Posted originally on CTH on November 19, 2025 | Sundance
The House version of the Thomas Massie ‘pay attention to me bill’ telling the DOJ to release the information about Jeffrey Epstein, unless it contains material related to national security of investigations, has now passed the Senate by unanimous consent and will now head to President Trump’s desk for his signature.
Trump will sign it, the Epstein ‘shiny thing’ law will go into effect, and the politicians will continue arguing about it and trying to attack the White House because they put the perpetual argument component into THE BILL:
The bill is only six pages. I suggest you read it.
As you can see from the highlighted qualifiers above, those of you who enjoy the bread and circus distractions provided by the DC UniParty apparatus, will have at least another year to follow this story. Have fun with it.
Meanwhile, Congress cannot find time to codify any executive orders that might save taxpayer money, secure the border, protect elections, tighten up immigration laws or expel criminal aliens….
…. But thanks to Ron DeSantis’s biggest supporter, Thomas Massie, you’ll always have Epstein.
Posted originally on CTH on November 17, 2025 | Sundance
At this point, anyone who is left thinking James Comey will stand trial in DC is just pretending for their own agenda. Unfortunately, the dismissal of the case against him is a foregone conclusion.
The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.
Former FBI Director James Comey was leaking information to the media through his friend and FBI Special Government Employee Daniel Richman. When Comey was fired in May 2017, he knew what his risks were. Comey hired Daniel Richman as his personal lawyer and legal counsel. Comey knew this would make targeting him for leaking to media more difficult.
Last month U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case against Comey, assigned magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick to review the issues surrounding potential violations of attorney-client privilege within the indictment.
Today Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick sides with the Comey defense and blasts the prosecution for violating attorney-client privilege. [SEE RULING HERE] In addition, Judge Fitzpatrick instructs the prosecution, Lindsey Halligan, to give the defense team all of the evidence used in the grand jury indictment.
Fitzpatrick is setting the stage to dismiss the charges. There’s zero doubt about it when you read the 24-page order.
It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.
Seriously though, don’t waste any hopium on this case, and expect the judge to require the government to pay all of Comey’s legal fees.
We read enough of this stuff to see a Lawfare set up when it is visible. The Lawfare crew has this case easily won. Judge Fitzpatrick gives the defense eleven points of process with which to file a motion to dismiss.
[COURT ORDER] – First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.
Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.
Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.
Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.
Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.
Sixth, the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury, particularly if the government’s conduct was willful or reckless, given the centrality of these materials to the government’s presentation.
Seventh, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials, including the reasons why Mr. Comey was never afforded the opportunity to assert a privilege over his communications until after the indictment was obtained.
Eighth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation. This is particularly troublesome because the government’s sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a “limited overview” of privileged material shortly before he testified.
Ninth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey.
Tenth, as discussed in Section IV above the prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.
Eleventh, the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because, although it is clear that a second indictment was prepared and presented to the grand jury (ECF 3), the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communications after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment.
Collectively, the facts set forth herein and the particularized findings of the Court establish that “ground[s] may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury[.]” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). [more]
There are two tiers of justice. The legal system is as rigged as the intelligence system.
Posted originally on CTH on November 13, 2025 | Sundance
The BBC is apologizing again to President Trump after lawyers representing his interests sent a letter threatening legal action on his behalf.
The legal threats are about a spliced edit of Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, that appeared in the network’s program “Trump: A Second Chance?” In the edited clip, the president is framed to say “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”
However, in reality, those phrases were delivered almost an hour apart, and the footage omitted the part where President Trump tells supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” The BBC responded to the first public criticism by stating:
BBC – “This programme was reviewed after criticism of how President Donald Trump’s 6th January 2021 speech was edited.
During that sequence, we showed excerpts taken from different parts of the speech. However, we accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.
The BBC would like to apologise to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms.” [SOURCE]
The BBC Media Center then posted a public notification following the letter received from President Trump’s legal team.
BBC – “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.
“BBC Chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.
“The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary ‘Trump: A Second Chance?’ on any BBC platforms.
“While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.” (read more)
Posted originally on CTH on November 13, 2025 | Sundance
In an effort to further create friction and division amid the base of support for President Trump, emails previously released to congress are resurfacing – including emails between Kathryn Ruemmler, Obama’s former White House Counsel, and Jeffrey Epstein. The UniParty players are pushing this narrative hard.
However, in fact, this is an old story going back to 2023 when the connections between then CIA Director William Burns, Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein were previously released to the public {SEE HERE}. However, amid the new effort to stir up friction, the Ruemmler-Epstein emails are being talked about again. Example Below:
As noted before by the Wall Street Journal, “Kathryn Ruemmler, a White House counsel under President Barack Obama, had dozens of meetings with Epstein in the years after her White House service and before she became a top lawyer at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. He also planned for her to join a 2015 trip to Paris and a 2017 visit to Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean.”
The email above is from August 2018, approximately six months after Ruemmler, who represented former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, lied to Senate Judiciary Committee about Rice’s knowledge of the FBI opening an investigation of President Trump in 2016.
Wall Street Journal 2023 – […] The documents show that Epstein appeared to know some of his guests well. He asked for avocado sushi rolls to be on hand when meeting with Ms. Ruemmler, according to the documents. He visited apartments she was considering buying. In October 2014, Epstein knew her travel plans and told an assistant to look into her flight. “See if there is a first-class seat,” he wrote, “if so upgrade her.”
[…] Epstein and his staff discussed whether Ms. Ruemmler, now 52, would be uncomfortable with the presence of young women who worked as assistants and staffers at the townhouse, the documents show. Women emailed Epstein on two occasions to ask if they should avoid the home while Ms. Ruemmler was there. Epstein told one of the women he didn’t want her around, and another that it wasn’t a problem, the documents show.
Ms. Ruemmler didn’t see anything that would lead her to be concerned at the townhouse and didn’t express any concern, the Goldman spokesman said.
[…] Over the next few years, Ms. Ruemmler, then a partner specializing in white-collar defense at Latham & Watkins, had more than three dozen appointments with Epstein, including for lunches and dinners.
“In the normal course, Epstein also invited her to meetings and social gatherings, introduced her to other business contacts and made referrals,” the Goldman spokesman said. “It was the same kinds of contacts and engagements she had with other contacts and clients.” (source)
Beyond the friendly contact visible in the emails and dates of the Ruemmler-Epstein friendship, years before Donald Trump entered politics, is a transparently obvious issue the mainstream media intentionally omit.
If Epstein had any dirt on President Trump, Kathryn Ruemmler would be the primary person who would use that information against Donald Trump politically, especially because of Ruemmler’s relationship with President Obama and Susan Rice. If there was anything against Trump in the Epstein mess, it would have been deployed to the benefit of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Instead, Ruemmler took up a defensive position to cover up the trail of unlawful activity within the 2016 Spygate and Russiagate operations. Ruemmler was Susan Rice’s personal lawyer at a key moment in the coverup operation.
Former FBI Director James Comey admitted to Congress, on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Gang of Eight.
Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”
Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.
Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact, he said exactly the opposite. He said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).
The very direct and specific implication, the unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump. After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor, and Comey could only “inform” the NSC through Susan Rice.
That Comey testimony is why Susan Rice’s attorney, then Katheryn Ruemmler, could never allow Rice to appear before a congressional inquiry.
Ruemmler lied!
Look at that highlighted box from Susan Rice’s lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, and remember in his March 20, 2017, testimony Comey said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).
FBI Director James Comey was protecting himself against fallout from the spygate surveillance of Trump, by leveraging his prior notification to the White House. Comey was signaling, ‘You can’t get me for spying on Trump without getting Susan Rice and Barack Obama’, who knew about it.
Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?
The bottom line in this Epstein nonsense is that Kathryn Ruemmler had a long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after his arrest for child sexploitation, and before the 2016 election, before the Trump targeting began and long before Spygate/Russiagate made headlines.
If Epstein had dirt on Trump, Ruemmler would have used it.
Posted originally on CTH on November 12, 2025 | Sundance
Buried on page 217 of the Senate Continuing Resolution Bill [TEXT HERE], Republican Senators have inserted legislation to “retroactively” pay themselves $500,000 each for every line of communication, telephone record, email or other electronic communication, subpoenaed by the Jack Smith Special Counsel during the Arctic Frost investigation.
The payment is a penalty for retroactive subpoenas going back to January 1, 2022. The payment is at least $500,000 per phone line or email account. That means each Republican Senator is going to make millions from the subpoenas that Jack Smith previously used.
House Representative Austin Scott is not happy the Republican Senators slipped this into the bill. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on November 10, 2025 | Sundance
The story stems from MSNBC, but makes sense because Lawfare operatives are everywhere in the USAO’s offices around the country. In South Florida the junior lawyers are quitting working for USAO Jason Reding Quiñones because the investigation itself is against their allies.
U.S Attorney Jason Quinones is reportedly putting together a larger Russiagate conspiracy investigation/case and has recently sent 30 grand jury subpoenas to the various Russiagate participants. Two junior attorneys within the office have refused to participate in the investigation.
(MSNBC) – The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida called a division-wide meeting on Monday afternoon, following the resignations of two prosecutors who were asked to take part in a vast “conspiracy” investigation into former intelligence and law enforcement officials, according to a source familiar with internal concerns among career prosecutors.
🚨BREAKING: There have been TWO RESIGNATIONS in the Southern District of Florida, and MSNBC is saying that the investigation is looking into a VAST CONSPIRACY.
The TRUTH is coming out and this MELTDOWN is a sign that the DoJ is OVER THE TARGET!
Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones called the impromptu meeting of the largest section in the criminal division — major crimes — a unit that includes two to three dozen career prosecutors. The source said it is unusual for an office’s top prosecutor to convene such a gathering.
“Everyone is on pins and needles,” the source told MSNBC, referring to prosecutors who fear being asked by the U.S. Attorney Reding Quiñones, or his leadership team, to work on a case that President Donald Trump has said should lead to the arrests of an expansive list of individuals, including former President Barack Obama and former CIA Director John Brennan.
The Justice Department approved at least 30 subpoenas on Friday, including for Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
The official who signed at least some of the subpoenas is Executive Assistant United States Attorney Manolo Reboso, a source familiar with a number of the subpoenas issued so far told MSNBC. (read more)
It’s good that they quit.
That’s two less Lawfare suicide vests that can detonate inside the effort of the investigation.
Posted originally on CTH on November 9, 2025 | Sundance
CEO of Truth Social Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss how the Trump Media Group was targeted by the Jack Smith operation and FBI Operation Arctic Frost. In combination with the Arctic Frost targeting, JPMorgan Chase debanked the Trump Media Group (Truth Social) after receiving a subpoena from Jack Smith.
Devin Nunes is demanding answers into the collaboration between JPMorgan and the FBI specifically to target Truth Social at the time the larger tech industry was deplatforming, cancelling and targeting anyone -including us- who represented a counter information network to the 2020 election outcome. This was part of a larger coordinated effort.
Nunes then follows up with a discussion of how former FBI Director James Comey specifically targeted Donald Trump in the 2016 election by aligning the FBI interests with the objectives of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Additionally, Nunes and Bartiromo then extend the discussion to how the CIA led by John Brennan and the DNI led by James Clapper joined in collaboration with the FBI and Clinton campaign. WATCH:
Thankfully, people in Washington DC are finally starting to realize the full scale of the Obama surveillance system. All of the evidence and datapoints -released and yet to surface- flow in one direction. Even the professionally reluctant are starting to admit.
What Obama, Biden, Comey, Crossfire Hurricane, Robert Mueller, Arctic Frost and Jack Smith were doing, was using their offices -and govt systems- to watch their opposition, spy on them, then take action based on the results.
From the perspective of Obama, Comey and Brennan, expanding Hillary Clinton’s Trump-Russia collusion narrative was the key element to hide the activity of the administration prior to the November 2016 election. That’s the motive for the FBI and CIA to collaborate on the agenda after the shocking outcome of the 2016 election result; but pay close attention to the activity of the primary “at risk” official, James Comey.
From a risk management perspective, initially the surveillance and spying operation was a low-risk endeavor. Obama held power and was going to hand off operations to Hillary. The Clinton administration would retain the officials who were doing the surveillance/spying, and no one would ever know.
Donald Trump was not expected to win the election. When he did, all of the participants were suddenly at risk. President Obama and every member of his cabinet involved in the spying operations, then used Clinton’s “Russiagate” smear to cover up Obama’s “Spygate” activity.
The IRS was used to identify targets 2010 through 2012, until discovered in April ’12. Suddenly, President Obama has a problem. President Obama then sends his Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, to run the IRS and block discoveries around the IRS weaponization.
♦ From 2012 through April 2016, the Obama administration was spying on their political opposition using the FBI to conduct surveillance through their access to the NSA database.
♦ In April 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was alerted by the NSA compliance officer who noted the uptick in database access activity by the FBI searching the Republican primary candidate field.
♦ Post April 2016, the Obama administration had a problem. Enter FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane,” July 2016, in an effort to remove the political risk.
♦ October 2016, the FBI rushes a FISA application through the FISC, circumventing the missing ‘Woods File’, with the Chris Steele dossier as evidence.
♦ October 2016, NSA Director Rogers sends the first official notification of the FBI using the NSA database to the oversight body, the FISA Court.
♦ December 2016, worried about Trump now discovering the NSA database spying, the Obama administration wraps the Clinton smear into official policy, blaming the Russians and validating Crossfire Hurricane. That’s where the Intelligence Community Assessment becomes critical.
♦ May 2017, needing to extend the coverup of the FBI activity, special counsel Robert Mueller then takes over Crossfire Hurricane. All FBI evidence and personnel transfers to Mueller.
♦ April 2019, Robert Mueller operation wraps up, prior activity coverup shifts to Impeachment process.
♦ July 2019, John Durham kicks in extending DOJ/FBI control through 2020 election.
♦ Fall 2020, mail-in ballots triggered to facilitate 2020 election outcome.
♦ January 2021, FBI triggers unofficial Operation Arctic Frost, targeting Trump supporters and 2020 election researchers. FBI again using NSA database search queries to identify targeting.
♦ March 2021, unofficial FBI Arctic Frost results fed to J6 Committee and DHS. TSA trigger “Quiet Skies” targeting via results from Arctic Frost.
♦ August 2022, FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago to retrieve any evidence Donald Trump might have of FBI spying and surveillance activity.
♦ September 2023, Jack Smith targets congressional members who had contact with President Trump.
It’s one long continuum of coverup activity within Main Justice and the FBI, supported by all other various agencies who operate in support.
What are they covering up? The 2012 through 2016 political spying operation within the Obama administration, as carried out by the same Main Justice and FBI operations.
Posted originally on CTH on November 9, 2025 | Sundance
White House Economic Council Director, Kevin Hassett, is a straight shooter; he calls things as they are, not as many would pretend them to be.
On the issue of court orders demanding various cabinet secretaries spend money to fund the government, Director Hassett correctly reframes the issue around the law of federal spending that says money not appropriated for that expenditure cannot be spent. The Supreme Court will strike down, as they already have, any order not grounded in the law around government spending.
Hassett correctly warns that any cabinet agency who attempts to comply with a district or circuit court order, is running the risk of having a lawsuit filed against them for spending non-appropriated funds. This could be part of the reason why Democrats are purposefully not reopening government, to force the Trump administration into a catch-22 legally where they are going to violate the law either way.
Margaret Brennan stands jaw agape at the Machiavellian approach that Director Hassett outlines, “surely they would never do that” she proclaims. In response Hassett reminds Brennan that such Lawfare strategies are indeed part of the larger stop Trump movement. Video and Transcript Below.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin this morning with the Director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. This is now the longest shutdown in American history. The treasury secretary told us two weeks ago November 15 was the hard stop for any paychecks going to US troops. Does that remain the point of exhaustion?
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Right, I think that- that’s about the right number. And the problem is that under the law, we’re not allowed to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated. And there is a law, the Antideficiency Act, that says that if a government official spends money that isn’t appropriated by Congress, which will only happen if the Democrats vote to open up the government, then you could even have criminal penalties. And so people are very carefully studying the law and trying to get as much money out the door as is legal. And we’re very glad that we found a way to get a lot of the SNAP money out, but it’s really pushing the boundaries of the law, which is why the Supreme Court had to take that ruling from Rhode Island and put it on hold.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Until the lower court rules–
HASSETT: Until the lower court goes back and comes up with a legal justification for what they said, because there probably isn’t one, sadly, which is why we have to get this government open. I mean, the fact is Goldman Sachs, they have a top economic team, and they’re estimating that we’ve already knocked about 1.5% off of GDP. I think that number is probably low if we keep going even a couple more weeks, because there’s going to be a massive amount of air disruption, especially around the holidays. And one of these things every now and then when we’re talking economics, you and I, we talk about seasonal adjustments and things like that. But the fact is that Thanksgiving, that Thanksgiving time, is one of the hottest times of the year for the economy. It’s Black Friday, you know, and all that kind of stuff. And if people aren’t traveling at that moment, then we really could be looking at a negative quarter for the fourth quarter.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Which is significantly disruptive to the president’s agenda. But to the point you were just making about food stamps, and we saw this Friday, a temporary stay by the Supreme Court that would block full food stamp benefits pending the lower court decision. The administration’s argument, as you just referenced there, was that it would be illegal to move around funding and to tap the Section 32 account at the USDA. But why not do this as a short term patchwork solution? Because you have found ways with the military pay to stretch things out. Why prioritize in that case and not do so with food?
HASSETT: Well, the president’s job, and all of our jobs, is to uphold the law. And when- I’m not a lawyer, but when the lawyers tell us–
[CROSSTALK STARTS]
MARGARET BRENNAN: But are–
HASSETT: what we can do–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — that wasn’t done with the military.
HASSETT: But, but, but yeah, I think that the military is different because of the commander-in-chief stuff. But the legal analysis suggests that we’re doing everything by the book, and then stretching things as much as we can, and basically trying to keep people from committing crimes. Which you know, you know about- in the season of lawfare, if you are a cabinet secretary and you spend money that’s not appropriated for that purpose in your cabinet, then they can come back and they can take you to court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re also making a political bet that Democrats aren’t going to challenge paying the military. Do you really think Democrats would challenge and take to court paying people for their food stamp benefits?
HASSETT: Let’s just say that we’ve seen Democrats–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –if, if Congress is going to fund it, when the shut- shutdown ends?
HASSETT: We- we’ve seen Democrats take to court people that- on really, really poor charges, and so I think they’re likely to do anything.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it seems a political calculation is the point.
HASSETT: Well, we, we don’t have a political calculation. Our calculation is to get the government open, to get the food stamps to people, and to get people to be paid, 750,000 government workers aren’t getting paid right now. I know you’re talking to the Governor of Maryland in a minute. I’m sure his people are really hurting. Let’s just get the government open, and then let’s talk about things like the healthcare premiums, but do that through regular order.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, it sounds like you are saying the position is the same, open the government, then we’ll talk about healthcare. But the president, just in the past 36 hours, has put out a number of social media posts. It sounds sort of like he’s proposing something in regard to health insurance payments. He said, I’m recommended- to Senate Republicans that hundreds of billions of dollars currently being sent to money-sucking insurance companies to save bad healthcare provided by Obamacare now be sent to the people so they can purchase their own much better healthcare. He also said they should terminate Obamacare. What does this alternative system look like? Because the entire standoff is about healthcare right now.
HASSETT: Right. Well, the president is, you know, a beautiful tactician, a beautiful negotiator–
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is an off–
HASSETT: –And this is- you know, what he said, he’s brainstorming and trying to help the Senate come up with a deal that can get the government open. And one of the things you could do is conservatives believe that they don’t want the government to micromanage people’s lives. And you know, everybody believes that people should have healthcare, and so why not take the people who have higher healthcare premiums and just mail them a check and let them decide? The reason why it could have an effect is that there are multiple tiers under the Affordable Care Act of different types of insurance, and it could be that people would rather have the money and go from like, you know, this kind of plan to that kind of plan and save themselves a little bit. And so that’s, that’s, you know, basically giving the people an opportunity to make more choices than the government usually lets them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is this the Senator Cassidy proposal?
HASSETT: I’m sure that Senator Cassidy and President Trump talked about it, but whether he agrees with everything that Cassidy- I haven’t talked to him about it yet.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, does the Republican leader in the Senate accept–
HASSETT: –The president–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –this proposal?–
HASSETT: — the president started this idea yesterday, I don’t think that it’s been discussed widely in the Senate yet.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president–
HASSETT: It’s the weekend.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –The Senate’s in session this weekend–
HASSETT: –Yes, the Senate is in session this weekend and we are–
MARGARET BRENNAN: because they’re trying to end the shutdown–
HASSETT: –And here I am.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But this is not the Republican Party’s position.
HASSETT: As of right now, it’s not the Senate position, but the president thought it was something they should think about.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he seems to be negotiating before the government’s open.
HASSETT: He’s talking to his colleagues in the Senate on the Republican side.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you would agree that there does need to be a deal on healthcare, that healthcare costs are too high.
HASSETT: Well, I think that if you look at the Affordable Care Act, these premiums weren’t made permanent by the Democrats during the COVID emergency because they’re worried about the budgetary costs. And so if you look at the premium increases, they don’t affect most people below two times the poverty line, three times the poverty line. But there are a lot of senior citizens that are above, like, around four times the poverty level, which with a husband and wife team would be about 120,000, that are seeing really big premium increases. And I think that everybody’s going to want to think about what the next step for that would be, because are seeing- again most people aren’t seeing much of an increase at all, but the maximum increases you’re seeing could be up to about $500 a month for seniors who have really costly plans.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president has also been talking about affordability, and our CBS polling shows the president’s approval rating on the economy has dipped to 38%, the lowest of this term. 75% of those polled say he’s not focusing enough on lowering prices, but the president said this week Democrats are making it up and quote, “every price is down.” I’m sure you know the Consumer Price Index showed grocery prices are up nearly 3%, in September from a year ago.
HASSETT: –well–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Do you dispute that?
HASSETT: Well, actually, let’s go through the facts, right? Inflation went up about 5% under President Biden. In President Trump’s first eight or nine months, depending where we get the last number, it’s up 2.7%. One of the big things that’s hurting affordability is mortgages. The interest rate went up by about 4%.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is grocery prices–
HASSETT: –No, grocery prices are actually down significantly under Trump. But here’s the thing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –but depends on which–
HASSETT: Let me– I’ll just make a point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.
HASSETT: That if you look at the real reduction in spending power for Americans under Joe Biden, then it went down about $3,000 because we had up to 9% inflation, and then they went to the grocery store, they couldn’t buy the things they’re used to buying. The real spending power, adjusted for inflation, under President Trump has gone up about $1,200 so far this year. $1,200 is not $3,000, and so people are right to feel stretched, but we’re making progress. And if you look at all the positive things about the economy, industrial production just about at an all time high, capital spending about at an all time high, GDP growth right now about 4%, then that shows that the income growth that we need to get more affordability is on the path to happening. And the bottom line is that the last Consumer Price Index surprised down. It was lower than expected, and it would have been even lower because there was a refinery shutdown that caused it to go slightly higher. So we see inflation under control and the economy booming, but we understand 100% why people are still hurting, because we haven’t made up all the room that was lost under Joe Biden.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So are you comfortable with 3% inflation?
HASSETT: I’m comfortable with 2% inflation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So no, you’re not happy where things are now.
HASSETT: Well, they got to go down a little bit more, but there- but the point is that inflation is like the Queen Mary, my friend Alan Greenspan used to say, so when you go from almost 4% that we had in January down to the mid twos, then that’s a trajectory that usually has momentum.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the St. Louis Fed found tariffs account for half a percentage point of the annual inflation rate. How much do you think the tariffs are hiking prices?
HASSETT: You know, there’s a couple of papers out there that say that prices went up by between two tenths and five tenths. And the thing to remember, if those papers are true, is that that’s a level adjust, because the tariff goes in, and then the tariff is just there, so it doesn’t affect inflation in the future. It would be a one time level adjust. Our estimates at CEA are much closer to zero, and it’s all based on modeling and assumptions about elasticities and things. But for the most part, the one way you can see it is you could look at the price of imported goods, and the price of imported goods, CEA put a report out, has actually been declining under tariffs. Because what happens is that the Chinese want to sell us lots of stuff, and there’s a tariff, so they cut their prices so that they can still have a larger market share in the US.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Kevin Hassett, always good to have you here. Of course, we have to leave it there for now. We’ll be right back in a minute. Stay with us.
Posted originally on CTH on November 8, 2025 | Sundance
According to Steve Baker at Blaze News, Shauni Kerkhoff (27), a former Capitol Police Officer, was the J6 pipe bomber.
Kerkhoff “was a Capitol Police officer for four and a half years, left the department in mid-2021 for a security detail at the Central Intelligence Agency.” … “Kerkhoff was born in November 1993 in Hamilton, Ohio, the youngest of three daughters of Brandt James Kerkhoff and the former Patricia Marie Hennin.” [Full Story Here]
Among the evidence, the FBI tracked a DC Metrorail SmarTrip card used by the pipe-bomb suspect to an Air Force civilian employee, that employee lived next door to Shauni Kerkhoff.
Posted originally on CTH on November 7, 2025 | Sundance
Fox News is reporting that three grand jury subpoenas were issued today for John Brennan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Brennan was the former CIA Director during Russiagate, who created the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment. Strzok was the lead FBI counterintelligence agent in charge of Crossfire Hurricane, and Page was the former DOJ lawyer assigned to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Strzok and Page worked both the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation.
Fox News also reports that up to 30 grand jury subpoenas are anticipated to be served on former government officials involved in “Spygate” and/or “Russiagate.” [SEE FOX REPORT HERE]
There has been a tremendous amount of external pressure being applied, and thankfully this year a significant amount of key internal pressure has joined that effort. For the issues surrounding former CIA Director John Brennan, Fox News is citing a declassified “Annex A” of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which highlights John Brennan including the Steele Dossier in the ICA at the request of former FBI Director James Comey.
Apparently, according to Fox News, the most significant citation against Brennan is an issue we outlined at CTH five years ago [SEE HERE] when we wrote about Annex-A and the implications therein. President Trump was still in office in 2020 when Annex-A was released. The good news is that Annex-A found its way into evidence that a prosecutor can present to a grand jury.
The outcome of a grand jury subpoena means the primary Russiagate officials will have to lawyer up, spend money and go plead the 5th amendment, the most likely outcome.
From my frame of reference, the evidence against the targets clearly exists and does not need them to make any admissions or denials. However, putting them on record in court individually, possibly compelled to testify or invoke the 5th, would perhaps narrow down their options if they were eventually indicted and face a criminal trial.
EXCLUSIVE: A federal grand jury has subpoenaed former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, among others as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Fox News Digital has learned.
Sources told Fox News Digital Brennan; Strzok, the FBI’s former deputy assistant director of counterintelligence; and Page, a former FBI lawyer, were served with federal subpoenas on Friday.
Law enforcement sources told Fox News Digital that up to 30 subpoenas will be issued in the coming days relating to the investigation.
The grand jury is out of the Southern District of Florida. U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe. Fox News Digital first reported this summer that Brennan was under criminal investigation.
[…] As for the criminal investigation into Brennan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.
[…] But back in June 2020, Ratcliffe, while serving as director of national intelligence, declassified a footnote of the 2017 ICA, which revealed that the reporting of Trump dossier author Christopher Steele had only “limited corroboration” regarding whether then-President-elect Trump “knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances of beating” Hillary Clinton and other claims.
[…] The footnote, also known as “Annex A” of the 2017 ICA, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in June 2020, spanned less than two pages and detailed reporting by Steele, the former British spy who authored the unverified anti-Trump dossier — a document that helped serve as the basis for controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. (read more)
I also find it interesting they begin with “Russiagate”, and I wonder if they will find the “Spygate” that preceded it {GO DEEP}.
Then again, I am thankful for the change and recognize Spygate might just be a little too uncomfy for those who seek to retain continuity of government.
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 