The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boiled down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.

To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election.  That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”

However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.”  The key word here is “believe.”  Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election.  WATCH: 

BUSTED! This is the Moment where Jack Smith REVEALS he NEVER had a Case against Trump. The President BELIEVED he WON (lots of ppl agree btw) —-POTUS believed, therefore NOT “falsity” or False Claims. The “criminal intent” is NOT there. Excellent Job by the @judiciaryGOP!!!! pic.twitter.com/INhYJ9ogva

— Greg Kelly (@gregkellyusa) January 23, 2026

This is what CTH previously pointed out from the deposition of Jack Smith. {GO DEEP}

If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief.  Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.

It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.

(more…)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth deliver remarks to the media following a briefing of Senators on the ongoing Venezuela operations.

As noted by Secretary Rubio, the U.S. is now in control of all Venezuela oil production and distribution.  WATCH:

Further to Rubio’s remarks: Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday that the United States will sell Venezuelan oil “indefinitely” after completing sales of the crude currently accumulating in storage there.

Wright said the proceeds from those sales would be “deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. government” and then “flow back into Venezuela to benefit the Venezuelan people.”

(more…)

President Donald Trump will be delivering remarks today at a House Republican conference event.  The anticipated remarks are scheduled to begin at 10:00am ET with livestream links below:

.

(more…)

The tenuous legal theory permitting the U.S. government to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizen data (emails, texts, phone calls, messages etc.) rests on the unconstitutional ability of the government to intercept your “private papers” with the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically FISA-702.  The “702” aspect is the term for U.S. citizen intercepted.

The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.  The 702 authorities have been abused to conduct political surveillance for just about everything in Washington DC.  Millions of unauthorized searches have been identified; it is unconstitutional.

Politico, an outlet for the concerns of the administrative state, begins the new year by noting there is increased resistance to the reauthorization.  However, in order to carry out the domestic national security agenda of the Trump administration, the Deep State considers JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others as likely supporters for reauthorization.

(Politico) – […] During the last reauthorization debate in 2024, then-candidate Trump urged Congress to “kill” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the larger spy law that Section 702 is nested under. Trump’s decision frustrated supporters of the program — in part because they believe he conflated the foreign-target spy program with the broader surveillance law that was not up for reauthorization.

A crucial Biggs-sponsored House amendment that would have added a warrant requirement for any communications involving Americans failed on a 212-212 tie, with Speaker Mike Johnson casting a rare and decisive vote to kill it.

(more…)

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appears on Meet the Press to pushback against a narrative that DOJ officials are not being compliant with a statutory demand to release the Epstein files.

As outlined by Todd Blanche, there is a full attempt to release all of the information, with no intent to redact any information except to protect the victims and survivors as required by the same law that requires the release.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The blue slip process has been a part of the Senate’s judicial nomination procedure since at least 1917. When a President nominates an individual for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip —a form colored blue— to the two Senators representing the nominee’s home state. This form allows the Senators to express their opinions about the nominee.

Positive Response: If a home-state Senator has no objections, they return the blue slip with a positive response, indicating support for the nominee. Negative Response or Withholding: If a Senator objects, they may either return the slip with a negative response or choose not to return it at all. In both cases, this is treated as a lack of support for the nominee, which halts the nomination process.

JD Vance notes this process is being used to manipulate the appointments of Judges in leftist states.  This creates a dual justice system; one of the core issues within our extremely divided nation.

[SOURCE]

JD Vance is not wrong.  However, as with all things corrupted within the state of our Republic, if the blue slip process is removed the next leftist President can corrupt the judiciary within Republican states.

Of course, all of this is an outcome of the 17th Amendment, which stopped the state legislatures from having control over their senators.  Under the original constitutional framework, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the state, as the Senators were appointed by state legislature, not popular votes.  The Sea Island assembly destroyed this cornerstone when they triggered the 17th Amendment.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and just about everything in federal government changes.

(more…)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears on Fox News to discuss the Trump administrations’ effort to track down, capture and remove a reported 18,000 known and documented terrorists who crossed the southern border and entered the U.S. during the Biden administration.

There are several elements to this issue, and unfortunately the aspect that pertains to identifying them and locating them works to enhance the argument of those who support govt surveillance. In fact, both the use of Palantir track and trace technology in combination with the FISA-702 reauthorization come into play here.

I would argue, as I have since 2022, that one of the reasons the DC administrative state allowed the Biden regime to create this national security threat, was specifically so they could justify the creation and use of a national identity surveillance net.

Washington DC supported the creation of the borderless crisis, in part to ensure the need for their surveillance solution. This puts the efforts of DNI Gabbard into a catch-22 scenario as witnessed in the questioning before congress of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. WATCH:

.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem are trying to remove thousands of national security threats and deport millions of illegal aliens.  The tools they need to track and identify those threats are the tools DC wants to retain against everyone, not just the threats.

In order to keep the pitchforks away, Washington DC has filled the haystack with needles. Gabbard (DNI), Noem (DHS) and Homan (ICE) are using metal detectors while the DC UniParty keeps operating the needle-making machinery.

(more…)

If New Zealand and Australia, both 5-eye partners, were not used as the testing ground during the COVID-19 and vaccination exploits, this current move may not have gained the same level of scrutiny.  However, with a documented history of Australia pushing the limits against freedom and liberty, this latest development is notable.

Effective today, all Australian social media users will need to prove their age on websites and apps including Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube.  Users under the age of 16 are banned from accessing the sites/apps.

“But it’s only Australia,” say most.  Think again.  In the era of modern internet travel and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), how is the compliance aspect going to be determined?   That’s the problem the Australian control agents are now trying to address.

An intellectually discerning person would note the compliance angle should have been worked out long before the regulatory and compliance switches were flipped and the rushed-into-place law was activated.  The Internet Police Czar charged with enforcing the ban is an American.

As Politico notes, “Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. … She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.

(more…)

The House Armed Services Committee has released the full text of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2026 [SEE TEXT HERE]. The massive bill consists of 3,086 pages, making the fiscal year 2026 NDAA longer than the manuscript of War and Peace. Most people will never read it, so a 24-page Summary Version is Here.

The FY 2026 NDAA authorizes $892.6B for defense, which includes $153B for procurement, $142B for Research and Development, and $235B for military personnel. The legislation: Codifies 15 Trump EOs on military reform, border security, and DEI elimination. Boosts shipbuilding, aircraft, munitions, funds Taiwan aid and Israel programs, reforms acquisitions, enhances border support including $900M for counter-narcotic operations and includes a 3.8% pay raise and quality-of-life improvements.

There is a $400 million authorization for Ukraine support, however, the amount is ‘authorized’ not ‘appropriated’ – which would have to come in a separate spending bill.

(more…)

While Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin advances the efforts of the Intelligence Community to undermine, isolate, ridicule and marginalize President Trump, ultimately a seditious coup, Virginia Senator Mark Warner now calls for the military to engage in supporting that coup.

As with all things espoused by the professional, the language is worded for plausible deniability; however the expressed intent is clear for those non-pretending.  What else is meant by:

…”I think in many ways the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth. Because I think that their commitment is to the constitution and obviously not to Trump.”

Now put your mindset back about a decade, and ask yourself what would have been the response from media if Senator Jeff Sessions said it was his hope the U.S. military would reject instructions from President Obama, and instead follow the guidelines of his political opposition?

But rather than play ‘whataboutism’, let’s evaluate if Mark Warner was successful. What exactly does that success look like?

A military overthrow of the United States government from within?

A follow up question should be: “Senator Warner, are you asking for a military led overthrow of the United States government?”  If no, then how is your expressed preference any different?  Please explain the distinction.

(more…)