Tag Archives: President Trump

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

Zelenskyy will Meet with President Trump on Sunday in Mar-a-Lago


Posted originally on CTH on December 26, 2025 | Sundance 

Representatives from Zelenskyy’s public relations and media team have confirmed to various news outlets the Ukraine President will be meeting with President Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago on Sunday to discuss the latest five segment draft document organized by negotiators.

The meeting between Zelenskyy and President Trump comes after several days of negotiations between the Ukrainian delegation, Trump Emissaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner over the Christmas holiday.

(VIA UPI) Former Defense Minister “Rustem Umerov reported on his latest contacts with the American side,” Zelensky wrote. “We are not losing a single day. We have agreed on a meeting at the highest level — with President Trump in the near future. A lot can be decided before the New York.”

CNN reported that Zelensky told reporters he couldn’t say whether he’d leave the meeting with a deal in place. Negotiators will “finalize as much as we can,” he said.

Unnamed Ukrainian officials confirmed to Axios the meeting would take place Sunday at Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago estate.

The meeting will come one week after Russian negotiators and U.S. officials Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met in Miami to hammer out details on a peace plan. Zelensky on Wednesday unveiled a 20-point peace plan agreed upon during that meeting, which would provide strong NATO-style security concessions for Ukraine in exchange for land concessions to Russia. (more)

According to Politico: – […] “The 20-point plan that we worked on is 90 percent ready. Our task, to make sure that everything is 100 percent ready. It is not easy and no one says that it will be 100 percent right away, but nevertheles we must bring the desired result closer with each such meeting, each such conversation,” Zelenskyy told journalists.

He added that the meeting will focus on security guarantees, management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and territorial control of Donbas, the eastern territories claimed by Moscow.

“First of all, we are working on several documents every day, there are five of them now. We want to talk about a few nuances on security guarantees … In my opinion, I see now that the agreement between us and the United States is almost ready,” Zelenskyy said, adding that he is ready to sign a bilateral agreement depending on how the meeting goes.

The 20-point plan will be a four-party agreement between Ukraine, U.S., Russia and Europe, he added. European leaders might join the meeting online, Zelenskyy said.

Zelenskyy’s announcement came after Thursday talks with U.S. lead negotiator Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, which the Ukrainian president called a “good conversation” and said yielded “timing on how to bring a real peace closer.

Contacts between Ukrainian and U.S. officials have intensified as prospects for a possible peace deal grow in the war-torn country, which has been resisting Russian aggression for nearly four years.

The updated 20-point draft peace plan that Zelenskyy unveiled on Wednesday includes the possibility of creating a special demilitarized economic zone in some areas of Donbas. (read more)

I would not hold out too much hope on this specific set of proposals from Zelenskyy because it still calls for the frontlines in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions to form the de facto border, while Russia will pull out of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions.

Despite the U.S. intelligence community, NATO forces and mercenaries assisting on the ground in Ukraine and generating successful counterattacks against Russian positions, there is no indication that Russia is willing to cede ground already under their control.

Dec 27 2025

President Trump Coordinates with Nigerian Government to Carry Out Christmas Day Strikes Against ISIS Targets


Posted originally on CTH on December 26, 2025 | Sundance

President Trump announced he authorized and ordered strikes against ISIS targets in Nigeria who are targeting Christians.

Working with the Nigerian government, President Trump ordered military strikes in Northwestern Nigeria intended to hit Islamic State terrorists who were targeting Christians in the African nation. The strikes follow months of warnings to the ISIS militants that further killing of Christians would result in action by the United States.

The media are quick to say President Trump conducted the strikes, without underlining the U.S. action was taken in coordination with the Nigerian government.

(VIA FOX) – […] U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed the attacks in a post on X on Thursday night. “At the direction of the President of the United States and the Secretary of War, and in coordination with Nigerian authorities, U.S. Africa Command conducted strikes against ISIS terrorists in Nigeria on Dec. 25, 2025, in Sokoto State,” the post read.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz also weighed in after learning about the strikes on ISIS forces in Nigeria.

“Merry Christmas to the Christians in Nigeria and around the world who know tonight that the President of the United States will fight for them,” he said in a post on X.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Thursday, “I commend President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and our brave troops for these strikes against bloodthirsty ISIS savages who are not only persecuting Christians, but also have killed many Americans.” (read more)

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 26 2025

A Remarkable Year Filled with Wins


Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance 

It’s easy to think about the things we have yet to achieve.  However, author and friend of the Treehouse Jack Cashill documents a great deal of success and presents a year in review that deserves attention. [SEE HERE]

In his substack article, Cashill runs through some of the big wins that were achieved by President Trump and the MAGA network in 2025.  And the year ain’t over yet!

[READ The “Celebrating” HERE]

Dec 25 2025

WarRoom Live


Posted originally on Rumble on Bannon War Room on: December 24, 2025

Dec 25 2025

President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump Help NORAD Answer Calls to Santa


Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance 

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump spent some time on Christmas Eve answering telephone calls to Santa that arrive at NORAD.  WATCH:

Dec 25 2025

John Brennan’s Lawfare Lawyers Are Revealing More Than They Intend


Posted originally on CTH on December 24, 2025 | Sundance 

As we noted yesterday, lawyers representing former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position.

You have to go deep in the weeds to see it, but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan’s lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham.

Here’s page 6 of the 2025 letter.

Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham.

In 2025, Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it.

So, which is it?

These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022, former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025, Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review.

[We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.]

There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing, because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025.

Another of the claims, in the 2022 letter to John Durham, highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019.

[SOURCE – Page 7]

The lawyers representing John Brennan in the above 2022 letter apparently did not know the DNC emails were provably not hacked by Russia, unless they are claiming that Seth Rich (DNC staff) and Julian Assange (Wikileaks) were working for the Russian government.

John Brennan asserts a “definitive determination” that Russia was involved in the theft of the DNC emails, and across the intelligence community that determination was “unanimous.”  That assertion, by Brennan, underpinning the “Russian interference narrative”, opens up the entire DNC email issue for Jason Quiñones to explore.

The DNC hired Crowdstrike to investigate the leak/hack; the James Comey FBI never looked at the DNC servers; and Crowdstrike told the Senate there was no evidence of a hack or outside intrusion.  Perhaps Quiñones will finally highlight these contradictions and get to the bottom of it? Because, after all, this is part of Brennan’s ICA defense.

What Brennan did not realize we would discover when he wrote the letter in 2022:

In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.

Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan – ultimately constructed by Julia Gurganus.

Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.

You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump.  However, in 2016/2017 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.

Oh look, there’s another trail for U.S Attorney Jason Quiñones to follow.

What would Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella have to say about putting the ICA together?

Merry Christmas!

U.S Attorney Jason Quinones

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)