I have written, deleted, remained quiet and also absorbed frustration likely similar to many of you. Now, perhaps, it is worth presenting the brutal truth of the matter; or, as was said in my family, it’s time to call the baby ugly.
Since the resignation of Joe diGenova as counsel to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche there have been many opinions shared. diGenova himself has given statements to some media outlets {NBC, non-paywall}. Other outlets have encapsulated with their customary spin {Citation}, and diGenova has also talked to others we might consider closer allied to a presentation of truth {source}.
As with all matters of significance, there are points missed, context missing, structural understandings that go beyond quick articles or soundbites. This is one of those examples. It’s highly likely the White House and Main Justice had a strong opinion about the pace of the South Florida effort and the lack of substantive action; I mean, aren’t we all? However, the root of the issue is one I am very familiar with, and with that in mind here’s the part that very few really understand.
If I had to give you the cliff notes version it would sound like this: Yes, the slowness is the problem, but the context is not entirely accurate. One of diGenova (and anyone else’s) problems, is that they don’t know the background material well enough. I have personally encountered this so much I no longer get frustrated; it just is what it is.
The investigators, prosecutors, inquisitors et al, spend too much time trying to figure out the storyline, and it is the storyline that is critical. Because, well, in brutal honesty, they don’t know it. They know it in a cursory fashion, at a high level; at a level of political talking points, media hits, clickbait headline discussion; but unfortunately, that’s not good enough for this case.
A granular level working knowledge of the specifics of Spygate and Russiagate are needed. That level of learning, understanding takes up so much time that it becomes almost impossible for them to act decisively and quickly. It is the complexity of the matter that becomes a self-fulfilling defense. Joseph diGenova was/is no exception. This is the central problem with all of these guys; they just don’t know the material well enough.
I’m not making excuses, I’m stating facts. Facts that are based upon my personal experience after almost a decade deep inside this issue.
That’s the cliff notes. If you want the full understanding, keep reading.
.
Right about here someone will likely ask, ‘well, why don’t you help them’? I’ll explain that also. It’s more complicated that you might think.
The one thing you must remember about exposing Washington DC corruption with Washington DC people is their primary prism. It took me a while to figure it out, but after a while of seeing the pattern, I realized their outlook is a feature of everyone.
Everyone associated with the system of exposing corruption, soup to nuts – everyone, comes into the matter with this outlook. They are deathly afraid of losing their personal credibility, while simultaneously they demand full credit for any resulting positive public opinion.
They are afraid of the story, but they want credit if it becomes mainstream. Now, think carefully about that for a moment, because it is the one common characteristic amid all of them. I repeat, all of them. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit. This forms the baseline for what I am describing.
Joe diGenova wanted the job; he wanted to investigate Spygate/Russiagate and deliver accountability. However, diGenova was limited in the outset to the information he understood, which to his credit was more than most but still only at a surface level.
There are others like diGenova, and all carry the same challenge inherent within their ability.
What does this look like in real life? Well, when I have a conversation about the storyline of Spygate/Russiagate that originates back in 2015 (note with some small references to the previous 2011 IRS operation), it takes me about three hours to walk through the timeline of activity. If there are questions, that conversation can take another few hours. Let’s put the total at four hours just to be fair.
Four hours. That’s per person.
You start with the 2nd asst to the 1st asst of the primary. That’s 4 hours of explaining. Then you wait until you are given a meeting with the 1st asst of the primary. That’s another 4 hours explaining everything you previously explained. Then you wait again until the 2nd and 1st asst have explained to the primary. Then the initial background vetting takes place, just to make sure the storyline factually makes sense, and ensure you are not nuts. Then you may, maybe not, get to explain it all again to the primary. Another 4 hours, and the primary will have questions. If they don’t have questions, you are pissing in the wind and all effort to this point is time wasted.
Once the primary agrees on the merit of the storyline, then you are tasked to explain it to the designee of the primary who will then go look closer at the information you are citing, just to ensure the evidence of the citation you are referencing is factually accurate. Another four-hour outline and conversation. If that evidence is factually accurate, the designee of the primary then begins the process to capture it, declassify it, make it public, or add it to the list of evidence needed to continue.
If there are any other stakeholders in the process, they too will request the 4-hour explanation of why this matters.
Everything you just read can pertain to one, singular document; one singular point in the storyline. How many weeks just passed?
It took me eight months to convince around a dozen people of the need to review, retrieve, declassify, return and then ultimately release the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) transcript of testimony from former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
[SIDEBAR: For a case study in ‘No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit’ look at John Solomon; who, in my personal opinion, was/is the biggest mistake by President Trump in the effort of transparency in Term-2. Special Govt Employee John Solomon is to White House transparency as Joe diGenova was to Main Justice accountability].
No one knows the granular details. No one fully understands the storyline, the connections, the matrix of names and activities, so nobody really knows where to look. Worse still, no one is willing to say, ‘we don’t know’ – until Tulsi Gabbard. DNI Tulsi Gabbard was the first person in a position of importance who was willing to walk into the situation admitting a lack of knowledge, yet wide open and enthusiastic to understand the specific issues.
No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit. This also applies to an odd fear of personal harm (or targeting) from understanding the issues. To me this is like being afraid of mythical dragons. Walk boldly in the light, be right with God and there is no sense of fear. However, I digress.
Please accept this is not me saying I’m the only one who understands the granular details; far from it. There are parts of the storyline I just don’t care about because they seem self-evident. Ex. State Dept officials involved in supporting the targeting of Donald Trump. Of course they did, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and that institution is soup-to-nuts compromised. What’s to prove? What’s the value in exposing their activity? It’s all self-evident.
There are many researchers in a small group on the X platform who have a solid understanding, a granular level understanding, and who can cite chapter and verse of evidence to highlight details in the storyline. I’m sure there are other people on other platforms who can do the same, but not many. The point is not a detail or a series of details; the challenge is the entire storyline of complex details that weave together.
It’s the storyline that makes each point of evidence hold value.
When a prosecutor is building a conspiracy case the storyline is the most critical aspect.
The storyline highlights the motive and intention of each of the participants as they branch off into their specific activity and then return to build upon the sum of the targeting. This is the challenge for anyone who first enters with a willingness to understand.
When it comes to the Office of the President, again no one wants the risk – everyone wants the credit. The concentric circles around the Office of the Presidency are full of lawyers (legal filters), advisors/staff (territorial filters), stakeholders and those who look at everything through the prism of political risk to the office. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Catherine Herridge will not walk into a Trump hotel out of fear for being seen. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Maria Bartiromo. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Bill Alderman. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
The need for control is a reaction to fear. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Do you remember when I outlined specifically how President Trump could cut through the fog of obstruction by those who seek control and operate from a position of fear as it pertains to declassifying information? {IMPORTANT REMINDER}
That process of releasing information is as true and effective today as it was when I published it in 2020. However, no one associated with the Office of the President has the guts to stand against the institutional and political fury of that approach. Additionally, everyone associated with the territorial objectives of Washington DC would work to ensure President Trump never took that approach. This is one small example.
Joe diGenova asked for the job with all the best intents and objectives. However, it is also true that a lack of granular understanding of the details led to months and months of time wasted in piecing it together. That delay likely led to Main Justice and White House frustration, which culminated in diGenova’s exit. Two things can be true at the same time.
That’s the cold, ugly reality of the situation as outlined by me, a simple guy, who has tried, failed and in some small measures succeeded in getting information extracted from within a system that both protects itself and is surrounded by those who fear it.
If the South Florida team cannot succeed in organizing a conspiracy case, then my advice or hope is that they take all the evidence to the White House and do what should have been done years ago…..


Question for SD: It seems, with your vast understanding and knowledge of these issues as well as the records you’ve been keeping for several years now, that you should be a key consultant in the DJT administration. So, if not, why not? I understand this may well be a question you don’t want to answer, but its a valid question and highly likely one hundreds of us here have been wondering about for some time.
Read the article. I answered that question.
Read first?
That’s crazy talk!
It is time consuming and unwieldy.
Most people want sound bites.
“It took me eight months to convince around a dozen people of the need to review, retrieve, declassify, return and then ultimately release the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) transcript of testimony from former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson.”
So what you are essentially saying is that it wouldn’t matter if you were a key consultant since all the other stakeholders wanting the credit but not the risk will continue slow walking everything because they don’t have the proper knowledge of the storyline to present it legally in court.
If short term memory serves one right.
Wasn’t the release the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) transcript of testimony from former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson delayed?
Due to some normally do nothing swamp creature wanting to make the announcement to receive the credit.
How does one appoint themselves to be a key consultant in any administration?
“If the South Florida team cannot succeed in organizing a conspiracy case, then my advice or hope is that they take all the evidence to the White House and do what should have been done years ago…”
Two things can be true at once? OK then the fact is the informational time line HAS been released by YOU repeatedly! So the question has to be asked why isn’t anyone in a position to do some thing not using it as the template?
Read the article again pls. SD states it plainly. Nobody wants the risk and everyone wants the credit.
Bottom line…we’re sunk.
Other option than being sunk is send the men in black suits and white hats and have bad people start dying in accidents.
Could the slow pace be an unintended consequence of having the case in Florida instead of DC? If in DC I’m assuming people can walk to the building(S) that have the documents?
There are also those that think Joe was being pressed for results when the next logical step would be to pursue Obama. Trump’s team did not want the likely political blowback that could energize the democrats right at the election. I happen to agree that it would be a strageic and tactical mistake to pursue Obama or Biden right b4 midterms.
Biden is using stage 4 cancer as an insurance policy. Obama always had his race as an insurance policy.
or can it be as simple as joe not wanting to expose his neck by breaking the eggs required for fear of being caught in the retaliatory dragnet once the next election cycles are stolen?
AI could speed this thing up.
good one
Agreed … AI could; do the data mining, provide suggested linkages, link to time, link to people, et al. essentially build the DRAFT storyline, so to say with points of law connected as well.
That still leaves the human elements.
Willingness to take the “Social Risks”.
Time needed to check-verify the AI and comprehend.
Do not discount that AI Tools were not already being used as they currently are used in any major law practice and US Government.
So, to summarize the reasons for lack of progress, even by those who claim to be Eager Beavers:
Reason #1: Lack of Storyline Comprehension … that essentially means how the evidence fits together … the legal so what of each point on the time line to build predicates with evidence.
I cannot accept any excuses related to “lack of evidence”, as even Joe DiGenova stated there was enough evidence to prosecute.
Reason #2: No desire to take the risk of becoming a “social outcast” in the pond where they live (DC), if the investigation does not yield something that is overwhelmingly spectacular … due to loss of social standing and the corollary loss of INCOME.
Reason #3: The risk of personal harm at the hands of those being investigated or their confederates.
In DiGenova’s case I do not buy Reason #1 because he and his wife RECOGNIZED that enough evidence exits to prosecute and BUILDING STORY LINES while gathering evidence is PART OF THE JOB. Made easier by the fact story lines exist in the Public domain for them to use as outlines.
I can understand Reason #3 but it is not new risk to experienced prosecutors. They have had to have this mitigated on past efforts.
I will say it plainly … That leaves Reason #2, which means they never ever really meant to do anything because they saw no way around the “Social and Future Business” related Risks.
The risks are massive to anyone working on this case. Seems to me that this is the largest RICO case ever in our history and also THE most complicated. If the group can NOT put the timelines together after having all of this info handed to them, WTH are they doing then?
Unfortunately, this reeks of typical gross government incompetence from a non-functioning doj. Hope I am wrong but I sense a huge nothing-burger being served very rare on a stale, mold-riddled bun.
Doc: Reason #2 isn’t limited to “social risk”. See Rudy and Sidney as but two examples.
Reason #1 is primary. If you don’t know the storyline, you don’t know what evidence to look for. If you don’t know what evidence to look for, you don’t know where you should be looking.
This is the main problem.
You cannot question people with specific material insight to frame your questioning, if you don’t have the material. In order to have the material, you have to know what you are looking for. In order to know what to look for, you have to know the storyline.
See how it all connects?
I understand what you stated … yet that does not fully square with the statement by DiGenova, “there was enough evidence to prosecute”.
Did he even try is my problem on this point and that may also likely be the reason for frustration by the White House and DoJ … unless DoJ just gave Joe and Victoria; desks … titles … offices … a pay check … and nothing more.
Release it is exactly right. Too many people want accountability when exposure of the issues/problems should be the primary objective. The people can’t fix the corruption they don’t know about, and the people demanding things be fixed is the only thing that will spur the powers that be to actually do it. If fear of the people is restored to government many things can be fixed quickly. The fixes are not that difficult, what is missing is the will to implement the fixes.
Fulton Sheen said there are three kinds of pride. Pride of what you have. Pride of what you do. And pride of what you know.
People are afraid of losing what they have(material things) who they are(status) and what they know(will be called a kook- conspiracy theorist).
Jesus emptied himself of all pride; He was beaten, mocked and hung on a tree.
I guess the question is what price for truth?
@Sundance – Maybe I’m just naive, and I’m obviously not privy to the way DC works, but why not record one (or many more) of these multi-hour sessions and post them to youtube, or some other platform that wouldn’t immediately censor/block it? With said naivety aside, it sounds like a reasonable and workable plan, to this layman. Even highly redacted documents, with carefully worded details c/would have some sort of impact once in the public eye, right? Surely there’s some way around the data classification road-blocks.
Cain’t hide under a spotlight!
🐁 🔦
I say release it too.
Let the cards fall where they may and let the president take the credit, he has already taken enough risks.
Flip the tables, go on the offence and have the media and the left start having to play defense.
Tend to agree. Now that the kenyan is out in a very public and illegal manner attempting to destroy America, as he has been since he was first created/appointed, seems to be an ideal time to fully expose his blanton criminality
Here’s how Grok summarizes it:
“**According to Conservativetreehouse.com (The Last Refuge / Sundance), the targeting of Donald Trump involved two related but distinct tracks under the Obama administration and holdover elements in the FBI, CIA, and broader intelligence community: earlier political surveillance (“Spygate”) using the NSA database, and the later Russia-collusion narrative (“Russiagate”/Crossfire Hurricane) that served as both cover and continuation.**
Spygate: Political surveillance via NSA database (mid-2012 to ~April 2016)
CTH describes an evolution from earlier IRS targeting of political opponents (e.g., Tea Party) under Obama/Holder into systematic exploitation of the NSA’s vast metadata database. FBI contractors (and possibly others) conducted large numbers of FISA-702 “about” and related queries on U.S. persons. A FISC opinion by Judge Rosemary Collyer (detailing a compliance review of Nov. 2015–April/May 2016 activity) is central to their account: roughly 85% of reviewed queries were non-compliant/unlawful, many reused the same identifiers across date ranges (indicating ongoing monitoring of specific targets), and raw results were exported/shared without proper minimization. The problems were not limited to that window and appeared to date back to around 2012.
NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers was alerted, ordered an audit around March 9, 2016, restricted “about” queries, and cut off contractor access around April 18, 2016. CTH portrays this as political spying on opposition figures, including 2016 GOP candidates/Trump orbit, with intelligence allegedly funneled in ways that benefited the Clinton campaign. Key figures tied to the broader environment include CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, ODNI James Clapper, and others; efforts to sideline Rogers are also noted. The surveillance itself is framed as largely outside formal FISA targeting authority—simply unauthorized use of the existing database—later discovered and reported through FISA Court processes.
Transition and cover: Post-March/April 2016
Once the NSA compliance issues surfaced, the prior surveillance risked exposure. CTH argues everything after roughly March 9, 2016, shifted toward creating *ex post facto* justification and a cover story. Fusion GPS opposition research (initially Republican-funded, then Clinton/DNC-linked) and the Steele dossier enter the picture. The official FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation opened July 31, 2016 (focusing on Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn), predicated in part on information routed through Australian contacts and other channels. CTH maintains the intelligence community already had extensive prior visibility into the Trump campaign via the database exploitation.
A Carter Page FISA warrant (October 2016) is described as a key merger point that retroactively helped legalize broader monitoring. The Steele dossier and related material are treated as laundered or unreliable product used to support the narrative.
Russiagate and post-election escalation
After Trump’s unexpected win, CTH (drawing on later declassified material highlighted by DNI Tulsi Gabbard) describes a concerted effort to manufacture and politicize an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) blaming Russia for election interference. Key timeline points they emphasize:
– Pre-election IC assessments generally held that Russia was not using cyber means to influence the outcome.
– December 9, 2016: Obama White House/National Security Council principals meeting (Clapper, Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and others).
– Tasking for a new assessment “per the President’s request.”
– Leaks to media and the January 2017 ICA that contradicted earlier assessments, incorporating material later viewed as manufactured or non-credible (including Steele dossier elements).
Susan Rice’s January 2017 memo and related notifications are presented as efforts at plausible deniability. The ICA is said to have underpinned the Mueller special counsel investigation (an extension of Crossfire Hurricane), which CTH frames as a mechanism to impede Trump’s agenda, protect prior operations (including aspects of the Iran deal), and sustain pressure through investigations, leaks, and lawfare. Holdover/remnant personnel in the FBI, CIA, DOJ-NSD, and related entities are described as continuing the effort.
Overall framing on the site
CTH separates the illegal database surveillance (Spygate—document trail via FISC opinion, NSA audit logs preserved by Rogers, contractor activity) from the Clinton-originated Russia collusion smear that the FBI/DOJ/CIA gave institutional credibility (Russiagate). Obama is portrayed as facilitating rather than solely inventing the Russia narrative (by not stopping administration officials assisting Clinton interests), while green-lighting or directing the post-election intelligence product to constrain the incoming administration. The result is described as a multi-year targeting operation involving intelligence, law enforcement, and later special-counsel/lawfare elements, with remnants persisting beyond the Obama years. Later CTH posts reference ongoing Florida grand-jury activity, subpoenas (e.g., involving Brennan and Comey), and calls for further declassification of the unredacted Collyer opinion and NSA logs as the clearest path to accountability.
This is a summary of the narrative and evidence claims as presented across Conservativetreehouse.com articles (particularly those by Sundance analyzing FISC material, timelines, Gabbard releases, and related documents). The site treats these as established through primary records rather than theory, while mainstream accounts and prior official reviews (Durham, etc.) have focused more narrowly or reached different conclusions on intent and scope.”
God richly bless you for having the diligence and patience to try! Thank you!
A reasonable starting point would be the Durham Special Counsel Investigation. Use his investigators and prosecutors. Durham uncovered and documented a tremendous amount of FBI misconduct which he ignored and was evident in Durham’s embarrassing Congressional testimony.
Victoria Spartz points out, line by line, the FBI misconduct in the Mueller-Russian hoax investigation. Durham was completely destroyed and humiliated by his DOCUMENTED failures to punish FBI crimes and misconduct.
Americans have a centuries old tradition of taking matters into their own hands. It happens again and again for the same reason.
I don’t disagree with SD one iota! His experience and detail are in a class of their own. Nobody’s perspectives or outline compare! That being said I am curious if there are not another three parts to the equation? Subjective as they may be but is Wiles, Bondi and Blanche not factors in these results? I know that is speculative and I am not missing the point on educating the customer, a.k.a the folks placed to do something about it and relative time of educating, but something just doesn’t sit right when it comes to Joe. Unless his persona all these years of a fighter and not a quitter was part of the schtick.
Anyway great job SD and thanks for your patience and fortitude in the pursuit of the American way!
thanks to you Sundance i knew some of the info you outlined here but not all cant thank you enough for taking the time to put this in terms even this old commercial fisherman can understand be well stay strong and God Bless you and yours
R.D.
Since it is impossible FOR any prosecutor to litigate this case, releasing the documents that Sundance linked and posted & we read in 2020 would be the only solution.
I worked on mega cases in mega firms and none of them compare to the storyline of this based scenario. One mega case took 2.5-3 yrs from discovery to trial and the FBI took the criminal case to trial afterwards and lots of people went to jail, including an attorney. That case had many spin off cases. Botton line: this case will never be finished before the end of term-2 or ever, imo. People will die off or pull the Mueller-dementia ploy.
Sundance’s suggestion which we read in 2020 is the only solution. Public exposure and disclosure and simultaneously get the record straight historically.
RELEASE THE KRAKEN!
Nobody wants the risk of what exactly? Death?
It is hard to win in front of a jury even an open and shut case let alone something as complicated as Spygate and Russiagate. See the recent case of the monster that killed her three babies. And only 1 person could cut through the BS of the defense.
They have about 100+ years and $40T head start on us. It is huge and unmanageable on purpose.