the governor doth protest too much.

.

[SOURCE]

Jan 2 2026

Here We Go – First Day of 2026, First Discussion of FISA-702 Reauthorization Surfaces


Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance 

The tenuous legal theory permitting the U.S. government to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizen data (emails, texts, phone calls, messages etc.) rests on the unconstitutional ability of the government to intercept your “private papers” with the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically FISA-702.  The “702” aspect is the term for U.S. citizen intercepted.

The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.  The 702 authorities have been abused to conduct political surveillance for just about everything in Washington DC.  Millions of unauthorized searches have been identified; it is unconstitutional.

Politico, an outlet for the concerns of the administrative state, begins the new year by noting there is increased resistance to the reauthorization.  However, in order to carry out the domestic national security agenda of the Trump administration, the Deep State considers JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others as likely supporters for reauthorization.

(Politico) – […] During the last reauthorization debate in 2024, then-candidate Trump urged Congress to “kill” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the larger spy law that Section 702 is nested under. Trump’s decision frustrated supporters of the program — in part because they believe he conflated the foreign-target spy program with the broader surveillance law that was not up for reauthorization.

A crucial Biggs-sponsored House amendment that would have added a warrant requirement for any communications involving Americans failed on a 212-212 tie, with Speaker Mike Johnson casting a rare and decisive vote to kill it.

Now the spy powers fight is a major headache for Johnson, who infuriated privacy hawks with his 2024 amendment vote after having advocated for more surveillance guardrails as a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close Trump ally — have started discussing how to approach the reauthorization during their weekly meetings. Jordan said in an interview he is again hoping to impose a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans as well as a ban on data brokers selling consumer information to law enforcement.

He said he has “had some discussions over this past year with some members of the administration” on this issue and plans to meet alongside House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) with White House officials on the matter early next year.

Lawmakers on both sides of the debate are carefully watching Crawford, who opposed the warrant requirement in 2024 — along with every other House Intelligence Committee Republican. But Johnson has since added five Republicans to the panel who each voted for the Biggs amendment.

A committee spokesperson said Crawford is working with House leadership, Jordan, the Senate and the administration “to determine the best way forward to extend 702 authority.”

There are still, however, a majority of Intelligence Committee Republicans who are working to extend the program without adding a warrant requirement — and they are hoping administration officials whom they view as allies, including Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will be able to sway Trump. (read more)

Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata.  Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists.  It really is that simple.

The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it.  That’s where FISA-702 comes in.

Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification.  702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.

This is a very key component to fully understand.  Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking.  Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification.  The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.

The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.

The Intelligence Community (IC) has told Congress, particularly the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, that all hell will break loose if they don’t reauthorize full electronic surveillance of Americans.

Congress has historically been scared of the “seven ways from Sunday” IC.  However, now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is attempting to change things; specifically change things as they pertain to the domestic use of the intelligence agencies.

As the counterargument is made, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and all of the key participants, are siloed from understanding that 702 has nothing to do with incidental collection of American data, whilst the honorable IC were doing foreign intercepts.

According to intelligence experts, Speaker Johnson and most Republicans believe the IC justification, and perhaps many of them pretend not to know the alternatives.  I do not buy this argument, because too much recent evidence exists to sell the story that Congress is unknowing of how this metadata capture is being continually exploited.

The only way to really test congressional knowledge is to question them.  No one is questioning them.

In my opinion, the politicians and their key staff pretend they cannot fathom how the FBI, DOJ, NSD, DHS and contractors use this database to conduct political and “other” (think corporate espionage for sale) surveillance.  When you engage with them, you realize they really do put on a great show proclaiming the IC is full of honorable rank-and-file, trying to walk a fine line between the 4th Amendment and exploitation.  The counter position is akin to them living in a DC bubble.

The IC argument is now something akin to how we have let thousands of terrorists into the country through the southern border crisis.  They say: “My god, we need to monitor the terrorists, and if you take away the 702, the foreign terror cells will activate and start killing us all.  Do you want that blood on your hands?”   You cannot take away surveillance tools.

Then you overlay the FISA 702 reauthorization argument, as used as a bargaining chip by the same people who don’t want to get caught up in the surveillance.

The DC conversations end up like, “Ok, we’ll reauthorize it, but you cannot use it against us – and all the sex parties and perverted stuff we do when no one is around; you must promise to keep our secrets hidden“…  Then, just like the 2024 reauthorization change, they exempt themselves.

The IC agree to accept a reauthorization that exempts Congress.   The IC keep the process – just promise not to use it against Congress.   This outlook is what we see visible in the CR bill extension that included forbidding the FBI from seeking search warrants against Senator’s telecommunications, and this outlook is highlighted by Elise Stefanik demanding that Congress be notified if any federal candidate for office is under investigation.   The Big Club protects the Big Club.

Unfortunately, ‘We The People’ do not have many friends in DC on this issue, other than a very small group in/around Tulsi Gabbard’s office, and they are constantly under attack.

The DC UniParty will attempt to reauthorize 702 to continue exploiting their surveillance authority. Do not forget, now we have over 10,000 log-in portals with access to the NSA database exist, including the workstation at Perkins Coie that tied into the NSA database {GO DEEP}.

After spending several years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed, because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.

It is almost impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.

If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit).  In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th Amendment protection.

BIG Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database.  That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702.  If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.

The significance of this FISA-702 issue is much bigger than most can appreciate.

This surveillance underpinning also reconciles many of the puzzled faces when it comes to who is permitted nomination and who is not.  The DC Deep State confirmed both Kash Patel to be Donald Trump’s FBI Director (SSCI), and Pam Bondi to be U.S. Attorney General (SJC).  Both Bondi and Patel are expressed believers in the value of FISA-702.

You might even remember this odd question from October of 2025 that came out of nowhere.  Attorney General Bondi literally read a script on the issue that was prepared for her.  WATCH:

Additionally, the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence was initially opposed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), until she acquiesced and agreed there was value in the FISA-702 process.

We have a few weeks before things get really ugly, but they will get ugly.

Deals will be cut.  Offers will be made. Corruption throughout this argument will run amok.

In the background of every headline, that will surface over the next two months, this issue will enmesh.

We need to watch closely how National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance respond to the surfacing issues.

All of the modern surveillance mechanisms, within the U.S. government network currently being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, come from the gateway of 702; ie. govt being allowed to exploit the NSA database against Americans.

If warrantless searches of the NSA database are legally stopped, or no longer authorized, the gate closes and the DHS, Palantir/IC and Tech Bro surveillance collaboration hit a brick wall.

This is my hill! 

Dec 27 2025

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey Says if Deportation Operations Continue Minnesota Residents Will Start Killing ICE Agents


Posted originally on CTH on December 26, 2025 | Sundance

Newsguard will note for their information filtering system, that Mayor Jacob Frey did not directly say residents of the region will start killing ICE agents.  However, Mayor Frey did say if the ICE deportation operations continue, ICE agents are likely to be killed.  The obvious question is, ‘who will do the killing, Jacob‘?

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have built the illegal alien powder-keg while both have financially benefitted from the subsequent Somali community fraud, then together they blame the presence of federal law enforcement -Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)- agents for striking the match.  WATCH: