Tag Archives: Media bias

Dec 28 2025

Cutting Through the Fog and Conflict Within Current U.S. Republican Politics


Posted originally on CTH on December 28, 2025 | Sundance

Prior to the 2012 Republican presidential primary, many conservative Americans -including myself- were confused by the consistent illusion of choice offered in republican presidential candidates. The Republican party’s successful installation of Mitt Romney was the final straw.

Going into the 2016 Republican presidential primary, we became more attune to how the illusion of choice is created. By closely following the Republican party’s assemblies, tracking the participants, researching the networks and looking at how the Republican party professionals modified their election rules at a state level, revealed the closed system used to create the illusion of choice.

The GOP winter meeting in Washington DC, December of 2014, outlined the playbook. The sequencing of state elections, the distribution of delegates (proportional or winner-take-all) and various internal mechanisms all play a part. This led to our first breakthrough – we began to understand the “splitter strategy”.

A small group of internal party officers in combination with powerful established politicians and major donors could coordinate a party objective to support the “acceptable candidate.”

The outcome of the GOP 2014 winter meeting was a pathway for Jeb Bush in 2016. The outcome of the DNC construct was a pathway for Hillary Clinton. Regardless of which wing of the UniParty system won the election, the actionable outcome in policy would be the same; the institutions of DC maintained, and network affluence apportioned according to the victor.

In this form of party democracy voting is an outcome of the illusion of choice. The real decisions were/are not being made by voters. The party system determines the candidate. DNC or RNC the policy outcome is a few degrees different, but the direction is the same.

In 2016 the left-wing of the Uniparty would diminish any challenger to Hillary, Bernie Sanders would be controlled. The right-wing of the Uniparty would diminish any challenger to Jeb, divide the voting base and use party rules to clear his path.

The opaque nature of this party control system became clearer when the last GOP candidate entered the race. In the clearest exhibition of controlled politics in modern history, Donald Trump was the wildcard.

Mainstream “conservative” voices, what a later vernacular would describe as “influencers,” began exposing their ideological special interest in this political control system through opposition to Trump, the popular people’s choice candidate.

You know the history thereafter. However, the problem for the GOP wing in 2016 was not Donald Trump per se’, their biggest problem was that American ‘conservatives‘ had discovered their playbook. The illusion of choice was now becoming very well understood by a subset of voters later named MAGA voters, the original “silent majority” was silent no more.

This review is simply context; however, it is important context if we are to understand exactly where we are in late 2025 going into the midterm election in 2026. [Star Wars (2016), the Empire Strikes Back (2020), the Return of the Jedi (2024)]

The fourth chapter of this conflict is now upon us. It is a battlefield that has been unfolding all year.

When you understand the larger objectives behind what is happening, you can clearly see -even predict- each of the moves.

Dec 28 2025

The EU Leaders Shouting About Visa Bans Are the Same EU Leaders Who Sent Political Operatives Into the U.S. to Support Kamala Harris


Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance

EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.

The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”

The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:

GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.

[SOURCE – LINKEDIN]

Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.

The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016.

The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

I would say that given the direct nature of the U.K effort to undermine American viewpoints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being diplomatically generous in his visa ban.

Dec 27 2025

President Trump Tempers Optimism Ahead of Zelenskyy Meeting on Sunday


Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance 

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promoting support for his 20-point peace plan via phone calls with various EU stakeholders including, President of Finland Alex Stubb, Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney, NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, the Prime Minister of Estonia Kristen Michal, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen.

The overall position of Zelenskyy is a continuum of public relations and constructs intended to maintain the illusion of support in order to retain receiving funding from western interests.  Ukraine is the proxy war between the ‘west’ and the Russian Federation.

Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with President Trump on Sunday.  However, in an interview with Politico U.S. President Donald Trump tamps down expectations.

(Via Politico) – […] Trump appeared lukewarm to Zelenskyy’s latest overture and in no rush to endorse the Ukrainian president’s proposal. “He doesn’t have anything until I approve it,” Trump said. “So we’ll see what he’s got.”

[…] Still, Trump believed he could have a productive meeting this weekend. “I think it’s going to go good with him. I think it’s going to go good with [Vladimir] Putin,” Trump said, adding that he expects to speak with the Russian leader “soon, as much as I want.”

Trump’s comments came the day after Zelenskyy spoke with special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Zelenskyy called that a “good conversation.”

[…] Trump also confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would visit him this weekend. “I have Zelenskyy and I have Bibi coming. They’re all coming. They all come,” Trump said. “They respect our country again.”

Netanyahu, according to a report from NBC, will brief Trump on the growing threat from Iran.

Zelenskyy’s meeting, in addition to security guarantees, will focus on management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and territorial control of Donbas, the eastern territories claimed by Moscow.

Zelenskyy’s plan, which Ukrainian officials have described as an attempt to show flexibility without conceding territory, has received little public reaction from Washington.

Zelenskyy’s offer of a demilitarized zone came with a key condition: Russia would have to withdraw its forces from a corresponding stretch of land in Donetsk. (read more)

President Trump is correct in saying Zelenskyy has nothing until President Trump agrees to support the proposal.

Despite the promotional toursof the Ukraine president, ultimately Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is in control of the majority of the Eastern Donbas region and has not indicated any willingness to give up that territory.

The European Leadership and ‘coalition of the willing’ have essentially constructed the terms and conditions of the Zelenskyy proposal.  However, that same group have positioned their interests with exceptional antagonism toward Russia.

According to those who control the political power centers, Russia is the existential threat to Europe, and all of their proposals are with a baseline of continued conflict at the center of their strategic plan.

Zelenskyy is proposing that Russia pulls back from the Donbas and Ukraine will agree to a demilitarized economic control zone in the region.  However, that is essentially no different from what existed prior to Russia’s entry into Ukraine, and there is no reason to think the “economic control zone,” filled with a regional population who support Russia, would be anything less than another name for a place where NATO will be playing games to provoke further conflict.

Without U.S. support the NATO proxy war against Russia will be much more difficult to maintain.  Team EU/Zelenskyy are positioning their tactics with an expectation that President Trump will be greatly diminished in the 2026 midterm election.

Dec 27 2025

Citizen Journalist Exposes Scale of Somali Fraud in Minnesota


Posted originally on CTH on December 26, 2025 | Sundance 

The number of mainstream news outlets who are doing investigative journalism on the ground in Minnesota to uncover the scale and scope of the Somali fraud rings are zero.  However, one citizen journalist named Nick Shirley has put some extensive time into actually visiting the childcare centers at the heart of the scandal and his report is stunning.

In this 40-minute video, Shirley takes the time to search govt databases for grants, then goes and visits the actual businesses. Shirley confronts the fraudsters directly and has likely just put a big target on his back. WATCH:

Chapters:

00:00 Minnesota’s billion-dollar fraud scandal
1:24 Minnesota’s fraud explained
4:33 The type of fraud happening
7:00 Confronting the 1st fraudulent Daycare


9:36 Minnesota’s state flag change
11:02 Confronting the 2nd fraudulent business
12:41 Somali Fraudsters confront us outside daycare
16:30 Quality “Learing” Center
18:14 Local reacts to the fraud
20:17 Entering into the daycare and autism fraud centers
24:09 Exposing a double fraud daycare
26:21 Exposing the “Health care” Fraud scandal
30:32 2nd Building with 22 “Health care” companies
34:32 “WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN?”
39:50 Confronting the government

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:

Dec 26 2025

Memos of Conversations Between George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin Are Released


Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance

Following a series of FOIA lawsuits, memos from conversations between Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and former US President George W. Bush have been released online by the National Security Archive. [Original Source Here]

I know it’s Christmas, but bookmark or review as time allows, because the content is very interesting and very important. As early as 2001 and 2008, President Putin clearly told President Bush of his opposition to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, along with other key positions.

Despite what popular media might say, these are NOT full transcripts. Rather, they are memos containing quotes from both leaders as they discuss geopolitical relations between the U.S. and Russia. [SOURCE HERE]

♦ June 16, 2001 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Restricted Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. [LINK HERE] In this first personal meeting at the Brno Castle in Slovenia Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush express respect for each other and desire to establish a close relationship. Putin tells Bush about his religious beliefs and the story of his cross that survived a fire at his dacha. In a short one-on-one meeting they cover all the most important issues of U.S.-Russian relations such as strategic stability, ABM treaty, nonproliferation, Iran, North Korea and NATO expansion. Bush tells his Russian counterpart that he believes Russia is part of the West and not an enemy, but raises a question about Putin’s treatment of a free press and military actions in Chechnya. Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.” [READ MEMO HERE]

♦ September 16, 2005: Document 2 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation: [LINK HERE] Putin meets the U.S. President in the Oval Office for a plenary that covers mainly issues of nonproliferation and U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran and North Korea. The conversation shows impressively close positions on Iran and North Korea, with Putin presenting himself as an eager and supportive partner. Bush tells Putin “we don’t need a lot of religious nuts with nuclear weapons” referring to Iran. Putin said that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would, in the long term, create a field of conflict between Russia and the United States, adding that internal divisions within Ukraine could lead to its fragmentation. [READ MEMO HERE]

♦ April 6, 2008 – Document 3: Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Meeting with President of Russia [LINK HERE] This is the last meeting between Putin and Bush, taking place at Putin’s residence in Bocharov Ruchei in Sochi on the Black Sea. The tone is strikingly different from the early conversations, where both presidents pledged cooperation on all issues and expressed commitment to strong personal relationship. This meeting takes place right after the NATO summit in Bucharest where tensions flared about the U.S. campaign for an invitation to Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Turning to conversations in Bucharest, Putin states his strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia and says that Russia would be relying on anti-NATO forces in Ukraine and “creating problems” in Ukraine “all the time,” because it is concerned about “threat of military bases and new military systems being deployed in the proximity of Russia.” Surprisingly, in response, Bush expresses his admiration for the Russian president’s ability to present his case: “One of the things I admire about you is you weren’t afraid to say it to NATO. That’s very admirable. People listened carefully and had no doubt about your position. It was a good performance.” [READ MEMO HERE]

2001 –  Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.”

As noted by The Islander (Via Twitter) –  “The 2001 Memo That Should Have Ended the Cold War 2.0 and Instead Helped Write the Preface to Ukraine. There are documents that don’t merely record history, they expose it. This is one of them.

June 2001. A “restricted meeting” between President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin. Not a podium performance, not a television soundbite, not a speech crafted for domestic applause. A private conversation, the place where empires are supposed to speak plainly, where leaders test ideas that could reroute decades.

And what does the memo show?

Putin raises the idea that Russia could eventually join NATO. He says Russia feels “left out” by NATO enlargement. He points to an older fact most Western publics were never meant to internalize: the Soviet Union applied to join NATO in 1954. He argues the reasons for rejection no longer apply. He suggests, almost clinically, that perhaps Russia could be an ally — “European and multi-ethnic,” comparable in character to the United States.

Read that again slowly.

Because the propaganda version you’ve been fed for years requires amnesia: it requires you to believe Russia woke up one morning and decided to be “a threat,” as if geopolitics is a mood swing and security architecture is irrelevant.

But here is the declassified record: Russia was probing for an exit ramp. A pathway into a shared system. A new security architecture. A post–Cold War settlement that could have turned the 1990s from a hollow victory lap into a durable peace.

And it didn’t happen.

Not because it was impossible. Not because Russia “never wanted it.” Not because “the West tried everything.”

It didn’t happen because NATO, as an institution, does not know how to live without a frontier. It does not know how to justify itself without an adversary. It does not know how to maintain internal cohesion without a map that points east and says: there.

The 1954 Ghost: the offer the West never wanted to remember

The most important part of this memo is not the 2001 line, but the 1954 reference.

Because it collapses the morality play.

If the Soviet Union, a state the West defined as the existential enemy, floated the notion of joining NATO in 1954, that means something profound: the idea of Russia being inside the European security architecture is not a “Putin-era trick.” It is a recurring historical proposal, returning whenever Moscow believes there may be a rational way to avoid permanent confrontation.

And what happened then? It was refused.

Which is exactly the point: NATO was never simply a “defensive alliance.” Even in 1954, It was a structure. A protection racket. A way to organize Europe under an American strategic roof and to keep it there. If Russia enters that roof as an equal, the architecture changes. Budgets decrease, with less money for the MIC. Threat perceptions change. The entire postwar hierarchy changes.

So the West did what empires do when presented with a peace that would reduce their leverage:

It smiled, took notes, and kept moving.

“Join NATO” was never a plea, it was a test.

Some people still misunderstand the early Putin posture. They interpret it as naivete, or worse, submission.

Wrong.

This was not Russia begging to be absorbed. The consistent theme in contemporaneous accounts is conditionality, that Russia could consider joining if treated as an equal partner, but not as a defeated province invited into the emperor’s club after proving it can submit.

That distinction matters.

Because it reveals the real incompatibility:
•Russia wanted a security system where it is a partner of European security, not an object to be managed.
•The Atlantic system wanted Russia as a managed periphery, permanently “integrating,” permanently reforming, permanently conceding, never truly sovereign in security decisions.

You can’t fuse those visions. One side must yield.

So the Atlantic system chose the only thing it has ever really chosen, expansion.”

A quarter century has passed since that original outreach by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin in 2001.  It was rejected by President George W Bush and all presidents thereafter.  In 2025, we are in the phase of consequence.

This public release just happened on December 23, 2025.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this release can change the conversation in the United States.  Perhaps, just perhaps, President Trump, Secretary Rubio and Emissary Witkoff can reverse the course, and change the arc of history toward peace and a strategic alliance.

The timing of the release inspires hope, but the opposition to peace is extreme.

Dec 25 2025

Investigation into Minnesota’s Somali Immigrant Fraud Ring Expanding


Posted originally on CTH on December 24, 2025 | Sundance 

Representative Kristin Robbins claims there are multiple millions in assisted living program fraud, while highlighting failures in basic internal controls and ongoing payments indicted individuals. Federal Education Secretary Linda McMahon, House Speaker Lisa Demuth, and Rep. Robbins have all urged Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to step down.

Governor Walz says he accepts accountability; however, he blames pre-existing vulnerabilities and pandemic-era program expansion. Walz now claims his reforms will include tighter provider screening, enhanced audits, and cooperation with federal prosecutors. [SOURCES] All of this is happening as the scale of the fraud is yet to be fully identified.

I’m curious if this widespread issue of Somali immigrant fraud is the reason why Tim Walz was selected by Kamala Harris to be her VP candidate in 2024.

Dec 23 2025

John Brennan Lawyers Confirm Their Client is a “Target” of a Grand Jury Investigation


Posted originally on CTH on December 23, 2025 | Sundance

Lawfare lawyer Kenneth Wainstein representing former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed in a proactive litigation letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, their client is a “target” of a grand jury investigation.

The word “target” is important here, because the letter specifically outlines how Brennan has received subpoenas for documents and information surrounding his construct of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.

The letter notes that prosecutors from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, have advised Mr. Brennan that he is “a target” of a grand jury investigation.

[SOURCE]

The letter by is by Mr. Kenneth Wainstein, a partner in Mayer/Brown law firm, Washington DC, who served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he describes a “concocted case” and “politically motivated and fact-free criminal investigation.”

Wainstein is seeking proactive intervention by Chief Judge Altonaga to block U.S. Attorney Quinones from seeking jurisdiction in the Fort Pierce Division, the court with jurisdiction over the Mar-a-Lago raid, led by Judge Aileen Cannon.

I strongly urge everyone interested to READ THE ENTIRE LETTER to understand why I shared prior warnings about the nonsense ramblings of perhaps well-intentioned voices who will create problems for this case against Brennan if it is to continue.

Pay attention to the footnotes being cited by Brennan’s lawyers as they begin to pull in some of the commentary by voices who have publicly given opinion about the overall Trump targeting operation.  Mike Davis name appears frequently in this letter, as the Brennan defense team begins to frame the conspiratorial nature of some claims against their client.

In essence, the Brennan legal team are attempting to refute the evidence by pointing to the blanket of some crazy commentary that covers it. This is exactly what I have been cautioning about {SEE HERE}.

U.S Attorney Quinones already faces an uphill battle, because John Durham already reviewed the ICA origination as part of his investigation – but Durham never prosecuted anyone inside government.

This year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of background information, [114 pages of information], showing how the Obama administration intentionally and with great purpose fabricated the Russia election interference story. DNI Tulsi Gabbard Press Release Here – Files Containing Evidence Here

What the evidence shows is a focused targeting operation intended to fabricate a false premise by the United States Intelligence Community, centered around a fraudulent CIA analysis (ICA) led by John Brennan, and organized through the Office of former DNI James Clapper.  The op was green-lighted by Barack Obama as a way to impede the agenda of incoming President Donald Trump.  All three branches of government eventually collaborated on the scheme.

Lawyers for John Brennan are now seeking to proactively undermine the grand jury proceedings and influence the venue where any investigation and review might be taking place.  [pdf, Page 9] 

In addition to sending the letter to the Southern District of Florida, John Brennan also sent the letter to the New York Times to help him frame a media defense.

[…] Pursuing the case in Fort Pierce, Fla., would draw jurors from a more conservative area than the District of Columbia and put it under Judge Cannon, who showed Mr. Trump unusual favor during the documents investigation. In particular, Mike Davis, an influential former Republican Senate staff aide and friend of Mr. Reding Quiñones, has pushed the idea of a Fort Pierce grand jury, warning Mr. Trump’s adversaries to “lawyer up.” (read more)

Dec 23 2025

Why There Will NEVER Be Indictments Against Govt Officials for “Russiagate” – And Other Crazy Stuff


Posted originally on CTH on December 22, 2025 | Sundance 

One of the many things I have learned, in my research and discussions about corruption in government, is that willfully blind defenders of DC corruption all seek the same way to avoid touching it.

The best way to coverup corrupt DC activity is to bury the damaging evidence under a pile of crazy that no one will touch.  That strategy works well. I’ll explain why with examples.

There is a rather large network of people, podcasters and financially dependent pundits pushing a false expectation around “Russiagate,” the collaborative Clinton/FBI operation to smear Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and then subsequently use the false Trump-Russia claims to continue targeting his administration.

CTH has outlined a very distinct difference between “Russiagate” and “Spygate.” {GO DEEP}  We remind all readers there will likely never be any indictments for the Russigate operation. To understand why, it’s best to think about the Trump targeting operation in stages:

Spygate 2012 to April 2016
♦ Russiagate Apr 2016 to May 2017 ♦
Mueller/Weissmann May 2017 to April 2019
Nadler/Schiff Impeachment Aug 2019
COVID Mail-Ballots 2020
Durham Oct 2020 – 2022
Jack Smith 2022 – 2024

Spygate is intentionally never discussed (I’ll come back to it).  However, the Russiagate phase is the part that people are most familiar with.  Unfortunately, discussing the evidence behind Russiagate became a lucrative business, and there are now people dependent on retaining Russiagate headlines based on nonsense.

There will never be a criminal indictment for anything to do with the “Russiagate” phase of the Trump targeting operation. The ‘why’ is simple:

Special Counsel John Durham brought cases against the Russiagate crew, specifically Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussman. The predicate of the DOJ case was that the FBI was duped, tricked and misled by the Clinton campaign. Put another way, according to the DOJ – the FBI were victims of the Clinton conspiracy.

Now, despite all of us knowing this is untrue, Durham used this “FBI was tricked” predicate in court.  That underlying claim subsequently blocks legal accountability for any DOJ/FBI agent who was a conspirator in the operation.

The first defense Lawfare fabricators would deploy, would be to point out any new criminal prosecution would be reversing the original DOJ predicate to target their clients.  To prosecute for Russiagate, the DOJ claimed in court the DOJ & FBI were duped. The same DOJ cannot then reverse the case motive and say the DOJ & FBI were participants.

The unfortunate (I say intended) outcome is that all of the FBI/DOJ actors in Russiagate were given a pass by Special Counsel John Durham.

Instead, the accountability in the Russiagate fraud is public and political humiliation.

The criminal aspect is a dead end.

For five years I have repeated this assertion based on the reality of what took place with former AG Bill Barr, and former Special Counsel John Durham.  I hate it. I hated it then, and I hate it now; but it is what it is.

There was/is a lot of government corruption, wrongdoing and illegal activity in the continuum of targeting Donald Trump. Spygate, Russiagate, the Mueller special counsel, the impeachment effort all the way to Jack Smith and Arctic Frost, are fraught with people and agencies weaponizing their duties and offices.

The issue I am addressing NOW pertains exclusively to the Russiagate phase of that Trump targeting operation.

♦ As this reality sets in, and as the Russiagate story begins to fade, the Russiagate limited hangout begins to lose followers.  However, those who have a self-identity and financial dependency based on the Russiagate story, begin to make outlandish claims in order to retain relevance and keep the audience interested.

This is the current status, and it has created a problem.

There is a big downside to the nonsense now being promoted by the Russiagate crowd.  As I said in the intro, the easiest way to bury the truth is to cover it in a blanket of crazy, so that no one will go near it.  That is also the current status.

When you see those with Russiagate identities (dependents) complaining about the FBI, DOJ and even DNI are ignoring them, it’s because the remaining Russiagate dependents are pushing nonsense now.  They are creating a crazy blanket that is spreading over all of the Trump targeting investigations.

Patrick Byrne, General Michael Flynn, Svetlana Lokhova, and any alternative media who promote them, including Lara Logan and Emerald Robinson, are now creating a problem.  Either by intent or by mistake, they are creating a scenario where people with the power to do something about the other Trump targeting operations are becoming less willing to review the evidence.

Let me give you a specific example using Patrick Byrne, a colleague of Flynn and frequent guest on alternative platforms.

Below left you see Maria Butina, pictured when she was involved in the 2016 Russiagate story.  Below right, you see Maria Butina three days ago; she is a current member of the Russian equivalent of the House of Representatives (the Russian Duma).

After being quietly freed from prison in the U.S, there is no way Maria Butina would be a member of the Russian Duma unless she was allowed by the govt of Russia to be in that position.

That point accepted. The original issue was always a question of whether Maria Butina was an agent of the Russian govt, ie. “a spy”, or whether she was just a random Russian gun enthusiast.

Butina’s position in the Duma confirms that yes, in actuality she was almost certainly an agent of the Russian govt. in 2016, which was technically the position of the CIA/FBI.  Her appearance in the USA was then turned into an operation to use her travel as a surveillance vehicle for the corrupt intents and purposes of the FBI counterintelligence operation, Crossfire Hurricane.

That operation led to the enlistment of Patrick Byrne, who is recently a self-admitted CIA source/asset, who used Butina as a surveillance virus to infect various GOP political candidates in the 2016 election.

Byrne willingly participated in the operation, befriended Butina, began a romantic relationship with Butina and ran her into various GOP and Trump officials. All of that was always sketchy.

In 2016, Butina was an asset of the Russian govt., used by the U.S. govt. and intelligence agencies as part of their operation to conduct surveillance of American political candidates. This part is known by many.

However, approximately a month ago, just before Patrick Byrne announced his long-term relationship with the CIA on the Emerald Robinson podcast, Byrne was inside Russia promoting a video docuseries of his activity (picture right).

During the promotional events, Byrne told the Russian media and Russian audience he was a covert CIA asset.  This was all part of his media promo for his movie.

There is no way the Russian government would randomly accept a CIA operative into their country, unless the Russian government planned to use the spectacle of the storyline to advance their propaganda interests to their domestic audience. Essentially, Byrne telling Russians how terrible the CIA is. This would be an acceptable thing for the Russian government to promote.

All of that is shared to give context to the Byrne group (Byrne, Flynn, Lokhova and more) claiming the larger U.S. intelligence system, under DNI Tulsi Gabbard, was ignoring their continued contacts with information about government corruption.

Of course, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and all reasonable people would politely ignore contacts from, or isolate information from, this sketchy network of unofficial/official intelligence associations, claiming to be covert CIA operatives and telling the Russians about their involvement therein.

Good grief.  Can you imagine if Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard participated in anything, anything with a strange guy who was willfully creating Russian propaganda against the USA for consumption in Russia?

The sketchy Patrick Byrne guy is inside Russia telling media he is a CIA asset, and then he comes back to the USA and tells American podcast audiences that he is having a hard time getting the Trump administration to accept his team’s information or assistance.

Again, the easiest way to bury genuinely damaging information is to cover it with sketchy nonsense that no one will touch – including Byrne and Flynn’s vast Venezuelan global voting control conspiracy and all other Q-feeding gibberish.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Can you imagine the firehose of whackadoodle stuff that is being transmitted to the DNI by so-called friends of the Trump administration?  Then consider the problem they create trying to figure out the crazy from the relevant.

Let me say for the record, this problem is not being accidentally created.

Dec 23 2025

Deep State Apoplectic with Trump’s Use of Emissaries to Deliver Results


Posted originally on CTH on December 22, 2025 | Sundance 

To say that I am happy with President Trump’s approach toward the use of White House emissaries to conduct official business around the capture mechanisms of the administrative state would be an understatement.  I’m positively thrilled to watch this untraditional approach in action.

Are there approaches, strategies and general things I would prefer to see differently?  Sure, there are. However, I’m just an audience member without any need to keep gravity maintained, while figuring out ways to satisfy billionaire donors, key interests and strategic partners.  On this balancing act, President Trump is doing awesome work.

President Trump is ducking and weaving through some of the deepest Machiavellian constructs, while maintaining forward progress.

To put context to it, these creeps have had four years to strategize how to control Trump and manipulate policy, with their retention of all sorts of government agencies in alignment with the status quo.  Yet, remarkably President Trump is dancing through their deep state minefield, while keeping dozens of plates spinning on sticks.  The use of non-traditional emissaries is really making them angry.

As we shared in 2024, the use of emissaries outside the govt framework of traditional policy was going to be a key facet in any America First agenda.  Steve Witkoff is an example, leading to the clutching of pearls on a scale we have never seen.

As noted, in this not so subtle hit job against him, the State Dept built Witkoff an office, “one of its most historic offices: the high-ceiling, wood-paneled suite where Secretary of State George C. Marshall planned the reconstruction of Europe.” Yet, Witkoff has never used it; instead he prefers a small desk in a rather innocuous office in the White House.

The Wall Street Journal narrative against Witkoff is a little funny.

(WSJ) – […] It is hard to pinpoint a moment in history when businessmen have held such direct sway over matters of war and peace. Since the end of World War II, Washington’s relationship with Moscow was its most carefully calibrated, helmed by spy agencies who knew their rival intimately. Seasoned diplomats rehearsed rigid protocols to prevent misunderstandings between two nuclear powers poised like scorpions in a jar. Today, those structures are virtually absent.

[…] Witkoff has declined multiple offers from the CIA for a briefing on Russia. The State Department assigned a small group of staffers to support Witkoff, but members of that team, and others across the administration, have struggled to get summaries of Witkoff’s foreign meetings.

[…] A White House official said that the decision to appoint Witkoff was Trump’s decision alone. “Suggesting that foreign countries had any input on this is absurd,” the official said. Rubio in a statement said Witkoff is doing an “incredible job” and that he “understands the objectives and gets things done on behalf of the President and the American people.”

[…] Witkoff said he has his own, tight-knit team within the government: “We develop a thesis on how to be successful,” he said. “So I don’t need to travel around with a zillion people.”

[…] In an Oval Office meeting in the first weeks of the administration, Kellogg briefed the president and others on a plan to end the war. “You take Ukraine,” Trump told him. “I’ve got Russia.” Witkoff wasn’t in the room.

Days later, Kellogg got a message *from a colleague on the National Security Council: Witkoff had received security clearance for a Moscow trip.

[*NOTE: I’ll bet a donut that National Security Council person was the chair, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. Which emphasizes exactly why CTH said Mike Waltz was the wrong pick for the position.]

[…] Kellogg later learned from a reporter that the Kremlin had complained to the White House about his *daughter’s support for Ukraine, he said.

[NOTE: Unbeknownst to most, Lt General Keith Kellogg’s daughter is Meaghan Mobbs, who is president of the RT Weatherman Foundation.  In advance of the first congressional appropriation, and likely with feedback from her father, Lt General Keith Kellogg, MsMobbs stood up a Ukraine relief organization which benefits from the Ukraine support money sent by Congress.  In essence, Kellogg’s family has a financial stake in continuing the conflict and continuing to receive money from Congress.]

[…] For decades, senior American government officials visiting Russia would be briefed from a book of guidelines known as “Moscow Rules.” The document outlines the myriad ways the country’s security agents would try to surveil, entrap, compromise and recruit American visitors. It had been recently updated to reflect the security services’ increasingly aggressive posture, particularly the unit responsible for tracking Americans, the Department for Counter Intelligence, or DKRO. One important rule, say the officials who helped craft it: “There are no coincidences.”

Ahead of his trip, the CIA offered to brief Witkoff; he declined. Nor was he accompanied by an interpreter: He had been told that Russia’s president wouldn’t allow him to bring another person into the meeting.

A White House official said he participated in multiple briefings before his first trip to Russia, including Trump’s intelligence briefing. The CIA regularly briefs him on other issues like Gaza—but not Russia. (read more)

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has long said publicly he does not consider America or the American people to be adversaries of Russia. Instead, Vladimir Putin views the CIA as his adversary; he is always clear to draw the distinction.

The Deep State does not like President Trump’s use of emissaries to conduct foreign policy.  In fact, they oppose it strongly; they hate it.

That is exactly why this approach is needed, and it is very good to see it being done.

CTH AUGUST 2024 – The Washington DC Intelligence Community (IC) actively work to isolate the Office of the President.  This is an almost impossible dynamic to avoid, caused by an entrenched and ideological adversary who has dug themselves deep into the apparatus of government.

The “emissary” is the person who carries the word of President Trump to any person identified by President Trump.  The emissary is very much like a tape recording of President Trump in human form.  The emissary travels to a location, meets a particular person or group, and then recites the opinion of the President.  The words spoken by the emissary, are the words of President Trump.

The IC cannot inject themselves into this dynamic; that is why it is so valuable.

The emissary then hears the response from the intended person or group, repeats it back to them to ensure he/she will return with clarity of intent as expressed, and then returns to the Office of the President and repeats the reply for the President.  The emissary recites back exactly what he was /is told.

This process is critical when you understand how thoroughly compromised the full Executive Branch is.  More importantly, this process becomes even more critical when you accept the Intelligence Community will lie to the Office of the President to retain their power and position. (read more)