Bumped, because I knew the media were going to use this NYT article today:

Bottom line, we are in an expanded information war. I’ll explain.

Several years ago, in explaining some of the site challenges CTH informed people of Google’s latest information control operation that was simply called “a spider crawl.”  The spider crawl was an automated instruction to search the internet and find information that was beyond the parameters of their “trust and safety” guidelines.  The automated search would crawl through the websites and comment sections, and report violations based on key words in the search parameter.

Spider crawling is essentially AI.  A technology tool to search databases and identify results based on parameters established by the individual who launched the search.  However, now in order to push a scare narrative around the hot topic of “AI” the spider crawling is much more in depth and advanced.

Now, instead of just searching the internet, advanced AI can find information and answer questions based on lengthy attributes described by the AI user.  AI can now go into proprietary databases and retrieve information to answer complex and complicated question (instructions).

If the AI launch, now called an “AI bot”, hits a gate, like a password access point, advanced AI can find workarounds to enter the database, extract the information and return the result to the AI user.  If you understand that process, then this headline has context.

[SOURCE]

The entire article is nothing more than taking something that is easily understood and adding jargon to make it sound complicated. The word “meddling” is used to describe the AI process of trying to get passed the gate.  When there were individual people doing this, we called it “hacking” now the process is automated via instructions to the software search.

(more…)

Politico (EU) puts the spin on the actual ask by saying, “NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich wants more information on escalating hybrid threats.” However, if you pull back the NATO wording and current position, what it really looks like is U.S NATO leaders telling Europe to prove all of these “hybrid attacks” they keep speaking about.

NATO is a collective of EU nations.  The official position of NATO is “it sees no imminent threat of a Russian attack.” However, several of the EU-NATO countries are independently reporting “hybrid attacks” under opaque descriptions and then using political soundbites to designate Russia as the cause.

Just like the “drone attack on Zelenskyy’s airplane,” most of these ‘reports’ end up being debunked once they are investigated, or scrutinized.  There have been dozens of so-called ‘hybrid attacks’ that were debunked or claimed in such an ambigous fashion they cannot be proven as accurate.

Ex. Russia flying a helicopter in Kaliningrad, is not a hybrid attack against Poland.  A Russian drone crashing 160km away from Chișinău, is not a hybrid attack against Moldova.  A can of tuna fish attached to a short-range quadcopter at the Leipzig/Halle Airport is not a hybrid attack against Germany.

None of the heads of the nations described above (Poland, Moldova, Germany) have ever asserted those “hybrid attack” examples as an official position of the government.  It’s always some arms-length politician or internal bureaucrat that makes the claim, then the media amplifies it.

Well, it would appear that NATO Commander Grynkewich is trying to figure out how/why these quasi-official “hybrid attack” claims are getting promoted by media; because ultimately, it’s his responsibility to formulate a response.  One can only imagine Secretary Hegseth calling General Grynkewich on behalf of President Trump and asking for some clarity amid the European claims/noise.

(more…)

It should be transparently obvious by now. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has shifted his tin cup strategy from directly asking for money, to presenting himself as the world’s leading arms manufacturer.  In essence, Zelenskyy has drone pencils in his tin cup.

Keep watching and we will all start to see this grifting business model in play.

Earlier today Zelenskyy said, “President Trump and I had a meeting where we discussed general matters. After that, our negotiating teams held a separate, long meeting. The agreement is as follows: we will brief the European side and discuss these details with them; the Americans will speak with the Russians; and in ten days, we will come back with views and results in some shape or form.

As for a trilateral Ukraine-U.S.-Russia meeting, the American side proposed preparing it and meeting at the technical level. We are waiting for the United States to propose a date. The United States proposed the United Arab Emirates as the venue for such a meeting.

There are concrete agreements regarding Patriot licenses. At our meeting, President Trump stressed that he had made his final decision: Ukraine will receive licenses to produce Patriot missiles. (read more)

Now put the lead-in paragraphs as an overlay against that statement.  Zelenskyy wants to organize his corrupt financial system, specifically the income aspect, around Ukraine as the world’s leading arms dealer.

Obviously, this business model provides numerous benefits for everyone inside the Ukraine govt operation whose lifestyle and affluence are dependent on the inflow of massive amounts of money.

If Zelenskyy can get the Patriot Missile licenses, then he can expand his business operation to build and sell Patriots’ to Germany (have been begging for them) and beyond.  Zelenskyy becomes the EU hub for EU-NATO arms manufacturing and production.  He’s not stupid.  If the USA pulls back from EU-NATO, Zelenskyy steps in to fill the void.  That appears to be his overall plan.

(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…)

I know these are two people that we generally don’t care to know much about. However, given the 15-year sentence handed down upon Harvey Weinstein today, an ancillary story deserves a slight mention.

This story makes sense, because back in 2025 Candace Owens suddenly became an advocate for Weinstein.  According to the New York Post, there was an apparent financial arrangement:

NYP – […] Prosecutors alleged during the hearing that they had recordings of Weinstein offering a podcaster $1.75 million in a jailhouse phone call to release videos to help his defense by “contaminating the jury pool and reaching the seated jurors before and after the trials.”

Weinstein engaged in a “scheme to disrupt the trial and instill fear in his victims,” Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg alleged.

Blumberg did not identify the podcaster, but Candace Owens released a podcast series in 2025 called “Harvey Speaks,” which featured videos of Weinstein at the notorious city lockup. She didn’t return requests for comment Wednesday. (more)

(more…)

President Trump has revoked the special white house access privileges of CNN, MSNow and Politico.  Those outlets and all of the other self-centered media allies who make everything about themselves, have promised to file lawsuits.

The media claim that President Trump has removed their First Amendment rights by revoking their special White House access cards, seats on Airforce One and privilege tents on the white house grounds.  Apparently, if the media don’t get the luxuries of influence they claim their rights are removed – or something equally stupid.

JD Vance is asked about it as he departs Joint Base Andrews for a campaign rally in North Carolina.

.

(more…)

**Bumped By Request**

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.

(more…)

This afternoon, President Trump announced via Truth Social that he is banning CNN, MSNOW and Politico from the White House press pool.

(Via Truth Social) – “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! ~President DONALD J. TRUMP

(more…)

That’s ultimately the question at the heart of the matter.  What will come first, the AI false flag event that will trigger support for government regulation that includes liability protection; or the lawsuits against the AI developers for stealing intellectual property?

How you place your bet will likely determine your investment decision.

On one hand you have the AI frontier groups, developers who have stolen corporate secrets, extracted proprietary intellectual property, engaged in widespread copyright violations and built their AI models with mass unauthorized data collection.  On the other hand, you have massive corporations, individuals and groups who have seen their intellectual property rights infringed by data harvesting to run the models.

The AI developers are requesting “regulation” which includes liability protection for outcomes as a result of users running their models.  The investors into those AI developers also want regulation and liability immunity to protect their investments. This is the group now positioning for government regulation and selling the voices who control that decision (politicians) based on a pitch that includes government control over AI information.  This is the group that will trigger the false flag to generate public support for AI safety.

The ordinary individuals & businesses who have seen their intellectual property stolen by the AI groups, the individuals who have watched their copyright protections violated, the corporations who benefit from increased AI efficiency but also see the downside from publicly exposed trade secrets now being widely available, would be the plaintiff group in a series of predictable lawsuits against the AI developers.

This is the core of the matter.  Control/Immunity or Risk/Lawsuits.  Mike Steger outlines the last two weeks:

.

Two years ago, I said we would reach an inflection point where the interests of Silicon Valley would conflict with the interests of MAGA.  We are on the cusp of that moment.  Will the Silicon Valley/Leftist-Govt win through regulatory control under the guise of ‘trust and safety’.  Or will the larger population see through the scheme and align with liberty, freedom and the free-market approach.

Place your bets.

(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…)