Here we go again.

I hope people have caught on by now. However, just in case, let me try to help:

• In 2010 it was Sandra Fluke
• In 2012 it was Romney’s “binders of women”
• In 2014 it was the ‘Me Too” movement / Mattress Girl
• In 2016 it was “Grab them by the pussy” (Trump)
• In 2018 it was E Jean Carroll (Trump)
• In 2020 it was Amy Dorris (Trump)
• In 2022 it was Matt Gaetz, Hershel Walker
• In 2024 it was Jeffrey Epstein et al
• In 2026 it is “The Cornell 7”

Each of these examples are election years.

In each election year professional Democrats deploy the same process to generate support from “suburban women voters”, also known as AWFLS.

These are women voters typically from middle to upper-middle-class backgrounds, who are perceived as politically liberal or left-leaning, often vocal about social justice issues and engaged in activism or virtue signaling. Their gender identity defines them.

In order to generate support, or activate this specific voter base, women’s issues and/or sexual misconduct is utilized as a trigger mechanism. Once the election is over, the emphasis and narrative disappears…… until the next election cycle. Wash – Rinse – Repeat.

For this 2026 cycle the DNC tested: The Lindsay Clancy trial (didn’t work); then Sydney Sweeney posing naked with sports balls (again, didn’t poll test well); then came the first female execution in 200 years (backup fail ongoing); so, they have stuck with the Cornell Seven.

The DNC needs to constantly motivate suburban women to vote!  So, find a story that emphasizes how awful men are and how women are victims.  Drumbeat those talking points on every channel 24/7 for the month before elections.

If you cannot see the pattern by now, you are politically oblivious. However, once you see it you can never unsee it.

(more…)

Earlier today, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley released explosive whistleblower documents showing how former Special Prosecutor Jack Smith demanded the records of donors to President Trump from December 2019 through August 2023.  [Press Release Here] – [Donor Records Here]

Records provided to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) via legally protected whistleblower disclosures reveal Smith’s team acquired at least 4,782 checks from Americans who made mainly small-dollar donations to President Trump between September 2019 to August 2023. The checks reveal the donors’ home addresses, bank account and routing numbers, and signatures.

Smith’s team acquired the checks as part of its “Arctic Frost” election case against President Trump, allowing the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to gain access to nearly 5,000 Americans’ highly sensitive information, including 42 Iowans. There may be additional subpoena returns that include more donor checks. Whistleblower records show the checks were routed to former FBI Special Agent Walter Giardina. (more)

Senator Josh Hawley confronted Jack Smith on his lies during former testimony to congress. WATCH:

Republicans and President Trump have accused Jack Smith of pursuing a politically motivated case against the president. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, alleging that Smith made false statements during an hours-long closed-door meeting with lawmakers in December.

(more…)

The Supreme Court majority (6-3) has granted the DOJ request to put on hold a Boston-based US District Judge ruling that DHS policy to remove illegal aliens to so-called third countries is unlawful.  The process of rapid deportation will continue while the matter is called before the Supreme Court for oral arguments in December (ruling in ’27).

[SOURCE LINK]

The three DEI Justices, Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan did not support the ruling.  They would have denied the ability to deport illegal aliens to third-party countries.

REUTERS – […] The Supreme Court previously sided with the administration in the legal challenge, suspending a preliminary order that Murphy issued earlier in the case halting the removals. In another win for the administration, the Supreme Court subsequently lifted limits the judge had imposed to protect a group of men from being sent to South Sudan.

(more…)

After writing the lengthy outline about the problem faced by Joseph diGenova, a Reagan-era former U.S. attorney and longtime Trump ally who served as counselor to Attorney General Todd Blanche and exited over strategic differences {GO DEEP}, several people provided feedback, generally expressing understanding and agreement.

A few asked for suggestions.

Having looked at the challenges from every direction, and having a deep understanding of the complications within any prosecutorial effort on this highly complex ‘conspiracy’ case, I am going to outline my best advice.

This is how you arrange the case.

In any successful endeavor like this, you need the hook.  You need a central point of focus that brings the entire operation into a clearer view.  Stories like this are not told in a linear fashion; you need a central point of focus and then you build out the storyline from there.

So, what it that inflection?  What is that moment that establishes the point from which everything else falls into place?

First, look at the requirements.  The central event needs to encompass the foundational unlawful activity.  The event needs to be clearly unlawful in nature and highlight the mindset that existed within each of the participants.  The evidence must have a clear, distinct and actionable set of facts that can be directly proven beyond doubt.

The event needs to have been previously investigated, so that time is not wasted repeating a lengthy and exhaustive investigation around the fact pattern.  The event needs a specific set of witnesses, who cannot escape being truthful about the preexisting irrefutable facts. And the event needs to highlight a conspiracy by every participant who cannot deflect their participation by claiming they were unaware of the intent of every action within the process.

Those are the predicate requirements that establish the value of the central point of focus.  This is what makes a grand jury or criminal case jury have a consistent reference point.  If this fact pattern is demonstrably true, then that action or outcome is incontrovertibly self-evident.

(more…)

Palantir CEO Alex Karp is a little quirky but, on this issue, I tend to agree with him.

According to Karp in the interview below the request by OpenAI and Anthropic AI labs for government regulation is related to a legal issue within their business model.  Right now, massive multinational corporations are working with AI groups under contract. As part of those contracts the leaders of the corporations are discovering their individual business plans, what they call their intellectual property (IP) has been uploaded into the dataset of the AI models themselves.

These corporations have spent billions of dollars on their detailed business plans, marketing plans, logistics and revenue systems that are now part of the AI dataset.  These CEOs are not happy and talking about lawsuits against the AI developers for stealing their corporate intellectual property.  However, at the same time the CEOs are furious at the loss of proprietary information, they are simultaneously bound to the AI developers for forward revenue.  This is creating a problem.

Example: By some analyst’s estimations, Amazon’s forward revenue projection is approximately 51% dependent on further technological capability through the use of AI.  However, Jeff Bezos likely does not appreciate his business model, which includes a massive dataset that he makes money from, being taken and uploaded to the AI database.  Bezos could sue Anthropic for ip theft.

All of the AI labs are exposed to this litigation if it was to unfold.  Additionally, all of the investors into the AI frontier labs would be at risk if the AI developer were sued by these corporations.  Both the AI developers and their investors would/are demanding protection from these lawsuits.

Here’s where it gets complicated.

(more…)

According to his attorney, former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to appear Oct. 15 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as part of a Justice Department investigation into alleged conspiracies against Donald Trump.

Brennan’s involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy is well documented. Brennan constructed the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that sought to fabricate intelligence analysis (Ciaramella) and frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. The overall effort was to impede the Trump administration through a series of fraudulent and malicious investigations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former CIA Director John Brennan has been subpoenaed to testify next month before a Florida grand jury as part of a Justice Department investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against President Donald Trump, one of his lawyers said Monday.

Ken Wainstein, an attorney for Brennan, disclosed in a court filing that prosecutors last Thursday presented him with a subpoena for Brennan to appear Oct. 15 before a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

He said he was told that the subpoena relates to a “far-reaching” criminal probe examining a loosely defined theory that the government officials who have investigated Trump over the last decade, including over Russia election interference in 2016 and his more recent retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, conspired to deprive Trump of his civil rights. The subpoena to Brennan is among a flurry that have been issued in recent weeks.

[…] The member of the investigative team with whom Wainstein spoke was Kurt Olsen. (more)

You might note from the current reporting of the subpoena that after Brennan/Wainstein initially sought to challenge the 2025 subpoena, they inadvertently revealed information that CTH noted could lead to a withdrawal of the demand while the Florida investigators reviewed testimony from some of the names contained within the Brennan defense letter.  That is exactly what appears to have happened.

(more…)

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the 12-member jury could not reach a unanimous verdict in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

The defense counsel of Ms Clancy violated every form of judicial ethics in his effort to expose and pressure the one male juror who refused to accept a not guilty verdict and stood his ground.  We should not know the identity of the jurors; however, the female foreperson worked with defense lawyer Kevin Reddington to assemble pressure against the juror who would not acquit Clancy.

What took place in this Massachusetts courtroom and jury deliberation undermines the foundation of the system of trial by jury.  During actual deliberations defense counsel was openly pressuring Judge Sullivan to remove the juror who would not change his position.  A mistrial had to be declared, and Attorney Reddington then went outside and publicly called for retaliation against the male juror who would not accept the position of the female jurors.  This is quite remarkable.

Massachusetts – After seven days of deliberation, the judge in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial declared a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, with one juror refusing to join the eleven others.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to remove the holdout juror, but Sullivan refused. However, Sullivan granted Reddington an hour to request an emergency stay from a higher court on the mistrial declaration. This would delay the start of a new trial.

Clancy’s case will likely be re-tried with a new jury; until then, she will remain in a psychiatric facility in northeastern Massachusetts. (more)

By the time you have read this, toxic female leftists will likely have publicly identified the name of the lone juror, and soon thereafter the rage of the American pussy hat crowd will organize to destroy the male juror.  Jury secrecy and sanctity violations this extreme are horrific and destabilizing to the entire judicial system.

(more…)

As President Trump, DHS and ICE continue the border enforcement and deportation effort there are some statistics now worth reviewing.

The U.S. Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is reporting a population decline of 3 million foreign born persons in the USA as a result of the ongoing Trump administration effort to locate, capture and remove illegal aliens.  Obviously, it has taken time to get up to speed on the overall deportation side of the issue; however, Trump has effectively removed a year of open border entrants.

The current number of foreign-born persons is now at the Jan 2024 level and declining as the four years of the Biden surge are being removed.

[CHART SOURCE]

There is still a long way to go, and against the Lawfare opposition it has been a tough slog.  It also took a long time for DHS, CBP and ICE to retool and get up to speed.  That said, the pace of exfiltration is now faster than before.  More illegals are being identified and removed at a faster pace.

Additionally, as word spreads about the consequences of not self-deporting, more unlawful migrants are now reevaluating their risk.  While it is still early, the pace is rapid enough to completely eliminate the Biden surge.  There is more optimism for that outcome than before.  The issue now is one of political resolve against a hardened, leftist, communist, internal enemy who support open-borders.

(more…)

Many of us are watching the story of a woman, Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of murdering her three young children in 2023 in their Massachusetts home.  The widely discussed case is being tried in Plymouth Superior Court, and after five days of jury deliberations the jury has again told the judge they are hopelessly deadlocked.

Clancy killed her three children [Cora (5), Callan (8 months), and Dawson (3)], that aspect is not in question; she strangled them with an exercise band.  However, the defense has argued that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis, and she is not criminally responsible. Prosecutors argued Clancy knew right from wrong and acted deliberately, pointing to evidence of her planning, and the fact she hid her thoughts of harming the children from doctors because she knew they were wrong.

The jury is made up of nine women and three men. The jury cannot decide if Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her children. The jury has deliberated for five days and has reported twice before they are deadlocked. Superior Court Judge William Sullivan responded with a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, an instruction that urges deadlocked jurors to keep working toward a verdict while reminding them not to abandon their own honestly held views.

Rather than declaring a mistrial, the judge allowed the jurors to go home for the day. It looks like tomorrow a mistrial will be declared.

(Via Fox News) – The instruction that Judge William Sullivan gave to the Lindsay Clancy jury on Wednesday takes its name from two Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decisions.

In Commonwealth v. Tuey (1851), the court approved an instruction encouraging deadlocked jurors to re-examine their views with an open mind. More than a century later, in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez (1973), the state’s highest court revised that language to remove pressure on minority or holdout jurors, creating a neutral instruction that asks all jurors to carefully consider one another’s views while maintaining their own honestly held convictions.

(more…)

This is a new report but builds on prior activity.  Former FBI Director James Comey leaked his memos about President Trump and the FBI’s fraudulent “Crossfire Hurricane” operation to his friend Daniel Richman, with the intent of Richman leaking those memos to the media. However, when the issue was discovered James Comey claimed Daniel Richman was his lawyer in an obvious attempt to shield Richman from forced testimony about the events.

SEE Richman article from 2018 – SEE Richman article from 2017 – See Richman article from 2019 

NOVEMBER 2025 – Former U.S Attorney Lindsey Halligan then took up the case and began reinvestigating in 2025. That’s why Halligan was targeted by Lawfare operatives’ intent on her removal. However, prior to her removal Mrs Halligan smartly filed a court response outlining all of the background evidence against James Comey so that prosecution could take place with/without her in place.

FOX News is now reporting that a grand jury is approving a subpoena for Daniel Richman so they can hear directly about his involvement in the activity.  The events surrounding the leaking of the ‘Comey memos’ is central to the matter of the FBI targeting President Trump after he took office in 2017.  The memos were being leaked in order to get support for a Special Counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann.

[SOURCE]

(more…)