President Trump reacts strongly to the vindication provided within Special Counsel John Durham’s court filing:

The vindication is good. However, unfortunately I suspect the ‘I told you so’s‘ are likely all we are going to get from John Durham.

For a reminder, see video below:

(more…)

This is weirdly revealing (Hat Tip Technofog).

In a court filing today by Special Counsel John Durham [pdf here] it’s noted that previously indicted Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source for Christopher Steele’s fraudulent dossier against Donald Trump, is now represented by the same lawyers representing Hillary Clinton’s legal interests.  John Durham is asking the court to evaluate the legal conflicts:

(pdf Here)

Why would the legal firm representing Hillary Clinton (to the Durham probe) step-in to represent Igor Danchenko in his criminal indictment?

The only logical reason would be for Danchenko to represent a legal risk to the interests of Hillary Clinton, likely through the direct association between Hillary Clinton and Charles Dolan, Danchenko’s collaborator and the liaison to Chris Steele from the Clinton campaign.

As a result of the Durham indictment, we know Igor Danchenko was working closely with Democrat Party public relations executive Charles Dolan to funnel the fabricated source material to Chris Steele.  The Clinton team’s communication and contact with Charles Dolan would represent a legal risk to Hillary Clinton.

If Charles Dolan and Hillary Clinton were in communication, it seems like that would be the motive for Clinton’s lawyers to want to control Danchenko’s legal status and any statements to John Durham or the court.  More than likely, the people in/around Hillary Clinton are the ones paying the law firm to represent Igor Danchenko.

(more…)

We begin any outline of the Durham investigation with the following disclaimer:  How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the Special Counsel team who were specifically appointed to cover it up.

Kash Patel, former Pentagon Chief of Staff, and former Senior Staff Advisor to the House Intelligence Committee, discusses the recent public developments within the John Durham investigation, and gives his opinion on possible targets who were operating inside government. 

Patel holds the opinion that Joe Biden’s current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is a likely target.  Patel also says he could see three former FBI officials as targets of the Durham probe: (1) former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; (2) former FBI Special Agent in the Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok; and (3) former DOJ legal counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page.

Patel frames his opinion that Andrew McCabe would be targeted from the perspective that McCabe likely told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to change the wording of an email in order to support the Carter Page FISA application renewal.  Clinesmith plead guilty and was sentenced to six months probation; however, in the court filings and affidavits, Clinesmith said under oath he acted alone – so I’m not sure why Patel is confident about Andrew McCabe being at risk from Clinesmith.  WATCH:

.

Everyone is rightly frustrated by the lack of legal accountability upon the primary government officials and politicians who participated in the political use of their agencies to target Donald Trump.    However, it is important to keep in mind the biggest network who participated in Spygate from inside government was the Robert Mueller Special Counsel team.

It is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to have an optimistic outlook toward accountability until someone -anyone- can reconcile how John Durham can target former government officials and yet avoid the scale of the Special Counsel efforts that were deployed to cover it up.  The 2016 DOJ/FBI Crossfire Hurricane operation to the 2017 DOJ/FBI Special Counsel is one long continuum of the same exact corrupt investigation; done for the exact same corrupt intents; and carried out by the same people.

There is no way John Durham is going to touch the Special Counsel investigation of Robert Mueller; and until someone can provide a reasonable discussion of how Durham can deal with the Robert Mueller investigation and yet target former government officials -who were protected by Mueller- everything regarding future indictments of bigger fish is essentially hope porn.

(more…)

An interview by Maria Bartiromo this morning highlights one of the dynamics almost invisible to most voices who speak on a granular level about the background of Spygate, and where they believe John Durham is going.   In this interview, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe outlines the moment in August of 2016 when Team Obama (he uses John Brennan) tells the president what Team Clinton is doing.

To set the correct context to understand the importance of what Ratcliffe is outlining here, it is important to remember that inside the executive branch of government, heading into the 2016 election, the two distinct camps were operating based on their perspective of their individual best interests.  Two distinct camps – Team Clinton and Team Obama.

Watch the interview while paying close attention to the dates and personalities that Ratcliffe is outlining.  I will expand on the background to explain how these issues surface in the investigation of John Durham; where he will go and where he will not go.  WATCH:

To understand the context Ratcliffe is explaining, it is important to go back to the relationship that existed between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  It is from this relationship when things start to fall into place, as the Clinton camp was operating in the year of the 2016 election.  Grab a beverage, this is going to get weedy…

Deep political followers will remember well the 2008 Democrat primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  It was a brutal battle within the Democrat Party between radical ideologues (Team Obama) and the entrenched establishment old guard (Team Clinton).

(more…)

On September 26, 2021, Yahoo News published an extensive article about the CIA targeting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2017 and the extreme conversations that were taking place at the highest levels of the U.S. government about how to control him. There is a much bigger story transparently obvious when overlapped with CTH research files on the Intelligence Branch of government; specifically the motive missed by Yahoo News for the stunning activity they outline.

What I am going to outline below, is a deep dive using the resources and timeline from within that article and the specific details we have assembled that paints a clear picture about what interests existed for the Deep State, the Intelligence apparatus and what I call the Fourth Branch of Government.

This fully cited review is not for the faint of heart. This is a journey that could shock many; could alarm more, and will likely force more than a few to reevaluate just what the purpose was for Mike Pompeo within the Donald Trump administration.

As the Yahoo News article begins, they outline how those within the Trump administration viewed Assange as a risk in 2017.  Here it is critical to accept that many people inside the Trump administration were there to control events, not to facilitate a policy agenda from a political outsider.   In the example of Assange, the information he carried was a risk to those who attempted and failed to stop Trump from winning the 2016 election.

Julian Assange was not a threat to Donald Trump, but he was a threat to those who attempted to stop Donald Trump.  In 2017, the DC system was reacting to a presidency they did not control.  As an outcome, the Office of the President was being managed and influenced by some with ulterior motives.

Yahoo, via Michael Isikoff, puts it this way: “Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request “sketches” or “options” for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, said a former senior counterintelligence official. “There seemed to be no boundaries.”

As we overlay the timeline, it is prudent to pause and remember some hindsight details.  According to reports in November of 2019, U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state noted:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that, “It is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official as there was extensive pre-2016 election evidence of an FBI/CIA counterintelligence operation that also involved U.K. intelligence services. There was an aspect to the FBI/CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control.

(more…)

CTH begins every review of the Durham news with the following disclaimer:  If Special Counsel John Durham was going to reveal what optimistic folks proclaim as possible; how is Durham going to handle the reality that Robert Mueller’s entire existence was in place to hide it?

How can John Durham reconcile finding direct evidence of the Clinton camp and her law firm Perkins Coie working with political operatives within the FBI and DOJ, against Robert Mueller, and Andrew Weissmann hiding it?

The only way for Durham to successfully proceed in typical swamp-fashion is if he carves out the corrupt government officials and only focuses his attention at the ancillary participants operating outside government.

This appears to be his approach and will likely disappoint everyone in the final outcome.

Granting Durham the benefit of doubt on his own integrity (a stretch for me), the brutally obvious is then present.

Anyone outside government -caught in the Durham probe- can obviously threaten, blackmail and leverage their government co-conspirators to lessen/remove any punitive criminal outcomes.  The outside small fish, threaten to spill the beans on the inside big fish, and they end up with zero punishment. [Insert prior example of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, here]

According to a new CNN report: “Special Counsel John Durham has issued a new set of subpoenas, including to a law firm with close ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, an indication that Durham could be trying to build a broader criminal case, according to people briefed on the matter.”

[…] The grand jury subpoenas for documents came earlier this month after Durham charged Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann with lying to the FBI.

[…] In seeking additional documents from Sussmann’s former law firm, Perkins Coie, investigators from the special counsel’s office appear to be sharpening their focus on the Democratic political machinery during the 2016 campaign and efforts to tie Trump to Russia.

That appears to be the approach.  The political operatives tricked the FBI, DOJ and counterintelligence divisions within each unit.

(more…)

Congressman Devin Nunes appears with Maria Bartiromo (Fox News and Council on Foreign Relations member) to discuss the recent indictment of Michael Sussmann, a Clinton lawyer who was identified as manipulating information to the FBI to fabricate an investigation against Clinton’s political opponent, Donald J Trump.

Nunes outlines how the indictment shows Hillary Clinton and crew fabricated the entire Trump-Russia narrative as an effort to smear Trump.  Many of those same political operatives are now in key positions within the Biden administration.

Additionally, as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes discusses how the U.S. intelligence community is working against the interests of transparency toward the origin of the COVID-19 virus, and the purposeful expansion of the IRS as a mechanism to target the American electorate.  WATCH:

(more…)

Last night, following the indictment release of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, Newsmax’ Grant Stinchfield made a strong accusation against former White House counsel Pat Cipollone.  The claim is that in the final days of the Trump Presidency, the President declassified all of the pertinent documents related to DOJ and FBI misconduct surrounding the false Trump-Russia collusion case.

According to Stinchfield, speaking of ‘high level’ Trump administration sources, thousands of documents were declassified with instructions to release them to the public and also provide them to journalist John Solomon.  The public release never took place; and Stinchfield as well as other Trump allies blame Pat Cipollone for withholding them.  After explaining what his sources said took place, John Solomon joined as a guest to confirm the basic outline as presented.  WATCH:

.

Right off the bat, something about this doesn’t pass my sniff test. That is not to say that events, as described, are not accurate; but something about the presentation doesn’t seem right.

FIRST – If John Solomon has known about this for nine months; and if Solomon has a partial list of those documents; and if Solomon is of the same frustrated mindset as outlined….. then why didn’t John Solomon ever write about the issue before?

SECOND – I am not excusing White House counsel Pat Cippolone, not even close; however, I think there is some context being ignored in the way Stinchfield and Solomon are framing this.  Cippolone’s position as White House counsel is not to represent Donald Trump, his job is to represent the Office of The President.  The White House counsel is a legal officer of the executive branch as an institution, not the president as a person/individual.   Here is where the missing context and issue surfaces….

(more…)

U.S. Special Counsel John Durham has released an indictment [pdf here] of Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann for lying to federal investigators in 2016 about the people and motives behind his FBI contact.  He failed to tell them his intent was to spread a false Alfa Bank conspiracy theory on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Working for the Perkins Coie law firm, while under contract with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, partner Michael Sussmann contacted FBI Legal Counsel James Baker to pitch evidence that a Russian bank was in digital communications with servers in Trump Tower.  The Alfa Bank allegation was one of the key components for the ridiculous Trump-Russia narrative put together by the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Sussmann wanted the FBI to investigate Donald Trump, so that Hillary Clinton could push a political fabrication about Donald Trump working with Russians to steal the presidential election.

According to the indictment, Sussmann failed to tell the FBI that he was giving them this information on behalf of the Clinton campaign.  The FBI investigated the claims and found nothing; however, it was the appearance of the investigation that Clinton needed in order to leak/push the Trump-Russia story to the media and stir up the controversy.  There had to be something to the “Trump-Russia” story, because the FBI was investigating it.  That fabricated smear served its intended purpose, and the media ran with it.

(more…)

The New York Times needed to put four of their top Trump-Russia narrative engineers on a defensive story about John Durham possibly indicting Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann over his involvement in pushing the Trump-Russia fraud to the FBI on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Michael Sussmann was one of the primary story-tellers used by The New York Times as a source to write articles about the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.  Durham might indict Sussmann for lying to the FBI, because Sussmann said he wasn’t working for Hillary Clinton, yet Sussmann billed Hillary Clinton for the hours he spent pushing the Trump-Russia story.

Yeah, that might be a problem.

The wording of The Times story is rather humorous in their collective effort to retain credibility and yet draw some distance from their ally now under scrutiny.  Keep in mind, as you read this paragraph, Sussmann hired Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm who claimed the DNC was hacked by Russians and generated the Alfa bank conspiracy theory:

(NYT) […] Donald J. Trump and his supporters have long accused Democrats and Perkins Coie — whose political law group, a division separate from Mr. Sussmann’s, represented the party and the Hillary Clinton campaign — of seeking to stoke unfair suspicions about Mr. Trump’s purported ties to Russia.

This next paragraph is even more funny:

(more…)