Saturday, August 30, 2025

Spygate -vs- Russiagate, Sundance


Spygate -vs- Russiagate

August 30, 2025 | Sundance

 

Barack Obama didn’t like Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama didn’t even care about Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.  Barack Obama would have liked nothing more than to watch Hillary Clinton go down in a ball of flames, until something happened in 2016 that changed the dynamic.

Suddenly, Barack Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election…

That my friends, is the reason why so many people get lost in the story of the 2016 election and the eventual Trump-Russia conspiracy.  However, once you understand what changed in those April and May 2016 moments, everything reconciles.

The U.S. government, under the President Obama administration, was spying on American citizens.

It started with Barack Obama and AG Eric Holder’s use of the IRS database in the 2010 midterm, against the primary threat of the Tea Party movement.  However, an IRS whistleblower from the Cincinnati field office took the continued use of the IRS off the table.

From the period of mid-2012 to April-2016, the administration factually and demonstrably shifted to using the power of electronic surveillance to conduct political spying operations using the NSA database and the metadata captures within it.

However, once that NSA surveillance and spying was identified in April 2016, President Obama had a problem.  That’s where the Obama alignment with the Clinton ‘dirty trick’ comes into play.  After May 2016, Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the election.  The rest is “Russiagate” history.

Those who remember the 2015/2016 presidential race will remember President Obama never campaigned for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary.  After all, Bernie Sanders was potentially going to upend Clinton until the DNC stepped heavily on the scales to assist her, and team Sanders was furious. Then suddenly, following the California primary, Barack went all in.

There is a distinct timeline shift during this period that most seem to overlook, because “Russiagate” was/is easily the shiniest thing for people to follow.  However, it was the precursor scandal, ‘spygate’, that is more critical yet gets almost no attention.

Here it becomes critical for people to understand exactly what was taking place.  Absolutely nothing had anything to do with: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, aka FISA – surveillance impacting Americans (FISA-702), the FISA Court, masking, minimizing or unmasking.  None of those terms apply. What the Obama administration was doing was simply spying.

The only reason the aforementioned terms enter the discussion is through the method used by the NSA compliance officer to reveal the nature of how the database was being compromised.  The only tool for the NSA to reveal the spying was to report it to the FISA Court which holds jurisdiction over the use of the database.

When FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer was made aware of the spying, in October 2016 by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, she then interpreted the NSA admissions through the language of the FISA Court.

When Judge Collyer released her report in March 2017 [SOURCE], that’s how the FISA terminology entered the discussion.  However, nothing about the use of the NSA database to conduct political surveillance or spying had anything to do with the Obama administration using the FISA-702 authority to exploit the system.

Collyer noted that 85% of the Obama administration’s searches of the database, from 2012 to 2016, had nothing to do with FISA inquires. No attempt at minimization or justification was being done, and further, only 15% of the use of the database was being done in compliance with the rules governing the use of the database.

Tens of thousands of searches were conducted by the Obama administration, as they used their access to the NSA database to spy on their targets.  The NSA identified the spying culprits colloquially as “FBI Contractors,” but factually nothing was ever provided to verify that assertion.

In fact, the only attribution that could be associated with the “contractor” claim, is the workstations and user access IDs deployed to search the database.   To this day, we do not know where those workstations were located, or who was behind the user IDs operating the searches.

What we do know is that massive spying operations were undertaken during the period from 2012 to 2016, and many of those searches were for the same people repeatedly; meaning the same people were under constant illegal surveillance, and all of their electronic information was being reviewed by the Obama administration.

♦ Again, just for emphasis, the Obama administration was spying on targeted Americans repeatedly, and absolutely none of the activity had anything to do with FISA authorities.  It was the existence of the NSA captures, the database itself, which brought the Obama administration to a place where it became useful for their spying operation.

The use of the NSA database for domestic spying operations followed the moment when the use of the IRS database was no longer feasible.  Once congress and the American people became aware of the IRS and DOJ’s collaborative “special research project,” a targeted surveillance mechanism that culminated in the IRS/DOJ agreeing to settle a class-action lawsuit, the Obama administration switched from using the IRS data to using the NSA data.  It really is that simple.

Obviously, the existence of the NSA database itself is problematic.  However, the problem expands exponentially when we realize the false sense of security, the FISA firewall, is nothing more than a ruse to keep gathering the data of Americans.

The American people are told the data captures and FISA searches are being done as part of the national security system, where searching the database is a critical tool for the various intelligence agencies to identify threats.  However, as shown by President Obama’s activity in 2012 through 2016, only 15% of that activity was part of a national security effort.

The overwhelming amount of activity that takes place within the NSA database, is simply the U.S. government conducting electronic surveillance.  That’s the issue highlighted by “Spygate,” President Barack Obama’s unlawful use of the data captures to monitor targets identified by the administration.

Just like the Cincinnati IRS whistleblower (’12), once the NSA compliance officer noticed what was happening (March ’16), the trail of spying became a risk to the Obama administration.  That’s the moment when Hillary Clinton’s planned deployment of the vast Russian conspiracy became of value to Obama and the surveillance perpetrators.

The Clinton campaign had been planning to use Russia as a dirty trick tool against the winner of the GOP nomination.  The testimony of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, Robby Mook, even admitted it.

John Durham – Q: In the Summer of 2016, was Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia something that the campaign focused on?

Robby Mook – A: Yes. I mean, it was frankly something we were focused on before that time. But absolutely.

Q: Mr. Mook, before the break you had testified that there was a conversation in which you told Ms. Clinton about the proposed plan to provide the Alfa-Bank allegations to the media; is that correct?

A: Correct. 

Q: And what was her response?

A: All I remember is that she agreed with the decision.

[SOURCE]

What became known as “Russiagate” was the 2016 Clinton campaign smear that was directed at Republican candidate Donald Trump.  However, “Spygate” preceded the deployment of the smear.

The Obama administration used Clinton’s Russiagate to hide Obama’s Spygate.

President Obama’s support for the dirty trick Hillary Clinton created, starts with his motive to hide the spying.

[Support CTH Here]

Trump's Power And The Rule Of Law Steve Bannon Exclusive

 

 

 Episode 4745: Trump's Power And The Rule Of Law Steve Bannon Exclusive

Bannons War Room

(49:01)

Episode 4746: Trump's Power And The Rule Of Law Steve Bannon Exclusive Cont.

Bannons War Room

(49:01)

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Outline #1 – Criminal Conduct by DOJ/FBI During Russiagate, Outline #2 – Criminal Conduct by DOJ/FBI During Russiagate, Outline 3, FBI Offered Chris Steele $1 Million to Substantiate Dossier Before they Submitted It as Evidence to FISA Court, Outline #4 – Key Criminal Conduct in The Russiagate Operation and Beyond, Mary McCord, Outline #5 – The Prequel & Outline #5 – The Full Spectrum Criminal Surveillance Conducted by The United States Government ,


Outline #1 – Criminal Conduct by DOJ/FBI During Russiagate

August 7, 2025 | Sundance |

 

Outline #2 – Criminal Conduct by DOJ/FBI During Russiagate

August 8, 2025 | Sundance

 

Outline 3, FBI Offered Chris Steele $1 Million to Substantiate Dossier Before they Submitted It as Evidence to FISA Court

August 12, 2025 | Sundance

 

Outline #4 – Key Criminal Conduct in The Russiagate Operation and Beyond, Mary McCord

August 18, 2025 | Sundance |


Outline #5 – The Prequel

August 24, 2025 | Sundance

 

Outline #5 – The Full Spectrum Criminal Surveillance Conducted by The United States Government

August 24, 2025 | Sundance |

Devin Nunes Frames a Remarkable Reality, August 24, 2025 | Sundance

 

Devin Nunes Frames a Remarkable Reality

August 24, 2025 | Sundanceyou

While speaking to Lara Trump about the ongoing Russiagate review efforts, Devin Nunes notes, “The only thing that President Trump and this administration can do, is make sure that whoever can be held accountable, are held accountable, and that this doesn’t happen again; that these people are taught a lesson, so that this doesn’t happen again.”  But there’s something even more revealing within the interview.

Context: Devin Nunes is the chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, an alternative mechanism to review and analyze global and domestic intelligence information – with overlay against truth and reality that underpins the issue(s).

Action: Accepting the intent of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, now insert the recent DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s directive to stop information sharing with allied countries as it specifically relates to President Trump’s efforts to create a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

Back to the interview:  Here’s the statement that really deserves to be emphasized @05:25: “Imagine where we sit today, with all the things going on around the world, and the President has to have the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, his own intelligence board, all making sure the intelligence is not weaponized. I mean it’s rather incredible, this is something that is unprecedented in the United States of America.”

Think about that ¹remarkable context.  Essentially, what Nunes is saying is that Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard and Devin Nunes (et al) cannot trust the operational embeds under the agency heads within the United States Intelligence Community.  Think about that, as it is said out loud.

Devin Nunes: We'll begin to see those who 'abused their power'

Fox News

(9:19)

¹This is exactly what CTH has been trying to hammer home for years.  The modern IC system is now designed to be a rogue apparatus, disconnected from the traditional framework of executive control.  The people who operate within that fourth branch of government are not constrained by the power or authority of the executive.

This is exceptionally dangerous.  We elect a President (Executive), we elect representatives (Legislative), the Executive and Legislative create the Judicial, who exactly is controlling the Intelligence Branch?

Many, too numerous people to count, have dismissed my warnings about how this system is operating.  Here we have the former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and current Chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, saying exactly the same thing.

Ratcliffe, Gabbard, Patel, Blanche, Bongino, Bondi, Rubio and all of the Nunes advisory team, are trying to keep the IC system operators from targeting President Trump via weaponized, purposefully manipulated, intelligence information.

By direct and unassailable implication, this means rogue influence operations are taking place external to the ability of the executive to curtail them.

As Devin Nunes is noting, the Office of the President is taking active measures to work around the intelligence agencies.

This rogue nature of the intelligence apparatus is an example of how the CIA seemingly operates in places like Ukraine without President Trump or Director John Ratcliffe having any power over the activity.

Why Declassified Information is Called a Silo Equity, August 14, 2025 | Sundance

 

Why Declassified Information is Called a Silo Equity

August 14, 2025 | Sundance |

 

I am writing this outline because we have many new readers and also to keep everyone on the same page, so to speak.

There is a reason why information held within an administrative agency, within a silo, is called an “equity.”  The information has ownership exclusive to the originating agency or silo.  A known equity of a specific silo.

EXAMPLE of an “FBI equity” and how it is handled below:

An “equity” is information with ownership belonging to a specific agency or silo. Only the agency head can declassify information within their silo. Ex. The head of the FBI cannot declassify or release the “equity” of the CIA. The head of the CIA can declassify an equity of the CIA, and the FBI head can declassify the equity of the FBI.

Only the President and the Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) can reach into any agency (silo), retrieve information then declassify it. The President and the DNI can work together to release information from any silo.

This process is what we are seeing with the releases of information, FBI equities, from FBI Director Kash Patel. These are exclusive equities of the FBI, and can be released (with approval) from the head of the executive, the President.

Then the issue of distribution surfaces. Once an equity is declassified, Patel then has to determine how to make the information public. He could: (a) release it directly from the FBI to the public; (b) release it to the legislative branch for distribution to the public (Grassley or similar): or (c) release it to a media outlet (Solomon), who in turn releases it to the public.

The White House may not want the FBI to release it directly to the public due to the appearance of politics. The legislative option may not want to be the distribution hub due to the appearance of politics. The media outlet may or may not want to release it for their own reasons.

The office of the President may not want the FBI to release the information directly because it can create a problem for the Executive if the material is framed politically. The FBI is a subsidiary of the Executive. The information can look very political if a political appointee is releasing information that is politically explosive in nature.

In the first set of FBI declassification releases, the White House obviously approved of the release and the office of Senator Chuck Grassley was working with Kash Patel to distribute the declassified information, because it pertained to research and investigations they were conducting. The “equity” was beneficial to their interests.

In the current FBI releases by Kash Patel, the exclusive FBI equities are being released to John Solomon for distribution. This approach is because of a pre-existing relationship.

At the same time Director Patel is releasing information from within the specific FBI silo, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is declassifying and releasing information from both her silo (DNI) and other silos (CIA). In the CIA releases, Gabbard is coordinating with the declassification approval of CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

When you understand the silo system and how information is considered an equity of each silo, you start to realize how certain silos cannot operate without the approval of another.

The DOJ cannot use a CIA equity unless the CIA approves. The DOJ cannot use an NSA equity unless the NSA approves. Regardless of how the information is identified, each silo must approve of their equities being released. If they do not approve the only option is for the President to override the silo head and declassify the information himself.

As an outcome of the way our checks and balances have been modified against our interests, the judicial branch has repeatedly deferred to the DOJ around the issue of “national security.” In fact, if the DOJ labels any Lawfare approach as a national security matter the subsequent evidence therein, the NSI (even when not seen) is accepted by the judicial branch without question. The judicial branch defers to the executive on all matters defined by the executive as “national security.”

This is the area of exploit being discussed by Mary McCord in this segment. However, notice there is one apparatus that can supercede the DOJ-NSD’s ability to weaponize Nat Sec Information, that’s the power of the intelligence apparatus. WATCH:

Lawfare coordinator Mary McCord admits that she and another lawfare coordinator, Andrew Weissmann, worked with the DOJ and intelligence losers on what bogus charges to bring against Trump. pic.twitter.com/4jqgetvURZ

— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) October 4, 2024

McCord notes how she and Andrew Weissmann navigate through the process of using National Security Information (NSI) as they move toward their target; the most common reference is their political opposition, Donald J Trump.

This silo process is also how the DC system protects itself from sunlight.

A whistleblower from the CIA cannot go to the FBI with evidence of corrupt activity and expect the FBI to take action on that evidence without the approval of the CIA. If the CIA whistleblower takes the equity evidence to the FBI and the CIA does not permit the equity evidence to be used, the FBI cannot use it.

Similarly, if a non-silo member of the public connects the dots using information/evidence from multiple silos, the DOJ cannot use that evidence without first requesting approval from each of the silo heads.

Silos only know their own information. Silos do not know the information in other agencies. This was the entire premise of creating the DNI, a super-silo that can cross reference each silos’ equities. Using this power is what I have been outlining for the past several years, and this is what Tulsi Gabbard has been doing for the first time since the DNI office was created.

Alternatively, Kash Patel has selected John Solomon for the release of information exclusive to Kash Patel’s silo. Because the equities do not involve any other silo, this is possible.  Solomon doesn’t care if the information release is defined as political, and most of the information is expired old news being repackaged for public consumption.

Throughout this process, the MSM regards all declassified information against their interests to be political constructs, easily ignored.  Trump as head of the executive is framed as releasing information against his political opposition.

Also understand, each legislative committee or sub-committee within congress (legislative branch) is its own independent silo. The HPSCI doesn’t know what the SSCI is doing, and vice-versa. Additionally, each agency within the executive branch is its own independent silo. There are also silos within the judicial branch, and within each federal court within the judicial branch – including the FISA Court.

Each silo is its own compartment of information holding exclusive equities.

This DC system has been weaponized over time to create the complicated mess that currently exists.

Keep all of this in mind, as you look at the information outflow and distribution network.

Warmest best,

~ Sundance