There are hundreds of emails that flow into the mail center of CTH daily.  Amid many of them we see this sentiment in various forms, generally as an outcome of a deep dive article that cannot be “pretended away.”

This is a very, very common refrain:

“I did not vote for Donald Trump in either of the other two US Presidential elections in which he ran. I will for him this year.

The choice, in this year’s US Presidential election, has been an easy one for me to make.

I’m not a supporter of Donald Trump.

I’m a defender of Donald Trump.

I have absolutely no doubt that I will vote next November 5th. I’ve no doubt that I will vote for Donald Trump. His opponents have been over the top (as Trump said accurately) in “weaponizing the justice system.” Undermining the electoral system, too, I might add.

And, while we’re added, let’s give some thought to the very most basic tenet of American justice: the presumption of innocence. It’s a little bit early in the nation’s decline to abandon that, isn’t it? Give it another 20 years, then sink that low.

I believe every American who knows anything at all about the nation’s foundational principles, and believes in those principles, should be a defender of Donald Trump.

Let him run. Let him win if he can. Denying him that opportunity is not a violation of his right to seek election; it’s a violation of the right of every voting American citizen whose choice for the Presidency is Donald Trump.  I just became one of them.”

~ C

(more…)

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.

Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

(more…)

James Wolfe was the Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director who leaked the top-secret Title-1 search warrant FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017.  When Wolfe was busted by the FBI his lawyers threatened to introduce evidence in court that he was instructed to do so by SSCI Vice-Chairman Senator Mark Warner. The DOJ dropped the classified document leak charge, and instead charged him only with lying to investigators.  Wolfe received probation.

In March, 2023, when I wrote the outline about Judge Boasberg being the corrupt DC judge who broke the constitutional restrictions on executive privilege, which technically forced Mike Pence to turn over his notes and testify to James Smith and the DC grand jury, I said at the time, “The entire judicial system is corrupt, soup to nuts, all of it.”  I was not using hyperbole.  {Go Deep – Go Deeper}

This is the same Judge Boasberg who sat as presiding judge on the FISA court.  The same Judge Boasberg who gave FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith a slap on the wrist for manufacturing evidence used in the Carter Page FISA application that defrauded the court.  The same Judge Boasberg who appointed former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord as amicus curiae advisor to the court, after she knowingly and fraudulently submitted the FISA application to the court.

Today, Judge Boasberg gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation. [Read Courtroom Here]

[READ THIS]

Judge James Boasberg is not just openly and visibly aligned with the most corrupt activity within Washington DC, this is a federal judge who is laughing at the inability of anyone within the system to do a damned thing about it.

(more…)

As the DNC is telling New Hampshire Democrats the upcoming primary is “meaningless,” the background Democrat control officers like David Plouffe are telling them to vote for Nikki Haley.  The New Hampshire Attorney General has had enough of this manipulative scheming and sends a letter to the DNC telling them to stop. [Letter pdf HERE]

Forgive me…. but I am laughing a little.   When you work as hard as we have to showcase the fraud within the two-private-corporation election system (DNC & RNC), year after year, after year, this type of stuff is just gold, GOLD.

You see, there comes a point in the display of the marionette strings when they just start glowing so brightly, those who try to retain pretenses can no longer support the ruse.   Yes, finally, the DNC bloom comes off the ruse.

[SOURCE pdf Link]

NEW HAMPSHIRE (NBC) – The Democratic Party’s infighting over the New Hampshire primary just got litigious.

The New Hampshire attorney general’s office on Monday sent a cease-and-desist order to the Democratic National Committee after the national party demanded state Democrats “educate the public” that their upcoming presidential primary is “meaningless.”

(more…)

According to Tucker Carlson, “This is the smartest, best-informed account of what actually happened on January 6th.”

At 03:15 of the video, the discussion between Tucker Carlson and Congressman Clay Higgins touches on terminology CTH readers may well be familiar with.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

In honor of our national gaslighting embarrassment, the third anniversary of the FBI’s fedsurrection, the FBI laughed in the faces of the general population under their control.  The DC-based FBI sent out this message:

Yes, the national kidnappers have removed their masks. Y’all know what that metaphor means.

Once again, for those who just walked in…. Following the scale of manipulation within the 2020 election, those who did the manipulation, which included support from the FBI and DOJ, justified to keep their institutional agencies from being exposed, needed to do something to stop any state delegate challenge.  One successful state election challenge would have upended the entire system.  They needed an emergency session for the January 6th electoral certification.

The pipe bombs found in DC on January 6th, were essentially the insurance policy.  The FBI was supporting the need for a stoppage of the 2020 electoral certification session in congress.  If the FBI could not manipulate the crowd into entering the Capitol Building, the “discovery” of the pipe bombs would have been used to shut down the certification session.  Speaker Pelosi would then gain emergency power, switch to an emergency session upon return, and any effort to challenge the delegate affirmation would be nulled.  The latter described action by Pelosi is exactly what happened.

(more…)

In a Friday notice, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging a Colorado democrat court decision to block President Trump from the GOP ballot under the auspices of a 14th amendment claim.  [SCOTUS Announcement pdf HERE]

The high court has scheduled oral arguments for February 8, 2024, and set forth a schedule as below for the case review.

[Source pdf]

President Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot (and also Maine) while the Supreme Court takes up the case.  Both the Colorado effort (court) and the Maine decree (Secretary of State) were stayed pending appeal.  In essence, and reflected in both their actions, in both states the decisionmakers expect to lose.

WASHINGTON DC – Plunging into a political minefield, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The court agreed Friday to consider whether states have the power to disqualify Trump from the ballot due to his attempts to upend the 2020 election and his role in stoking the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (MORE)

(more…)

The leftist LAWFARE effort to use the federal and state court system to keep President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot continues. However, in the most recent example, a Democrat appointed federal judge in Virginia has dispatched the effort.

(New York Post) – A federal judge in Virginia on Friday dismissed a lawsuit aimed at removing former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot citing the insurrection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The complaint, filed by activists Roy Perry-Bey and Carlos Howard, alleged that Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US and should therefore be disqualified from seeking the office he once occupied.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue to get Trump, 77, off the state’s primary ballot.

(more…)

Given the recent discussions about a potential Vice President pick by Donald Trump, several people have asked for my perspective.

Because I look at the office of the presidency slightly different than most, and specifically because the real challenge that needs to be addressed is located deep inside each institution of government, my perspective on the running mate is somewhat different than most.

The Vice President is the safety mechanism for continuity of government in the event that something happens to the President.

Additionally, for the unique nature of the 2024 election, the VP pick technically becomes the 2028 MAGA candidate by default and general intention.  Therefore, the selection of Trump’s running mate holds a greater weight of importance given the single term objective.

The primary factor of President Trump’s pick for VP should be, who will be the 2028 nominee.

Prior to President Trump’s first term in office, traditionally the role of the Vice-President, the actual tasks they are assigned to carry out, were generally ceremonial in nature.  However, President Trump approached the VP role differently, and gave substantive policy initiatives to Vice President Mike Pence.  [Pence proved he was not a good executive]

It should also be remembered that another unique aspect to President Trump’s term was his control over every of aspect of economic policy and trade.  This level of economic focus, with controls completely retained by President Trump, was then used as a mechanism to influence President Trump’s foreign policy.

(more…)

Three main points before getting to the substance. [213 page opinion HERE]

#1)  It was a 4-3 decision. Meaning it was the politics of the court, literally the political makeup and perspective therein, that determined the outcome of the decision.  This is showcased in point #3, which is the funniest part.

#2)  The entire framework of the case against Trump in the Colorado decision is predicated on this: “[the complainants] asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.”  [pdf, page 6]  REMINDER – President Donald Trump was not charged with “insurrection,” is not accused of “insurrection,” does not fit the complaint under the definitions of “insurrection,” and has never been found guilty of insurrection.  The complaint is moot before the court.  But hey, it’s Lawfare… and we all know Lawfare is created for public media consumption, so that takes us directly to the biggest point.

#3)  Instead of me writing it, let me screengrab it so we can all laugh together [pdf page 9].

Wait, what?

Yes, that’s correct.  As long as President Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, the appeals court stays their own ruling – essentially indefinitely.  The Colorado primary ballots printed, and the primary election will be over, before the Supreme Court puts this on their docket.

In addition to the virtual guarantee the high court will overrule this political nonsense, SCOTUS can make the entire issue moot before them by following their own normal schedule for submissions, arguments, deliberation and opinions delivered by the court.

The Colorado appellate court knows this, that’s why they put this self-stay into their 4-3 ruling.  It’s a politically correct way of giving the optics of telling their tribe, ‘hey we’re with you,’ without the ramifications of the political backlash.  In other words, psychological lawfare stuff – intended for media consumption.

Making the issue that much better for Donald Trump, the efforts of the Prescott-Bush clan (look it up – they live in CO) will backfire bigly.  The public backlash against a judicial ruling that interferes with the right of the citizens to determine their own election candidates plays perfectly into the sunlight operation against the Lawfare left.

This backlash will be epic, albeit hidden by MSNBC and the rest of the insufferable media.  Why? Because it doesn’t fit the Lawfare narrative.

(more…)