General Michael Flynn was interviewed by Tucker Carlson.  [Direct Rumble Link Here] Many CTH readers are well versed in the fraudulent case manufactured by corrupt DOJ and FBI officials against Flynn.  This extensive interview allows Flynn to describe what was happening in his own words.

https://rumble.com/embed/vl0iyn/?pub=4

.

General Flynn describes the “security state” that runs government.  However, we have defined it as….

…The Fourth Branch of Government

(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?…  Notably, Kash Patel was not asked that question.

Kash Patel appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest developments in the John Durham probe.   Patel formerly worked on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with Chairman Devin Nunes, and was one of the key figures who authored the Nunes memo in early 2018.

Mr. Patel is optimistic in his discussion with Council on Foreign Relations member, Maria Bartiromo, and states that from his experience large conspiracy indictments can take several years to assemble.  Patel believes Special Prosecutor John Durham, now 30 months into his investigation, is working his way through the investigative material and could bring indictments against DOJ and FBI government insiders in roughly six months or more.

Patel’s perspective should make the ‘trusty planners’ very happy.   CTH does not have that same level of optimism or positive perspective for the primary reason of Robert Mueller.  However, presumably Kash Patel would know much more accurately about what took place from his central position next to Chairman Devin Nunes (2017/2018/2019), then next to Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe (2020), and then next to Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller (’20/’21).  WATCH:

I would really like to see anyone ask this question:  If John Durham is going to reveal what many folks say is possible; how is Durham going to handle the issues with Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann who were put in place to hide it?

Additionally, oddly… or not…. Maria Bartiromo never asked Mr. Patel his opinion on the recently released OIG investigation of FISA files.

(more…)

The DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a review of FISA applications used to gain Title-1 surveillance warrants against U.S. persons. [LINK HERE] The review specifically looks at the earlier issues identified in ‘Woods Files‘ that are legally required to be present in any FISA application and contain the material evidence to support the secret application to the secret court.

The ‘Trusty Plan‘ group; those who continue to push a false hope that corrective action inside the justice system will take place; will likely be very excited about the damning OIG release.  However, nothing is likely to come of the report.

Remember, the original issues with the Woods Files were outlined by CTH 18 months ago {Go Deep} in March of last year, after the interim results were reported.  This current OIG release is the finished product of that earlier investigation; and outlines almost identical issues.

Additionally, it is critical to remember the FISA court is operating in close coordination with the very corrupt DOJ-NSD, and the presiding judge of the FISC, James Boasberg, specifically took action after the Biden inauguration to protect himself and the institution.  Boasberg knew this OIG review was ongoing.  Boasberg worked with the DOJ and FBI to position defenses against any OIG revelations.

Earlier this year, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Presiding Judge James Boasberg, hired former DOJ National Security Division head, Mary McCord, as amici curiae advisor to the court. [LINK] The placement was first noted by an announcement from Georgetown Law ICAP.

Judge Boasberg is the decision-maker in the appointment of Amici Curiae to the FISA court. There is no way, NO WAY, Judge Boasberg did not know Mary McCord was at the epicenter of the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page.  Remember, in addition to being the FISC Presiding Judge, Boasberg was also the trial judge in the case against Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who lied about Page working for the CIA on the FISA application. {Go Deep}

(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…)

He’s got a long way to go.  But he’s slowly getting there, and he’s bringing his audience with him.  Russell Brand discovers “Russia-Gate“:

The Trump-Russia investigation was based on a fraudulent premise, purposed for use by a weaponized and politicized intelligence apparatus including the CIA, DoS, DOJ and FBI.  It is also the origin of the feces that holds the greatest risk to those who constructed the surveillance operation.

(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…)

An optimistic Congressman Devin Nunes reacts to latest developments in the Durham probe, the indictment of Perkins Coie and Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann making a false statement to the FBI.  {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

(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…)