Tag Archives: The Big Ugly

Jan 2 2026

Anyone Else Noticing the Opportunistic Rebranding?


Posted originally on CTH on January 2, 2026 | Sundance 

The need for control is a reaction to fear.  Suddenly, there’s a whole lot of corporate media voices rebranding themselves.  Is the worm turning, or is this just opportunistic positioning? The nature of the irrelevance behind it all has me quite amused.  Example #1 CBS:

Paramount/CBS, along with TikTok, were recently acquired by Larry and David Ellison. [NOTE: I refuse to separate the father and son into individual corporate elements, because that perspective requires a certain level of pretending that I’m incapable of.]  David Ellison recently installed Bari Weiss as CBS News Editor in Chief.  Larry and David are currently working to acquire Warner/CNN.

As the ‘great noticing’ of things continues to manifest, suddenly a lot of voices are trying to distance themselves from their corporate interests and rebranding as independent voices.

The next example is Catherine Herridge, who has a long and very visible career working for corporate media outlets, shaping stories for the corporate interest and doing yeoman’s work selling a controlled and approved narrative.

Now working within the structure of The Los Angeles Times platform, Catherine Herridge wants to share terrible stories about her experiences within the corporate media world.

Apparently, Catherine Herridge could not tell anyone about these terrible, horrible, manipulative and restrictive media rules and confines before…. because, well, she doesn’t actually explain that part; just that it was bad, very bad, but now this is better, much better….. and so before, well, it might not have been the truth, or it was shaped, modified and controlled, but now, well, the information will be true and stuff…. swear.

Gotcha. The rebranding effort is not targeted to Gen-X, Gen-Z, or even the Millennials born from helicopter parents; those folks have already figured out the Big Club game is rigged, and they cynically don’t even pay attention to this inauthentic corporate shapeshifting.

Nope, this specific version of rebranding is targeting an older audience, albeit a shrinking viewership of pretenders, who cling to idealism based on redemption.

Will CBS become authentic, absent of motive or intent?  That’s silly; of course they won’t.  The Ellisons bought Paramount/CBS and TikTok for a reason, no?  They’re now after Warner/CNN for a reason, no?  Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Is Catherine Herridge suddenly the voice of truthful information, regardless of personal cost or consequence?  Again, silly beyond comprehension; especially if you have ever watched her carefully avoid anything litigious.

All of that said, watching the rebranding stuff is a little funny.

Remember, the information isn’t theirs – it’s ours.

Remember also, that with President Trump delivering the most transparent administration in history, you don’t have to wonder what he said or ask them what he said – you can just watch him say it in his own words.  Cool.

Like an information dam with too many lie-holes for repair, information control systems are collapsing, and the information control operators, domestic and foreign narrative engineers, are busy building longer snorkels to reach above the fraud.  Meanwhile, the proactive information audience has gone from buying high tech scuba gear to just moving out of the fake news flood plain.

“Wait, trust us”, they shout.

Ha, get stuffed, we’ll watch it all collapse from up here.

National MAGAlignment has moved beyond them.

2026 is off to a great start.

Cheers !

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 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

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.

Nov 18 2025

Magistrate Judge Positions Case Against James Comey for Almost Certain Dismissal


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.

[SOURCE]

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.

It’s not Halligan’s fault; she tried.

Nov 14 2025

Emails Between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein Resurface – Highlighting Again, Zero Epstein Dirt on Trump


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.

Nov 11 2025

Lawfare Embeds Quit DOJ Jobs as 30 Subpoenas Sent in FL-Based “Russiagate Conspiracy” Investigation


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.

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.

Nov 10 2025

Sunday Talks: Devin Nunes Discusses Trump Media Company Targeted During “Arctic Frost” Operation


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.

Nov 8 2025

REPORT: Three Russiagate Grand Jury Subpoenas Sent Today, Brennan, Page and Strzok – Up to 30 Subpoenas Pending


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.