Saturday, March 19, 2022

You Were Born With a Brain Allowing You To Process Information


CTH has encountered criticism for our position on information.  Perhaps it is important to step back and explain exactly why we should not be playing by rules established to control us while engaged in the battle of ideas.  First, my position:

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… 

There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.

In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.

When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades.  You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.

When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem.  You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. That problem is supposed to be there.

It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones.  You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide.  You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.

If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you.  You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter.  The sliding scale of Pinocchios is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.

Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem.  The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements.  Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.

When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information.   CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it.  It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.

The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly.   Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept.  However, the truth doesn’t care.  Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to your opinion.  If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey.  The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.

Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual.  But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present.  When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.

Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex.  It is not unusual to spend days researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely.   Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.

In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information.  It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones.  All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.

I am not necessarily a speech absolutist.  There is some language that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience.  The CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason.  However, those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values.   When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.

There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized.  Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech.  Alinsky’s intentions in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook book to Lucifer.

Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove speech from the discussion.

You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.


Look How Media Propagandists Covered The Trump-Russia Hoax Vs. The Bombshell Biden Laptop Scandal

It’s worth contrasting how so-called journalists covered Biden family corruption versus real disinformation.



After The New York Times quietly admitted this week that Hunter Biden’s laptop is legitimate — something the corrupt media baselessly called “disinformation” in the run-up to the 2020 election to conceal Biden family corruption — it’s worth contrasting how so-called journalists covered that story versus the Russia collusion hoax to take down Donald Trump.

When it came to the legitimate Hunter Biden laptop story just one month before the November 2020 election, Big Tech, the fake news media, and Democrats blew it off and nuked mentions of Biden family corruption from the internet. False and ostentatious claims about the discredited Steele dossier and Trump’s alleged sexual activities in Moscow, however, were given years of coverage that assumed he was guilty before ever seeing proof.

There wasn’t any hard evidence that this happened. Any mention of “golden showers” by Christopher Steele — a guy hired by a firm hired by Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton — came through secondhand accounts, but the corporate media treated it as fact, not disinformation. Yet when it came to Hunter’s laptop, former intelligence heads wrote an open letter claiming without evidence that Russians orchestrated the story, and the media ran with the “Russian disinformation” narrative. The contrast in the media’s treatment is glaring.

See for Yourself

Here was Vanity Fair in 2018: “Trump’s Pee-Tape Alibi Is Falling Apart.”

But in 2020, Vanity Fair claimed that the credible reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop discovery “reeks” of Russian influence and that the story wasn’t a “smoking gun.”

CNN similarly ran dozens of stories highlighting the bogus Steele dossier as a “bombshell,” but was quick to call the Biden family bombshell “dubious.”

“The anatomy of the New York post’s dubious Hunter Biden story,” one CNN headline stated.

The Washington Post acknowledged that the pee-tape story might not be real but still ran stories claiming that “Real or ‘fake news’? Either way, allegations of lewd tape pose challenge for Trump.” WaPo’s coverage of Hunter, however, was framed to cast doubt on the facts of his laptop despite good reports validating it.

NPR made a big show out of covering the “Bizzare Twists And Turns” of Trump’s nonexistent collusion with Russia but flat-out refused to cover anything related to Hunter’s corruption, saying it “doesn’t amount to much.”

Look how Slate covered Trump and Russia:

“A New Report Adds Evidence That Trump Was a Russian Asset,” one headline read.

“James Comey Says the Pee Tape Is (Maybe) Real (He Really Can’t Say (The Pee Tape Is Real)),” flashed another article, which just linked to an interview with Comey.

When it came to the Hunter story, however, Slate published an article criticizing the Delaware repair shop that possessed the abandoned laptop for not being ethical.

And here’s The Daily Beast’s fare: “Christopher Steele: Yes, Trump’s Pee Tape ‘Probably’ Exists,” the outlet was still saying in 2021.

The same outlet’s coverage of Hunter’s overseas dealings, however, chalked the emails up to Russian disinformation.

Politico, the outlet that published the “Russian disinformation” open letter from people who hadn’t seen the laptop, also stretched its coverage of the dossier and the pee tape despite reports discrediting both.

Vice ran multiple explainers about the Russia collusion racket to break down “everything you need to know about the ‘pee tape’ dossier and its funders,” but deemed the Biden family corruption story “conspiracy candy.”

“We Are Collectively Losing Touch With Reality and It’s Extremely Obvious,” Vice claimed in response to the laptop.

The Real Collusion

It wasn’t until this week that The New York Times stealthily admitted in the 24th paragraph of an unexciting article about Hunter that the laptop story was true. That confession came after five years of collusion lies and speculation about whether there was actually a tape documenting Democrats’ wannabe scandal.

Both corporate media and Big Tech abandoned their function of information collection and dissemination to instead meddle in the 2016 and 2020 elections, most recently suppressing a story that had the potential to change Americans’ votes.

The fake news media whined about Trump working with Russia for years, despite not a shred of evidence to support their outrageous theory. It was only when the dishonest press teamed up with social media oligarchs to nuke the Hunter Biden story that the real collusion happened.


Ohio GOP Senate Front-Runners Nearly Come to Blows During Heated Primary Debate

 



Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/no-not-episode-jerry-springer-ohio-gop-senate-front-runners-nearly-come-blows-heated-primary-debate-video/

Fireworks erupted at Friday’s Republican Senate primary in Ohio when two of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination got in each other’s faces and nearly went full fisticuffs on stage.

Ohio Senate candidates Josh Mandel and Mike Gibbons were so close to blows that the moderator was forced to step in and get between the pair before the altercation could worsen.

Both candidates are currently sitting atop the polls, with Mandel being the consensus front-runner for months, and Gibbons coming on strong of late, surging to the top spot among GOP Senate candidates in two recent independent surveys.

A video of the incident that was shared on Twitter by Politico reporter Natalie Allison shows the exchange starting when Gibbons, a Cleveland investment banker, accuses Mandel, a former Marine and current State representative, of never having worked in the private sector.

“You might not understand this cause you’ve never been in the private sector in your entire life,” Gibbons said with a grin.

Mandel, clearly, did not appreciate the personal line of attack. At this point, Mandel stands up from his seat, meets Gibbons face to face, and shouts: “I’ve worked sir. Two tours in Iraq. Don’t tell me I haven’t worked!”

“You don’t know squat,” Gibbons responds.

The exchange continues as the moderator fails to successfully intervene. “You don’t know squat,” Gibbons said again.

“Two tours in Iraq!” Mandel shouted once more.

“Back off buddy,” Gibbons said.

“You back off,” Mandel snapped.

The moderator once again attempted to restore order, and this time gets them to separate. But not before they go back and forth one more time as they sit down.

Mandel said to Gibbons, “Watch this. Watch it. You’re dealing with the wrong guy. You watch what happens.”

“Pu*sy,” Gibbons fires back as he sits down.

WATCH:

The tense altercation came shortly after the debate kicked off. After the candidates gave their opening statements, the moderator asked his first question, which set off the fireworks.

The question was about Russia, China, and how Congress approved billions in aid for Ukraine, to which Mandel claimed that Gibbons made “billions of dollars” shipping Ohio businesses to China and owning a Chinese petro company’s stock, which forced Gibbons to stand up and respond to his accusations.

When he stood up, he looked at Mandel and asked Mandel to clarify his remarks about the Chinese oil.

“Are you saying I owned it?” Gibbons asked Mandel.

“You owned stock in it,” Mandel responded.

“I personally didn’t buy the stock,” Gibbons said.

“You made millions off it, sir,” Mandel added.

“I don’t think I made millions,” Gibbons said with a grin. “I would have loved to have made millions off Chinese petro.”

Immediately following this exchange is when Mandel jumped up and confronted Gibbons face-to-face.

Sensing his opportunity to kick the front-runners over their foolishness, JD Vance, another candidate for Ohio’s GOP Senate nomination, excoriated Mandel and Gibbons for their temper tantrum once the ruckus had cooled down.

Vance slammed Mandel specifically for using his military service record as a cudgel:

“I just [have] to comment on what we just saw. 

As the only other person whose served his country in uniform – I enlisted in the united states marine core -… I think the way you use the United States Marine Core, Josh, is disgraceful. *

Think about what we just saw, this guy wants to be US Senator? and he’s up here ‘hold me back,’ ‘hold me back’ ‘i got two tours in the Marine Core – what a joke. 

Answer the question – stop playing around.”

In a Fox News poll released on March 7, Gibbons led public opinion with 22% support, followed by Mandel (20%), and Vance (11%), rounding out the top three. Four others, former Ohio Republican Party chair Jane Timken (9%), State Sen. Matt Dolan (7%), businessman Neil Patel (2%), and businessman Mark Pukita (1%), all checked in at under 10%.

The recent poll results showed a dramatic change in public sentiment from previous surveys, all of which had showed Mandel in the lead. Now, as the race comes down to the wire – Ohio’s GOP primary is currently slated for May 3 – things are tightening up at the top.

X22, And We Know, and more-March 19

 



Raise your hand if you miss her: ✋(Today also marks 2 weeks until her birthday!!)



SpyGate 101: A Primer On The Russia Collusion Hoax’s Years-long Plot To Take Down Trump

For those who care about our country’s future but don’t want to be buried in the minutia of the Russia collusion hoax scandal, here is your big-picture primer.



As Special Counsel John Durham continues to expose more details of the “SpyGate” or “Russia collusion” scandal, it can be difficult for any apolitical, non-news-junkie member of the public to grasp the ongoing developments.

After all, for more than five years, the corrupt legacy media has refused to report on scandal or done so with a slanted portrayal of the facts. So most Americans remain unaware of the Democrats’ years-long duplicity that sought to destroy first candidate and then President Donald Trump. Add to that reality the overlapping conspiracies and sprawling cast of characters involved, and it can be difficult to follow the story.

That the scandal is dense, however, does not mean it should be ignored. To the contrary, the duplicity must not be disregarded because what Trump’s political enemies tried to accomplish over the course of five years represents the biggest threat our constitutional republic has seen in the last century.

So for those who care about our country and her future but don’t want to be buried in the minutia of the scandal, here is your big-picture primer.

DNC Emails Are Hacked

While every thread of SpyGate could be unraveled more, April 30, 2016, marks the cleanest point to pin the start of the intrigue. It was then, amid the contested presidential primaries, that the Democratic National Committee learned that its computer network had been breached. The DNC then hired a company called CrowdStrike to investigate the hack, and by mid-May, CrowdStrike concluded that Russian actors were responsible for the hack, which the DNC then reported to the FBI.

The public first learned about the DNC server hack on June 14, 2016, when The Washington Post broke the story. Then, on July 22, 2016, after Trump and Hillary Clinton had been declared the presidential nominees, WikiLeaks released a trove of documents, purportedly obtained through the DNC hack.

These documents included emails in which then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other party officials disparaged Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. The behind-the-scenes communiques also revealed that the DNC, which should maintain neutrality between primary candidates, favored Clinton, with top officials plotting ways to harm the Sanders campaign.

Clinton Plots to Convert DNC Scandal into Trump Scandal

The timing of WikiLeaks’ release of the DNC emails couldn’t have been worse, with delegates poised in Pennsylvania to officially nominate Clinton the Democratic candidate for president. But by Sunday evening, the Clinton campaign had devised a strategy to respond to the scandal: blame it on Trump.

“I’m Jake Tapper at the Democratic Convention in beautiful Philadelphia, where the state of our union is exposed emails just published by WikiLeaks showing Democratic Party officials actively discussing possible ways to sabotage Bernie Sanders, even as they were insisting publicly that they were staying neutral during the primaries,” the CNN host opened the video segment that launched the Russia collusion hoax.

Tapper introduced Clinton’s then-campaign manager Robby Mook, asking him the campaign’s reaction to the leaked emails. After responding that the DNC needed to “look into this and take appropriate action,” Mook pivoted to Trump, premiering the Russia conspiracy theory that would consume the country for the next five years.

“What’s disturbing to us,” Mook began, is that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

Mook continued:

“I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here, and that’s disturbing. And I think we need to be concerned about that. I think we need to be concerned that we also saw last week at the Republican Convention that Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian. And we saw him talking about how NATO shouldn’t intervene to defend — necessarily should intervene to defend our Eastern European allies if they are attacked by Russia. So I think, when you put all this together, it’s a disturbing picture. And I think voters need to reflect on that.”

When Tapper asked Mook for evidence to support his claims, Mook cited unnamed experts and press reports “that the hackers that got into the DNC are very likely by to be working in coordination with Russia.”

“If the Russians in fact had these emails, again, I don’t think it’s very coincidental that they are being released at this time to create maximum damage on Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump,” Mook reiterated.

“It is a very, very strong charge that you’re leveling here,” Tapper interjected. “You’re basically suggesting that Russians hacked into the DNC and now are releasing these files through WikiLeaks to help elect Donald Trump.”

Again, Mook deflected to “a number of experts,” saying, “Experts have said that it is the Russians that, in fact, went in and took these emails. And then, if they are the ones who took them, we have to infer that they are the ones then releasing them.”

Clinton Campaign Co-Opts the Russia Collusion Hoax

While the Clinton campaign introduced the Russia collusion hoax on the eve of the DNC convention to convert the Sanders’ scandal into one about Trump, the strategy also proved a perfect response to the second Clinton scandal — this one involving Clinton’s illegal use of a private server during her time as secretary of state.

The New York Times first broke the news on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had used a private email server to communicate as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Two days later, the Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed any Benghazi-related emails contained on the private server. Upon learning of the document request, a technician for Clinton’s computer service provider deleted approximately 30,000 of Clinton’s emails, which she claimed were personal emails.

By May of 2016, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General had released an 83-page report condemning Clinton’s use of the server. Coverage of this report stressed that the State Department had “deemed more than 2,000 of Clinton’s messages as classified, including 22 that were upgraded to the most sensitive national security classification, ‘top secret.’” At the time, the media also noted that “the FBI is still probing whether any laws were broken laws by putting classified information at risk — or whether her staff improperly sent sensitive information knowing it wasn’t on a classified system.”

The Clinton campaign tried to downplay the FBI’s involvement in the private-server scandal by framing it as “a security inquiry,” but in response to questions about that characterization, then-FBI Director James Comey said he was “not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry,’” stressing “the word investigation” is “in our name.”

“We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do. That’s probably all I can say about it,” Comey concluded.

At a press conference two months later, on July 5, 2016, Comey announced that the FBI had completed its investigation and that while Clinton’s handling of classified information was “extremely careless,” he had referred the matter to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that no charges be filed. Comey took this same position when he testified before Congress, there calling Clinton’s conduct related to the server “sloppy.”

Although Comey publicly declared the investigation into Clinton’s private server closed, when Democrats gathered for their convention in Philadelphia, her campaign continued to face questions about the scandal, with Tapper drilling Mook about Comey’s conclusion that Clinton’s use of the private server had been “sloppy.” Mook quickly changed the conversation to “this election” and what “voters are looking for and asking about in this election.”

Two days later, though, the media took Mook’s lead and converted the Clinton server scandal into a scandal about Trump. A July 26, 2016, opinion article for USA Today, titled “Putin for President 2016,” opened with an acknowledgment that Clinton’s “secret private-server emails are almost certainly already in the hands of Russian intelligence,” and concluded, “Putin can embarrass Hillary — or worse — whenever he wants.”

“We’re getting a small foretaste of that in the release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails,” the piece continued, speaking of the DNC officials engaged in “dirty tricks aimed at Bernie Sanders” and “getting awfully chummy with some allegedly professional journalists.” And with that, the media converted Clinton’s use of a private server to a story about Trump and Russia’s supposed backing of his candidacy.

From then on, the Clinton campaign and a complicit media framed any concern over her use of a home-brew server and any questions about the details buried in the DNC emails not as a scandal about Clinton but as a conspiracy between Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Clinton Campaign Pays for and Peddles Fake Trump-Russia Evidence

By the last week of July 2016, the Russia collusion diversion controlled the narrative, and Democrats repurposed every question about the DNC hack or the sever scandal as an opportunity to peddle it.

Similarly, Clinton’s team converted every comment by Trump, even tangentially related to Russia, as further evidence of a conspiracy. Likewise, her campaign framed every Russia connection, past or present, between Trump, his business, his family, or members of his campaign as concrete proof of collusion.

While the Clinton campaign had not gone public with the Russia-collusion angle until July 24, 2016, when Mook marketed that theme on CNN, it had been collecting supposed intel on Trump’s connections to Russia for some time.

In the first half of 2016, Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign, had hired private investigation firm Fusion GPS to collect opposition research on Trump. In turn, Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele in May or June of 2016 to focus on Trump’s connections to Russia, and by June 20, 2016, Steele had drafted the first of some 17 memoranda that would eventually compose what is now known colloquially as the Steele dossier.

Steele shared his initial memorandum — which contained claims that the Kremlin had blackmail material on Trump, including the salacious and false “golden showers” accusation — with an FBI contact on July 5, 2016. Over the next six months, Steele continued to craft the dossier, relying primarily on an unnamed “Primary Sub-Source,” now known to be Russian national Igor Danchenko.

Danchenko, who has since been indicted for lying to the FBI, is also alleged to have invented some of the supposed intel contained in the dossier. Danchenko also fed Steele false information about the Trump campaign, which a Clinton booster had invented and then passed on to Danchenko.

The bottom line some five-plus years later is that the dossier consisted of a few publicly known accurate facts and a litany of false claims concocted by Danchenko and others and then sold by Steele and the Clinton campaign as the work of a former MI6 Russian expert.

The Steele dossier represented but one aspect of the invented evidence of collusion. The Clinton campaign also paid Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann for his work in crafting, with the assistance of various tech experts, a report purporting to show that the Trump organization had established a secret-communication network with the powerful Russian Alfa Bank.

Additionally, computer scientists who had worked with the Clinton campaign’s attorney “surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge.”

As Steele, Fusion GPS, and other Clinton backers created fraudulent reports, they, along with the Clinton campaign and her lawyers, exploited their relationships with reporters and government officials.

Steele and/or Fusion GPS’s founder Glenn Simpson shared Steele’s memoranda with various news outlets. They also fed the supposed intel to members of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, including representatives in the Departments of Justice and State. After the FBI fired Steele as a source because he had spoken with the media, it arranged for him to continue providing his reports to the FBI by having him meet with a Justice Department attorney instead.

This dual-prong approach resulted in a public saturated with circular confirmation of Trump-Russia collusion. Outlets parroted the false details fed to reporters by Steele and then referenced the FBI’s investigations into the same matters to create the appearance that the investigations confirmed the validity of the leaks. Simultaneously, the FBI used media reports as a basis to confirm Steele’s supposed intel.

Obama Admin Spies on Trump Campaign Under Knowingly False Pretenses

On July 31, 2016, the Obama administration and the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign, branded “Crossfire Hurricane.” While to this day, the FBI maintains it opened Crossfire Hurricane after U.S. officials learned from an Australian diplomat that young Trump adviser George Papadopoulos had bragged “that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton,” former Attorney General William Barr and Special Counsel John Durham have both questioned that account.

The Obama administration’s targeting of the opposition party’s presidential campaign came just as the Clinton campaign began publicly pushing the narrative that Trump was colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And the opening of Crossfire Hurricane came three days after then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama and other senior national security officials on intelligence alleging “that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

Brennan’s briefing also noted that intelligence agencies had obtained intel indicating that on July 26, 2016, Clinton approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” In early September 2016, a U.S. intelligence official would forward an investigative referral to the FBI regarding “Clinton’s approval of a plan” about “Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.”

Even with this foreknowledge of the Clinton campaign’s plot to frame Trump, and even while watching the execution of the plan in real time, the FBI moved forward with Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI would also later use Steele’s fraudulent reporting to obtain four court orders from the secret FISA court to surveil a former Trump campaign volunteer named Carter Page.

While Page was no longer connected to the campaign when the FBI obtained the FISA surveillance orders, the warrant allowed the FBI to access prior correspondence between Page and the Trump campaign, as well as any communications Page continued to have with individual campaign members. Further, while FISA proceedings are secret, media leaks about the targeting of Page gave the press more material to further the Russia-collusion spin.

Accessing private campaign emails, however, represented but one aspect of the spying that took place under the auspices of Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI also tasked a Confidential Human Source (CHS) with questioning Page, and that CHS “sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.”

The FBI used the same CHS to question Sam Clovis, a senior member of the Trump campaign. In a recorded conversation, the CHS posed several questions about sensitive campaign strategies and concerns.

The spying on Trump’s campaign also included the FBI using a private Trump security briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information for the investigation.

Investigation into Trump Continues During His Administration

Significantly, Crossfire Hurricane did not end with the 2016 election. Instead, after Trump defeated Clinton, the investigation continued and so did the leaks, with Comey giving Trump a briefing on the Steele dossier — a fact then leaked to give CNN a pretext to report on the Steele dossier.

After Trump’s inauguration, the FBI hatched a plot to oust the president’s national security adviser, again with the help of the media. Comey also began writing secret memoranda of conversations he had with now-President Trump. And after Trump fired Comey, the latter leaked those memoranda to the media through a law professor friend, triggering the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller continued Crossfire Hurricane, retaining many of the original FBI agents. The country would later learn that many of those investigating the Trump campaign held rabid anti-Trump sentiments, when text messages exchanged by members of the Crossfire Hurricane team were made public. Other text messages went missing when several agents wiped their cell phones.

The public learned of even more malfeasance by the Crossfire Hurricane team when the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General released a 400-plus-page report concluding that the DOJ included 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions in the FISA application and renewals related to Carter Page.

These problems and others led then-AG William Barr to appoint U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead an investigation into Crossfire Hurricane, later naming him a special prosecutor.

As part of his investigation, Durham revealed additional misconduct in Crossfire Hurricane when he obtained a guilty plea from a former FBI attorney for altering an email related to the FISA case against Page.

Durham’s team also obtained a statement from another FBI agent involved in the investigation named William Barnett. Barnett told DOJ investigators that there was never any basis for the bizarre “collusion” theory and that Mueller’s office pushed prosecutions with a “get Trump” mentality. But even then, Mueller found no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

There are thousands more details already known and many more players involved — and that’s before whatever else Durham may reveal. But just these basics provide all the information you need to understand SpyGate — and to see why it far surpasses the Watergate scandal.