Begin with the end in mind.
Whatever happened to…
You see, a funny thing happens when you intercept fraud…. It disappears.
That’s just one tiny example. There are thousands more pixels.
Which sets up a question. It’s a very big ugly digest. All of it. The sum is much more than its collective parts. So, do you really want the book? It’s a trilogy: (Vol 1) The Politics. (Vol 2) The Fraud. (Vol 3) The confrontation.
The number one statement I receive is a version of: “I wish I had never started following your research, because it was so much easier when I did not to know.” Simultaneously, I receive an equal amount of requests to write a book about them. [“Them” doesn’t just include the background surveillance against Donald J Trump (aka Spygate), although that’s a recently common reference.]
Here is why I have never, until now, contemplated doing it.
There are many really good and well-written books about politics and scandals. However, every book, regardless of how well cited, researched and evidenced, always has a big missing part, at least for me: Where’s the confrontation?
Where’s the part in the ‘expose” when the writer takes all of the facts, all of the evidence, all of the cited and documented discovery, and gets in the face of the subject?
What’s the purpose, if not to initiate action.
Where’s the book writer of DC corruption who puts a microphone uncomfortably in the face of Mitch McConnell (or staff), or Peter Strzok, or Andrew McCabe, or John Brennan, or Kevin Clinesmith… and asks the questions… or confronts Jake Tapper… or travels to the symposium,.. or Tom Perez… or Martin Gugino… or the team of Bubba Wallace…. or Rod Rosenstein… and challenges them in unavoidable detail, to document that part.
Relentlessly. Visibly.
The answers are just as easily found on the perimeter; but no-one is there.
That Andrew Breitbart approach is always missing; that’s why we miss him so much.
The recent books are great. I have likely read most. They are terrific data records and they show solid documentary evidence on a multitude of schemes, but drive no outcome.
We gain knowledge; we seem satisfied; but perhaps, just perhaps, we are satiated only because we have stopped thinking about the purpose any longer. What value is there in knowing the fraud and scheme if there is no confrontation to conclude it. Maybe even stop it, or expose it on a level that cannot be denied.
Ongoing denial of truth permits continued trespass.
The villain escapes, ultimately because we have stopped the accountability quest.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Next book, new controversy…. new evidence…. same shallow outcome.
Put another way – CTH receives hundreds of requests for interviews on some of our deep dive research; so many that we just don’t respond to them any longer. But when we did respond, consider this customary reply:
My honest and respectfully intended question to you would be: What is it that makes media folks always want to “get an interview” when the information is there for the taking?
Perhaps, by training, by habit, or by unintended consequence you have developed yourself to live for the process itself as an end result. Is it logical to believe that journalism is the interview; the conversation is the point; the smoke is the fire?
Please forgive my uneducated and poorly worded suppositions, but apparently journalism has evolved into reveling in the process and, as a consequence, it completely ignores the end point, misses the bottom line, doesn’t actually SEE the subject matter and never actually applies what might be discovered.
In fact, I’m led to believe that sometimes those within the industrial media complex avoid the subject matter deliberately, because if they get their heads around it and nail it home, they won’t have anything to talk about any more–because they will have exhausted their stash.
Not attempting whatsoever to lump your intention into such a fray; however, many have gotten into the habit of milking each situation for “so many leads,” “so many interviews,” “so many column inches,” and “so many angles” that problem-solving does not appeal to them at all. They oddly appear to favor the endless process.
So when there’s an approach like what you are encountering with our significant site research, and my reluctance for self involvement, I don’t fit –because I don’t give a flip about “the process.” And therefore, I do not fit into the rationale of the box or the PERT chart.
If you want to make these truths known, they are free for the taking; and they are by no matter or consequence dependent on my advancement.
The same general outlook applies to my perspective on writing books. Should not the book itself drive an action? Does not that action, by necessity require a confrontation?
There you have it.
That’s why I have never written a book about all of the subjects we have deeply researched.
That said, the first two volumes of the Big Ugly trilogy are essentially written. Vol. I “The Politics”; and Vol II “The Frauds”, are assembled. The summaries of over a decade of CTH material makes each one about 700-1,000 pages (with citations). But the missing volume III, “The Confrontations” precludes the release. I will not release a book outlining fraud without initiating an unavoidable confrontation to expose each individual fraud on a very specific level.
So there’s the question: Do you really want the book?
It’s not really a book, per se’, the pages would be released digitally in live-stream video, a rather direct series of confrontations based on prior assembly.
Recent events have shifted the dynamic.
It would be very ugly, and most likely very public.
Think about it.
Centinel2012 