CTH has long documented the history of FBI as a political weapon for the interests of Washington DC.  From a research perspective there is no longer any question about the intents and motives of the FBI as a fully weaponized agency, working against the interests of the American people.

That said, Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have recently released stunning information highlighting how the FBI conducted an operation in 2022 entirely to ensnare President Donald Trump within their corrupt and political investigative clutches.  [Press Announcement Here]

Grassley and Johnson have sent the documentary evidence to current Attorney General Pam Bondi along with a letter that outlines a political targeting operation against Donald Trump known as “Arctic Frost.” [Letter pdf Here]

WASHINGTON – In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) made public legally protected whistleblower disclosures showing the FBI, as part of its Arctic Frost investigation, acquired the government cell phones of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other government officials. FBI agents used taxpayer dollars to crisscross the country and conduct dozens of interviews in support of the political probe.

(more…)

In more than a few ways this decision is even more crazy than District Judge Beryl Howell’s prior rulings.

Judge Howell (pictured below) issued a temporary restraining order, blocking President Trump from barring the law firm of Perkins Coie from representing federal contractors.

There are a few outlines of the hearing HERE and HERE that essentially tell the story.  Consider this quote:

“When you say that if the president, in his view, takes the position that an individual or an organization or a company is operating a way that is not in the nation’s interests, he can issue an executive order like this and take steps to bar that individual, that entity, that company from doing any business with the government, terminate whatever contracts they’ve got, bar them from federal buildings,” Howell said. “I mean, that’s a pretty extraordinary power for the president to exercise.”

Yes, and that’s called the power of the presidency.  Apparently Judge Howell has never heard of ‘executive power’ that allows the elected President of the United States to determine what is in our nation’s best interests.  Approving his ability to make these decisions, is what that whole voting thing is all about.

Howell further pressed — what would happen if Trump were to “get annoyed” by the law firm representing Perkins Coie in this lawsuit and issue a separate order targeting them?

“If he made a finding that there’s a national security risk with a particular law firm, then yes,” Mizelle responded.

Chad Mizelle is not exactly the best voice to be making the DOJ argument, after all it was this knucklehead who as Rod Rosenstein’s counsel wrote the authorities for the Robert Mueller special counsel.  However, on this issue Mizelle is exactly correct.

Yes, the president has the ability to make decisions about national security threats and private enterprises who the President might feel are detrimental to the national security of our nation, like Perkins Coie.  Howell then went into crazyville to extend her logic.

(more…)

The DC federal appeals court has reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued Saturday. The appeals court is confirming [pdf Decision Here] that President Donald Trump has the executive power to fire Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger.

Dellinger was fighting President Trump’s effort to reform the bureaucracy in DC and fire officials within the executive branch. Activist District Judge Berman Jackson (pictured above) was supporting Hampton Dellinger, saying President Trump could not fire him. The appeals court has lifted the lower court’s injunction that barred Trump from removing Hampton Dellinger.

This is a win for commonsense and also a big win for President Trump and the plenary power of the Executive. The President alone controls the executive office holders, and the courts have no constitutional authority to interfere in the executive branch determinations of staffing. The plenary and constitutional power of the presidency has been affirmed.

(more…)

A joyful and happy Dept of Justice Attorney General Pam Bondi appears with Mark Levin to discuss her role in supporting the administration and her “great joy” in working with “great friends” in the cabinet to actuate the legal arguments needed to advance their objective.

As guided by Mark Levin and noted by Mrs Bondi, “there are so many incredible people participating in the effort” she is just thankful to be able to play a small part. AG Bondi looks forward to telling the American people on Fox News about all of the exiting things the Dept of Justice is doing.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Not unexpectedly, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that unelected bureaucrat, Hampton Dellinger, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel head has more unilateral power within the executive branch of government than President Donald Trump. [RULING pdf HERE]

This ruling stems from the same mindset as former AG Bill Barr, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy AG Sally Yates, former IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson, and the entire organization of professional Lawfare activists that includes Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen. The collective belief is that in the modern “continuity of government” framework, the bureaucracy of government controls things, not the elected and plenary President.

Basic constitutional civics has been destroyed in the modern era by progressive advocacy saying the executive branch is an omnipotent organism that is not controlled by the duly elected President of the United States. Current Lawfare activists and activist judges seek to retain this bastardized view of constitutional government.

Let us hope the Supreme Court finally puts an end to decades of this ridiculous nonsense. The earlier ruling in the Presidential Immunity decision indicates SCOTUS is positioned to do exactly that.

(more…)

Moments ago, 900+ career DOJ lawyers signed an open letter in support of ongoing Lawfare operations against President Trump and the American judicial system.

[SOURCE – w/ pages of signatories]

Put another way, 900 career DOJ lawyers, who used Main Justice as their platform to participate in corrupting and weaponizing the American judicial system for their own financial benefit, have now publicly self-identified.

These are the legal abusers within the system. The professional gaslighters, Lawfare activists and legally trained abusers of trust, who twist, distort and tear at the foundational fabric of our constitutional republic, while claiming moral superiority and cloaking their efforts under the guise of victimhood.

They are self-identifying and self-deporting from the system.  America is winning again.

(more…)

When Elon Musk asked how Norm Eisen could be financed, I replied, “If the United States govt gave money to Qatar, knowing Qatar was going to send that money to organizations within the USA intended to carry out an objective of a small group in U.S. govt., what would that be called?”

Qatar is a major source of funding for the Brookings Institute.  Brookings funds various Lawfare operations, including Norm Eisen.  The extended process is quite simple. If elements within the U.S. Govt., wanted to indirectly fund Brookings, could they do it by sending funds to Qatar?

The question is not supposition, because this was the exact process Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta used for the State Dept to send weapons to the Libyan “rebels,” aka Operation Zero Footprint.

Operation Zero Footprint was the State Dept/CIA sending funds to Qatar, and the Qatari govt then purchasing missiles from the CIA to give to al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya.  We can consider the historic Iran-Contra scandal under a similar framework. However, the nuanced difference is about sending money toward a foreign govt (via USAID), while knowing the money would return to fund a domestic agenda inside the USA.

Example: USAID sends money to the U.K, and then British political allies send political operatives into the USA to support Kamala Harris.  We know the latter part of that sentence happened.  So, did the Biden administration (Samantha Power) fund the Labour Party operation?

Are the various political NGOs and activist groups in the USA actually funded, indirectly, by U.S. taxpayers?  Many signs point to, yes.

Against this high likelihood, it becomes just a natural extension of the process if U.S. politicians are beneficiaries of the circular laundry operation. That is what Representative Tim Burchett believes will surface if the DOGE team follow the money trail.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

With an appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the unconstitutional Lawfare restraining orders, and with support from growing district appellate court reviews, earlier today federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan surprisingly refused to issue another temporary restraining order.

Hours before, President Trump announced his nomination of Ed Martin to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.  It appears the Lawfare pushback operation is actively underway.

President Trump – “It is my honor to nominate highly respected Edward R. Martin, Jr., for the full and permanent term of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Ed has led a distinguished career of service, including as Human Rights Office Director for the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, where he supervised legal clinics for low-income residents. He later worked as judicial clerk to Judge Pasco M. Bowman, II, of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, and launched his own successful Law practice. He has also invested his expertise in other roles, but always with the same goal, of serving his community, and creating a brighter future for all.

Since Inauguration Day, Ed has been doing a great job as Interim U.S. Attorney, fighting tirelessly to restore Law and Order, and make our Nation’s Capital Safe and Beautiful Again. He will get the job done.

Congratulations Ed!” [Truth Social]

(more…)

The background here is interesting.  Late last night, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan called for an unusual hearing on a federal holiday to hear the arguments of 14 states who are seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Elon Musk and the Dept of Govt Efficiency (DOGE).

It’s interesting because Judge Chutkan called for the hearing today just 45 minutes after Trump’s U.S Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to intervene on the matter of judicial TRO’s issued against President Trump’s Title II authority.  Last night in another case, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed an “APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY” with the Supreme Court. [pdf HERE] 45 minutes later Chutkan called for today’s TRO hearing.

District Judge Chutkan refused to issue the TRO today, saying she would take up the matter later.

(Via Politico) – […] the judge said granting the temporary restraining order sought as part of a lawsuit brought by Democratic attorneys general required much clearer evidence that DOGE’s actions were causing grave, permanent damage. Instead, she said, states had relied primarily on news reports that speculated about the risks of Musk and DOGE’s actions, some of which she said could potentially be remedied in further litigation.

“I’m not seeing it so far. … It’s sort of like a prophylactic TRO and that’s not allowed,” Chutkan said, adding that she hoped to issue a ruling within 24 hours. “The courts can’t act based on media reports. We can’t do that.” 

(more…)

On Sunday, when CBS’s Margaret Brennan shockingly claimed that “free speech” was the cause of the German holocaust and rise in Naziism, a stunned Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply replied, “I have to fundamentally disagree with you, Margaret.”  The reaction from American observers toward the interview, and in particular Vice-President JD Vance, was much less diplomatic. “This is a crazy exchange,” Vance said.

However, a few hours later the background context for Brennan’s position surfaced, when CBS 60 Minutes broadcast a defense of German laws that make it illegal to say something that can be construed as “insulting.”  The CBS segment is naturally alarming to people who will not accept definitions of approved speech determined by government officials; especially for most Americans who have experienced the extreme online control operations by govt interests around the COVID-19 fiasco.  Watch (prompted):

This is the mindset that JD Vance encountered following his honest remarks to the Munich Security Conference.  The Vice-President outlined in his remarks that Europe was devolving into a totalitarian state, destroying democracy and using the power of government against the freewill and liberty of the European people.

Vance was pointing out the big picture of liberty, freedom and the value of democracy.  After citing examples of oppressive EU action that included the nullification of the Romanian election, Vice-President Vance noted in his comments, “there is no security if you are afraid of the voices of your own people,” he said.  Continuing, “if you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing the American people can do to assist you.”  The EU collective, and specifically the German political leadership immediately decried the brutally honest remarks.

There is a particular irony in Germany saying that controversial speech is not protected speech, arresting people for what the state considers online antagonism, and then decrying Vice-President Vance for calling them out.  The need for control is a reaction to fear (inherent insecurity), and the actions by the German government are extreme.  However, for Germany this is particularly ironic.

(more…)