Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Time To Declare War on the Democrat Party By Eliminating The Filibuster

Because we know that Democrats will eliminate the filibuster as soon as they get the chance (after all, they’ve said so), we must act first.



In 2009, an increasingly Marxist-dominated Democrat party effectively declared war on the United States as founded. Events over the past sixteen years, in particular the treasonous Russian collusion conspiracy, have made it increasingly clear that defeating this anti-American adversary in isolated battles will not suffice; it must suffer total political annihilation, which begins with a direct frontal assault on the Democrats’ underlying strategy to seize power in perpetuity. That declaration of war on their strategy commences with eliminating the filibuster.

The primary tenets of the Democrat playbook are, first, to make certain they win elections by stage-managing the voting process through unconstrained fraud and voter manipulation. And second, to dramatically alter the make-up of the electorate via unfettered mass illegal immigration. This is a two-pronged strategy that can only be permanently defeated by a president and Congress that pass legislation addressing those issues.

Democrats have successfully maintained cohesion among their elected members of Congress as the overall plan unfolded. No political party in the modern era has so mindlessly marched in lockstep as the Democrat members of the House and Senate. This mindless cohesion in the Senate, combined with the ability to employ the filibuster, thwarts any proposed legislation from Republican presidents or Congresses that could imperil the Democrats’ grand objective.

Following this blueprint, by 2024, the Democrats and their fellow Marxist/socialists were within one or at most two presidential terms of achieving their goal of irrevocably transforming America into a one-party socialist oligarchy. In all likelihood, if they had won in 2024, the fate of the nation would have been cast in stone.

The filibuster as it exists today is not a sacrosanct and untouchable process in the Senate. For over 110 years, a filibuster required endless speeches on the Senate floor to derail a bill. Legislative delays were limited to physical limitations and weren’t ultimately limitless.

In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule allowing two-thirds of Senators to vote for cloture to end a filibuster. In 1975, that threshold was changed to three-fifths or 60 votes. Additionally, if 41 Senators indicated they would not vote for cloture, endless talking on the floor would no longer be a necessity to qualify as a filibuster. Thus, any legislation could be permanently derailed without a word being uttered on the floor.

With the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the filibuster was bypassed with the introduction of the chaotic and non-transparent budget reconciliation process, or omnibus spending bill, which cannot be filibustered. In 2013, the filibuster was further changed by excluding executive and judicial nominees, and in 2017, Supreme Court nominees.

The ongoing process of gradually whittling away at the filibuster is a clear indication that it will be either eliminated or massively changed. It is just a matter of time. The majority of Democrat senators have already stated that they are going to dramatically change the filibuster when their party again controls the White House and Congress. As the party hierarchy continues to be increasingly dominated by Marxist radicals, there can be no doubt that the filibuster will end on their terms.

Yet the most common refrain among the majority of Republicans in Congress, as comity is their guiding principle, is that the filibuster must be kept unchanged because they will again be in the minority. It is this spineless and defeatist attitude that has enabled the Democrats to effectively control Congress and continue to execute their grand strategy when the Republicans are in power.

The current Democrat party can only win elections in the battleground states through fraud and voter manipulation. The Democrats would be hard-pressed to win elections if legislation were ever passed requiring the Census to only count citizens for purposes of political representation, mandating voter identification, paper ballots, final results within 24 hours, and eliminating mass mail-in voting.

When combined with new legislation outlawing birthright citizenship, further restrictions on legal migration, and mandating that illegal immigrants be repatriated to their home countries, the Democrats’ grand plan to transform America would go up in smoke.

Thus, they would evolve into a near-permanent minority party as the citizenry became increasingly aware of the Marxist/socialist takeover of the Democrat party. Per a recent poll, nearly fifty percent of Americans already view the party as being too extreme.

The chief obstacle in aggressively and permanently defeating the Democrats is the Republican old guard or hierarchy. They stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the current Democrat party is controlled by its radical base and has declared war on the United States and its citizens. Nor do they understand how far along the Democrats are in their strategy to transform the nation into a one-party socialist oligarchy. Thus, they have been witless accessories to the unconstitutional and lawless activities of the Democrat party since Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

Donald Trump, a victim of the Democrat party’s willingness to use any vile, illegal, unethical, or treasonous means to achieve an end, understands who the enemy is and that his presidency may be America’s last chance to defeat them permanently. This was his primary motivation in running for a second term, and why he has been extraordinarily successful in his first six months.

The United States is fortunate to have the right general at the right time, one who knows the enemy and knows himself and is not afraid of battle. However, he cannot do it alone by relying on executive orders that can be overturned by another administration or the courts.

America cannot lose this war. General George S. Patton, when describing his underlying military philosophy, often paraphrased a quote originally attributed to Georges Jacques Danton, a French lawyer and revolutionary, “De l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace, et la Patrie sera sauvee.” (“Audacity, more audacity, always audacity, and the Fatherland will be saved.”)

Audacity requires immediately eliminating the filibuster. Trump and the Republicans must strike while the Democrat party is in chaos and its unfavorable polling has hit a record low. Now is not the time to be intimidated by the threats of what may or may not happen down the road if the filibuster is relegated to the ash bin of history.

The permanent and crushing defeat of the Marxist left requires legislation that can only be passed if the filibuster is eliminated. If not, then regardless of the many victories Donald Trump may achieve in the next three and a half years, this anti-American cabal will remain to fight another day and be poised to again aggressively pursue their strategy to transform the United States.



at

X22, And we Know, and more- July 23

 



at

Compel Obama Now


There was a theme to the Obama years: say one thing, mean another, and spin it all as “historic.” This week, Barack Obama trotted out that same tired formula—this time in response to the bombshell DNI report declassified last Friday.

His statement? “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.”

Cute. But irrelevant.

Because no one—certainly not the DNI—claimed Russia manipulated votes. That’s not the point. The actual claim from the Director of National Intelligence—now Tulsi Gabbard—is that Obama-era officials manufactured a narrative, suppressed contradictory intelligence, and then jammed it down the throat of the American public in the biggest gaslighting operation since “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

This isn’t about Russia's capabilities to hack ballots. It’s about how far Barack Obama’s team was willing to go to bend, break, or bury the truth if it served their political ends.

According to the report, internal assessments in 2016 concluded that Russia had neither the capability nor intent to manipulate actual vote totals. But that intel never made it to the public. Why? Because the Obama White House—and their lackeys in the intel community—had already decided the story. Trump-Russia. Putin’s puppet. Treason from the top. Sound familiar?

It was the script for the next four years.

From Brennan to Comey to Clapper, the same players who presided over the original sin of the Russia hoax are now getting some very unwanted sunlight. The documents declassified last week suggest they intentionally buried internal dissent, misrepresented intelligence findings, and created a false perception of Russian cyber-omnipotence—because the real mission wasn’t protecting democracy. It was undermining the guy they hated more than Putin: Donald J. Trump.

Obama’s weak deflection—talking about “votes” not being altered—misses the point by a country mile. It’s a classic sleight-of-hand. Talk about the one thing no one is arguing, and pretend that settles the issue.

Let’s review:
- The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment? Ignored dissenting views.
- The Mueller Report? No collusion.
- The bipartisan 2020 Senate Intelligence Report? Confirmed no votes changed.
- The real intel in 2016? Russia couldn’t manipulate the election even if it wanted to.

But Obama wants you to forget that.

He wants you to fixate on “influence” while ignoring the fact that his administration may have suppressed facts, bent the truth, and turned the intelligence community into a propaganda machine. If that’s not a scandal, I don’t know what is.

What we now know is this: the so-called “Russian interference” narrative was curated, crafted, and carefully shaped—not by Vladimir Putin, but by U.S. intelligence leaders under Barack Obama’s watch. The manipulation wasn’t Russian—it was homegrown.

And now that the evidence is coming to light? Obama’s response is to gaslight us all over again.

This wasn’t just spin. It was sabotage. And if Gabbard’s referral to the DOJ leads to indictments, you’d better believe the truth will be uglier than we imagined. Because what they called “patriotism” at the time looks more and more like a politically motivated coup against a duly elected President.

So forgive me if I’m not interested in Obama’s PR statement pretending nothing happened.

The American people were lied to. The Trump presidency was kneecapped before it even began. And the former president—smooth-talking and finger-pointing as ever—wants to rewrite history before the ink is dry.

But not this time.

We see it. We remember. And now the receipts are public.

And if there’s any justice left in this system, Congress must act.

Subpoena Barack Obama.

Make him testify under oath.

Suppose Donald J. Trump can be hauled before the sewer rats of the Manhattan kangaroo courts. In that case, the very least Barack Obama can do is appear before the body he once served in and answer questions—on the record—about what he knew, when he knew it, and how far he was willing to go to rig the story against a political rival.

COMPEL Obama NOW.
The Republic deserves answers. And justice demands it.



at

Why Does Hollywood Hate Us?


The only way I heard about a new “Superman” movie was because some people on X said it was woke. Is it woke? I don’t know, because I won't be seeing it. It’s just not my thing, but once upon a time, everybody would’ve known about it. That’s how movies worked. That’s how television worked, too. They were collective events, not niche events. And it’s hard to be more out of the niche than a conservative, patriotic guy in his sixth decade.

Now, comparable women complain about the same thing. Apparently, we’re an unwanted demographic, although statistics suggest we’re the wealthiest demographic—and one I hope will decide to spend some of their kids’ inheritance on a Townhall VIP cruise next year – let us know at the email below if you are interested. The funny thing is, we grew up watching TV. We grew up going to the movies every week. There was a time when we had newspapers, and we went to the entertainment section, and we read the reviews for whatever was coming out that week and decided what we were going to see. Then we went out and saw them.

Now, that time is over. When you look at TV, it’s all streaming services. It’s older people than me who still watch episodic television shows, like the 52 “NCIS” spin-offs - did we really need “NCIS Bumfudge, Egypt?” And as for movies, there’s just nothing there for us. Well, that’s not entirely true. There’s just very little. If Tom Cruise comes out with something, I go see it. If there’s a new “Dune,” I'll go see it – I liked “Dune 2” better on the second viewing because it’s pretty clear that Paul is basically telling his tiresome and not-hot girlboss girlfriend to talk to the hand instead of submitting to her incessant nagging. 

But that’s about it. There’s a dearth of shows and movies that I’m interested in. Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m pickier than I was – actually, I certainly am pickier than when we had three channels. If I sit down to watch something on the streaming services, it’s 20 minutes before I find something that maybe I’m interested in. The situation is not as bad as it was at peak woke, where everything is about some transsexual or some oppressed minority overcoming the cartoonish villainy of people who look like me - the villains always looked like me. It's still dull, though, very female-coded and very blah. Here’s a story of some women who want to talk about their feelings. Here’s another story about some men who want to talk about their feelings. And, of course, you’ve got six hours of show stuffed into 10 episodes, so there are plenty of feelings to be discussed.

Hard pass. 

But I would like to spend my money on entertainment. I would like shows that are at least interesting. Moreover, I would like shows that don’t hate me. It’s not just that they don’t make movies for me anymore. It’s like they make shows that are against me. And I don’t understand. Again, I have money to spend. You have money to spend. I know people have money to spend because they’re buying my new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second Civil War, and they bought hundreds of thousands of copies of my Kelly Turnbull/“People’s Republic” novels. Now, that’s not just a shameless plug – though you should go buy all my books – but it illustrates something. I have followed the Andrew Breitbart philosophy and bypassed the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, despite having the number one political agent in America, who has secured me multiple traditional deals. But you can’t sell action fiction to traditional publishing houses anymore, with very few exceptions, like Jack Carr. I do it directly by outsourcing the actual product production, and that works for the books. People have asked me if I’ve approached anyone about making them into movies, which I humbly think would be an incredible idea, and the answer is that I have been approached. But you need money and distribution, and while the IP is solid, no standard Hollywood production house is ever going to produce them, despite a solid track record of sales. Until someone writes a check, you got nothing.

But there’s a market for it, and I don’t understand people who don’t want to pick up money that’s just lying there. Admittedly, I was a trial lawyer, so I’m always looking to pick up money, but it strikes me as weird that if you are in the business of selling and you are not eager to produce something that’s essentially pre-sold. Since I am baffled, I consulted a resource – real-life Hollywood player, the great @gmfwashington, who is so real he needs to use a pseudonym, but I know who he is, and he is the real deal (go subscribe to his Substack – I do). Here’s what he says:

“Hollywood is made up of a lot of individuals, all trying to make the kinds of movies they themselves want to see. But the movie business is overwhelmingly politically progressive, and so what you often get are stories, characters, and themes which are more finely tuned towards progressive audiences because that’s the audience Hollywood execs and creatives understand best.”

In other words, the lack of the kind of conservative action fiction that people are looking for, and that they don’t get, is not the result of economics. There are other things that play, like culture. The kind of people who make movies simply can’t conceive of the kind of movies we want to see. Such possibilities never enter into their heads, and if they ever did, there’s incredible social pressure not to be associated with this sort of product. As Drew Matich, a veteran television executive, Idaho realtor, and conservative sommelier, says, “They make things to impress each other, and if it happens to entertain the public, that’s an unintended consequence.”

So, conservative-coded content is not going to impress the guys down at the Hollywood night spots, and there's no outsider conservative Roger Corman who will fill the needs of people Hollywood looks down on – yet. I’m convinced that technology is going to change things. As barriers to the production of novels have disappeared, we now see “hidden” bestsellers like my books (a traditional book is considered successful if it sells 5,000 copies; I did that in the first week). We will also see the barriers to producing video products fall, with people able to create competent CGI productions on their home computers. In the meantime, as conservative movie star Matthew Marsden always observes, we could have conservative rich guys step up. A good conservative movie would do more for the cause than a thousand of the obnoxious white papers they subsidize at think tanks like the Forum for Families, Flags, Eagles, and Forums. The movies could also make some money, but the money guys have yet to take the initiative to take the cash.

Oh well. If I can’t find content I want to read or watch, I suppose I’ll have to create it. And I greatly appreciate you guys who support the content that I’ve made so far. Let's keep in mind that this isn’t just about entertainment. If we conservatives don’t participate in popular culture, we’re going to lose the fight to make America great again. Remember what the great Andrew Breitbart said – “Politics is downstream from culture,” and we need to keep being the salmon.



at

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Canada Accepts They’re Not Going to Get a Trade Deal Before 35% Tariffs Kick In


I’ll repeat it as much as needed, until it sinks in.

The U.S-Canada trade deal status is simply a no-brainer. President Trump will answer questions about Canada and tariffs, he’ll put people into seats to discuss trade with the Canadian delegation, and he’ll give every outward appearance of being favorable to Prime Minister Mark Carney…. BUT…

In the background, Trump is simply waiting for the USMCA timeline to trigger a renegotiation. President Donald Trump is ambivalent to the trade partnership with Canada. This moot-status reality is why there’s no substantive engagement.

‘No deal’ -until USMCA redo- is a win for President Trump.

For some bizarre reason that I simply cannot fathom, almost every Canadian politician seems entirely oblivious to this reality. Instead, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.

An article in Politico notes the Canadian premiers are now accepting the August 1st deadline will pass without any agreement, and the 35% reciprocal tariffs on non-USMCA products (meaning a lot of stuff) is going to trigger.

Literally, everything from Canada that has a non-USMCA component is going to be tariffed. Think about all the stuff from China, Asia (writ large) and Europe that Canada assembles for finished goods. All of that stuff will be subject to the tariffs.

That said, there’s good news coming from the recent meeting between Prime Minister Carney and the Premiers. Within their statement they use the term “developing large infrastructure projects.” That’s Canadian political codespeak for them realizing they are going to have to get back to regular energy development, raw material use/refinement and ACTUAL MANUFACTURING.

Canada is going to have to bring back their ‘dirty’ industrial jobs.

For our Treehouse friends in Canada, this is very good news. The Canadian assembly economic model has to change in order to get compliant with U.S. trade rules. THAT’S TRUMP’S ENTIRE POINT!

The environmentalists within Canada will not like this, but economically they will have no choice; it’s the only way to avoid a complete economic depression.

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s premiers are tempering expectations that they’ll strike a new economic and security deal with Donald Trump by the end of the month.

“We would like to have the ideal deal, as fast as possible. But what can we get?” Quebec Premier François Legault said Tuesday. “You almost need to ask Donald Trump, and I’m not even sure he knows himself what he wants.”

It’s a shift in tone from the premiers and Carney, who ran for election on his economic record, arguing he’d be the best person to negotiate with the president. But Canada is finding it harder than it looks.

Carney met the premiers in Muskoka, cottage country north of Toronto, to update them on Canada-U.S. negotiations.

As the leaders emerged from a three-hour meeting, they downplayed hopes of an Aug. 1 deal, arguing that achieving a “good deal” is more important than hitting a deadline.

[…] As the negotiations continue, the premiers spent Tuesday carving out a strategy to offset the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs on the aluminum, steel, auto and lumber sector. They spoke about developing large infrastructure projects, breaking down trade barriers between provinces and encouraging a “buy Canadian” approach. (READ MORE)

Canada is going to go into a deep economic recession; there’s no way to avoid it.  However, if they restart their industrial base, drop the ridiculous ‘green’ energy stuff, start exploiting their own natural resources and train an apprentice generation -just like we are trying to do- then Canada can bounce back stronger than ever.

We know there are Canadian wolverines who understand this concept; we saw thousands of them in the Truckers’ vaccine strike.  Make Canada Great Again, by Making Dirty Jobs Great Again, eh?


at

Guess Where CA FireAid Concert Money Is Going, It's About Where You'd Expect


RedState 

As residents of Pacific Palisades and Altadena were starting the process of rebuilding their homes and lives in the aftermath of the horrific wildfires that raced through the Southern California communities in January, Americans from all walks of life stepped up to help, donating money and supplies to those affected. Hollywood stepped up, too, with many musicians donating their time for a benefit concert called "FireAid." The concert raised roughly $100 million, but many fire victims are now questioning where all the money meant to help them has gone. There are some curious new answers, and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate.

I brought you the story of the scandal over FireAid funds for California fire victims on July 18. Pacific Palisades investigative reporter and editor of the local publication "Circling the News," Sue Pasco, was asked by a reader how they might access some of the funds raised. Pasco said she would look into it and found quite an interesting situation. Individual fire victims cannot access funds themselves. The money is distributed through a series of non-profit organizations. Local ABC News affiliate KABC did some digging and discovered that, while some individual fire victims were getting assistance, they are only receiving that assistance through the non-profits that received funds raised from the concert. But who exactly are those non-profit organizations?

One group, "The Change Reaction," is giving direct assistance to fire victims. Others include "Door of Hope," which provides financial assistance to help victims pay for rent, and the Pasadena Humane Society is using $250,000 of FireAid money to treat and house pets left homeless by the fire.

Other groups, however, seem to have a rather flimsy connection to fire relief efforts and are more involved with - wait for it - promoting leftist political thought.

One of those groups is called the "California Native Vote Project." Their focus, to encourage Native Americans to participate in the political process. What does that have to do with fire assistance? Exactly. The Fire Aid website describes their mission as:

"Financial assistance for displaced and affected Native families, expanded healing and mental health services, and distribution of critical health & safety resources."

According to Census data, there are 16 Native Americans out of 23,000 residents living in Pacific Palisades, and in Altadena, which was affected by the Eaton fire, there are 46 Native Americans out of 43,000 residents, for a grand total of 62 people. The California Native Vote Project bills itself as nonpartisan, but a quick perusal of its website says otherwise. They brag about helping to get a local Christopher Columbus statue removed, and proclaim they "stand with the undocumented population."

Then, there is the "Instituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California" (IDEPSCA), quite a mouthful for this Midwesterner. Their role in assisting wildfire victims may need more explaining than the California Native Vote Project. Their mission, according to their website, is

"To create a more humane and democratic society by responding to the needs and problems of disenfranchised people through leadership development and educational programs based on Popular Education methodology. Specifically our goal is to organize and educate immigrants concerned with solving problems in their own communities."

ActBlue Wildfire 'Donation' Scandal Explodes, Elizabeth Warren Implicated

Again, what does any of that have to do with assisting wildfire victims? Sure seems like the answer to that is nothing, and has the look of both organizations seizing an opportunity to push an agenda, not help people who need it. And while most nonprofits do great work, the setup of funds going directly to them is too much temptation for fraud. During a recent interview, Sue Pasco stated of that setup bluntly, "I think they're not helping the victims at all." (You can follow Sue Pasco's great work on getting a fair shake for California wildfire victims at circlingthenews.com.) 



at

James Comey And John Brennan Will Be Convicted By History


A review of the facts and procedures in the Trump-Russia investigation reveals the CIA and FBI were being led by reckless partisans.



The Justice Department recently acknowledged that it is conducting a criminal investigation of both former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. The current CIA director, John Ratcliffe, made a criminal referral to the DOJ concerning Brennan. Many believe that referral involves perjury on Brennan’s part when testifying before Congress or during Special Counsel John Durham’s inquiry.

The precise criminal offenses concerning Comey are not clear at this point. But there was certainly plenty of malfeasance and misfeasance by both these agency heads starting with the inception of the Russia collusion fiasco.

Comey described, in his book, the sole origin of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign as a report “from an allied ambassador” of a conversation in London between a Trump adviser and “a Russian agent.” That was his characterization of George Papadopoulos’ meeting with Joseph Mifsud, who told the Trump aide the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Comey has piously huffed that it would have been “dereliction” not to proceed with an investigation. But to proceed with an intrusive investigation on so little was abuse.

A secondhand rumor should never be enough to justify opening an investigation of any American, much less a presidential candidate. This off-hand conversation initiated an investigation that dogged the presidency. Like directors before him, Comey should have said, “We need more probable cause.” Instead, Comey had the Bureau pursue investigations into more than one U.S. citizen without sufficient predicate.

Comey tried to bolster his case by branding Mifsud a Russian agent. It is more plausible that Mifsud was a British or CIA asset. In that first encounter, there was no mention of emails. Only after the WikiLeaks disclosures was an assumption made by both Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer, Comey’s “allied ambassador,” and Papadopoulos, that the “dirt” was in the emails.

Once the case got rolling, Comey justified the electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a U.S. citizen, by writing that a federal judge granted “permission.” We now know the FISA Court was seriously misled.

Comey later tried to dodge responsibility by claiming it happened “seven levels below” him. That is simply not true. Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, drafted and signed out the communication initiating the probe. Strzok’s texts demonstrate he answered to Andrew McCabe, who was the deputy director and Comey’s direct report. These people were not seven levels below Comey. They were his inner circle, mere steps away from him on the seventh floor of the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

It was Comey who wrote a memo of his conversation with Trump and then leaked it. What was he thinking? Here was the FBI director trying to incriminate the president. Comey signed three of the four applications for FISA coverage on Carter Page. The most damaging decision to the FBI’s reputation in history was Comey’s baseless investigation of a presidential campaign.

As much as the FBI has rightly been criticized for the Russian collusion fiasco, it was John Brennan’s CIA who led them down this rabbit hole.

John Brennan is a determined partisan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he was a close adviser to President Barack Obama. Since leaving his CIA post in 2017, he bragged about prodding the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and has been unsparing in his vitriol towards President Trump. On July 21, 2017, at the Aspen Institute’s annual Security Forum, the former CIA director engaged in a disrespectful diatribe about the newly elected president, which I and many others in the audience found shocking.

The activity leading up to the FBI’s case opening was carried out in Britain under John Brennan’s direction. In his pre-election efforts to defeat Trump, Brennan turned to British intelligence. The close relationship between British and U.S intelligence goes back to World War II. There are, at its most basic, two aspects to this close arrangement. First, there is an ironclad agreement not to spy on each other. Second is an agreement to share all intelligence, including tasking one another. The Guardian, a UK newspaper, reported that Robert Hannigan, then the head of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (their equivalent of the NSA) passed information about Trump to John Brennan in 2016. Likely, Brennan tasked Hannigan and GCHQ for any possible intercepts. British intelligence services are “the hand on the arm of the CIA.” Brennan used this British intelligence to push the FBI into the investigation.

“Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, began on Sunday, July 31, 2016, when Peter Strzok wrote the communication opening the case. Just two days later, Strzok and another agent were in London to interview Downer about his conversation with Papadopoulos.

In the summer of 2016, Brennan, whose animus towards Trump is evident, briefed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, telling him the Agency had referred the case to the Bureau. This was part of his effort to get the FBI moving on the collusion investigation. Sen. Reid, joining Brennan in pushing the collusion narrative, wrote Comey demanding action. This leaked to the media.

Brennan, clearly a biased actor, prodded the Bureau into pursuing an investigation to aid his candidate, Hillary Clinton, by discrediting the ultimate winner. Durham’s filing on February 11, 2022, documents how reports about supposed internet connections between Trump’s company and a Russian bank were fed to the CIA to create an “inference” or a “narrative” of Russian involvement.

The CIA led the FBI down a rabbit hole into its investigation of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. According to The New York Times, Durham asked in interviews “whether CIA officials might have somehow tricked the FBI into opening the Russian investigation.” This is where a possible charge of lying to Durham may now come into play for Brennan. Although the FBI’s investigation officially began on July 31, 2016, there were earlier contacts by an informant and others with individuals connected with the Trump campaign. That activity was carried out in Britain by or under the direction of John Brennan’s CIA. This is highly problematic because of long-standing agreements that the United States will not conduct intelligence operations in Britain.

The initiation of an FBI investigation requires certain “predicate information” i.e., articulable facts. What we now know about the case’s origin certainly does not meet this threshold required by the Attorney General Guidelines. 

All of what passes for predicate information in this matter originated in Britain. Stefan Halper, identified in the investigation as a “confidential human source,” is an American academic in Cambridge with a history of political scandals and questions about his honesty. He is a close friend of Richard Dearlove, former director of British Intelligence (MI6). Brennan is also a close friend of Dearlove. Halper, whose father-in-law was Ray Cline, a well-known long-time CIA officer, has been identified as a CIA source in the past.

Halper met Carter Page at a Cambridge conference in early July 2016. Halper also contacted Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. The FBI would not usually maintain an informant in Cambridge, England. More likely during the springtime lead-up to the opening of the FBI’s case, Halper was providing intelligence to the CIA or directly to Brennan, who had begun creating the collusion chimera.

In his memoir, James Comey mentions only the conversation in London between Papadopoulos and Downer as predicate information for opening the investigation. That conversation happened two months before the July 31, 2016 initiation of the FBI’s inquiry. As Strzok texted in April 2017, “I’m beginning to think the agency [CIA] got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us.”

A referral from the CIA, particularly in the post-9/11 world, would cause some in the FBI to believe they had to act — especially if the agency’s information originated with our major foreign intelligence partner. Again, the FBI was led down a “rabbit hole,” losing sight of the time-tested Attorney General Guidelines requiring sufficient predicate. This sourcing — a CIA referral — might explain why the investigation began absent any predicate.

As the FBI’s investigation progressed, it utilized a FISA warrant against Carter Page, a member of Trump’s campaign, who had been in contact with Stefan Halper at Cambridge. This may be one reason why the early reporting on the FISA aspect came from the British media. The FBI used the dossier provided by Christopher Steele, formerly of MI6, to obtain the FISA warrant.

Although Brennan has exposed himself as a partisan, the CIA has escaped criticism for their role in using only thinly sourced information from British intelligence to snooker the Bureau. It also appears that the CIA may have undertaken intelligence activities in Britain — rather than tasking MI5 or MI6 — in violation of longstanding agreements.

Whatever the outcome of the current criminal investigations of Comey and Brennan, they will stand convicted by history as reckless partisans.



at