Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Mercury Confidential: Laurie Dhue talks about her remarkable career and what it's like to host For The Record

August 22, 2013
Wilson

Writer

By Meg Storm

Ever wonder what goes on behind-the-scenes at Mercury Radio Arts? Just how do all of Glenn’s crazy ideas get done? Does anyone ever get a chance to sleep? Well, over the next few months we are going to take you inside MRA, giving you the inside scoop on everything from publishing to special events, 1791 to TheBlaze. We will be interviewing members of our New York, Columbus, and Dallas staff, bringing you all the info, so you can know what it’s really like to work for Glenn.

Previous Installments: Kevin Balfe, Liz Julis, Joel Cheatwood, Eric Pearce, Michele Vanderhoff, Tiffany Siegel, Joe Weasel, Buck Sexton

Don’t miss Laurie TONIGHT on a brand-new episode of For The Record at 8pm ET only on TheBlaze. Not a subscriber? Start your 14-day free trial HERE.

Laurie Dhue is one of the most recognizable names in news. She is the only anchor to have hosted shows on the three primary cable news networks – CNN, MSNBC and FOX News – and her experiences span from running the teleprompter at CNN in the late 1980s to anchoring primetime news programs. She has met presidents, traveled the world, and been the voice of some of the most important news stories of the last two decades.

Laurie began working with TheBlaze in March as the host of For The Record, and she joined the team full time in July. Starting in September, you will see a lot more of Laurie as she anchors the ever-expanding primetime news updates on TheBlaze TV, in addition to hosting For The Record.

Born in North Carolina and raised in Atlanta, Laurie always knew exactly what she wanted to be when she grew up. “I was lucky,” Laurie said. “Unlike most of my college friends, I knew what I wanted to do by the age of 19. I had an internship at CNN in Atlanta the summer of 1988 – before some of TheBlaze.com folks were even born – which changed the course of my life.”

She attended the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where she studied political science with a concentration in dramatic arts. Laurie was a member of the varsity swim team, an academic all-American, and a member of the Loreleis – a female a cappella group that toured the East Coast. “I still love to sing, and one of these days I’m going to do a cabaret performance for my friends,” she said smiling. “I’ve been saying this for years.”

It was the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta that ultimately jump-started her career. “The Democratic National Convention was held in Atlanta the summer of 1988, and I was smack in the middle of all the excitement,” Laurie explained. “As a booth runner for the anchors, including Larry King, I was responsible for everything from delivering scripts to making coffee, procuring sandwiches and straightening ties. The highlight was meeting Walter Cronkite.”

“I went back to UNC that fall knowing that I wanted get into news. At that point, I had not yet declared a major and the folks at CNN advised me to get a liberal arts degree and not limit myself to journalism,” she continued. “‘We’ll teach you more in a month than you’ll get in the next 2 years sitting in a classroom,’ one of my mentors told me. It was true. I learned an incredible amount in a very short period of time. I interned for CNN the next two summers – including an internship in London the summer of 1990 – then began working there full-time in the spring of 1991. The headquarters and main studios were in Atlanta at the time, though now most of CNN’s shows are based in NYC.”

When Laurie first started at CNN, her job was very much behind-the-scenes. “Between 1991 and 1997, I did just about every job at CNN you can imagine,” she said. Those jobs included running teleprompter, running scripts, checking show rundowns, pulling tapes, logging tapes (“one of the more tedious and humbling experiences”), running tapes, etc. You name it, she did it.

“Eventually, I became a guest booker and segment producer,” Laurie explained. “After a couple of years of researching and writing the anchors’ interviews – in the pre-Internet age – I knew I had to pursue my dream of being on-camera. I knew I had it in me and truly thought it was my destiny, I just needed a chance.”

Breaking into the media industry has never been easy, but in the early 1990s it was especially difficult to become an on-air talent without having previously spent some time in a small market. “In those days, it was much tougher. If you wanted to be an anchor or reporter, you had to start in a very small market,” she recalled. “I begged my boss to let me talk to the then-President of CNN, Tom Johnson, about doing something, anything, on camera. He saw how serious I was and agreed to let me do updates on the CNN Airport Network – yes, such a thing existed back in the day – but only in my spare time, nothing could interfere with my segment-producing job. So I taught myself how to use the teleprompter and practiced for hours and hours. My first Airport Channel hit lingers in the back of my mind somewhere. I don’t remember the moment, but I do remember thinking ‘Well, I’m on my way.’ It felt absolutely natural to me.”

Laurie’s big break came a few months later, in the summer of 1996, when she was offered the chance to anchor overnight news updates for CNN’s sister network Headline News (now HLN), but she would have to continue her producing job as well. As you can imagine, it was a pretty busy schedule.

“It was a hectic time,” Laurie explained. “By day, I was booking and pre-interviewing guests. By night, I was anchoring the news. I slept very little, but I didn’t care. Within six months, in January of 1997, I was offered a full-time anchor spot on CNN, becoming the youngest anchor in the network’s history. I anchored the midnight, 1AM and 5:30AM shows for a year – sleeping from 7AM till 3PM, which I really never got used to – then I moved to weekends.”

She anchored CNN Saturday and CNN Sunday for a year, before getting a call from her agent saying NBC was interested in meeting her. Laurie flew to New York and met with the NBC executives about hosting her own weekday show on MSNBC. Beginning in 1999, Laurie anchored several shows for MSNBC – covering breaking news and reporting long-form stories as well.

“My goal had always been to get to New York City, so I was thrilled to get the chance. Saying goodbye to my life, friends, and family in Atlanta was tough, but I knew it was the right decision and fell in love with the city the day I arrived,” Laurie said. “I had the privilege of reporting from Times Square on New Year’s Eve in 1999, which is one of the highlights of my career. Celebrating the turn of the millennium  (remember how the world was supposed to end on Y2K?)  with several million people was rather extraordinary!”

In mid-2000, Laurie made the move to Fox News. During that time she offered primetime news updates during Special Report with Britt Hume, The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record.

“I also hosted weekend shows and got the opportunity to report from the Middle East for several months over a period of two years,” she explained. “I later joined Geraldo At Large as a news anchor/primary correspondent and had a weekly segment on The O’Reilly Factor called ‘The Dhue Point.’ During my eight years at FNC, I also anchored live hourly updates on Fox News Radio. I was the voice of the official launch!”

It was during her time at Fox News that Laurie made the decision that would ultimately save her life. After battling alcoholism for some 15 years, Laurie made the decision to get sober on March 14, 2007. She chose to go public with her recovery a few years later, and her admission surprised many in the industry who knew Laurie and the quality of her work. She recently opened up to Glenn about her struggle with addiction and her road to recovery:

“Glenn and I have a commonality: we are both in recovery from alcoholism and share the beautiful, challenging journey through recovery,” Laurie said. “He has been nothing but supportive about the work I do in the recovery community, encouraging me to continue my public advocacy, and acknowledging that my battle with addiction has made me a stronger person.”

Laurie left Fox News in 2008, and founded her own media training and communications consultancy, Laurie Dhue Media, which helps people prepare for media interviews of all kinds. She fronted several corporate broadcasts, in addition to co-hosting The PIX 11 Morning News in New York City for several months – an experience that provided its own set of unique challenges. “Local morning news is a completely different experience, very fun but a lot harder than it looks,” Laurie admitted. “I also had to get up before 2AM every day, which was rather horrible.”

At the end of last year, opportunity once again came knocking when Joel Cheatwood, President and Chief Content Officer at TheBlaze, reached out to Laurie. While she never crossed paths with Glenn at Fox News, Laurie was familiar with TheBlaze.

“I first heard about TheBlaze TV when it was still GBTV. After Glenn left Fox News Channel, I, like millions of other people, was curious about his next act. When I learned that he’d created his own online-only network, I thought: That’s smart. He sees the future and it’s not network news,” Laurie said. “In the back of my mind, I thought it would be interesting to meet him and perhaps even become an occasional contributor, if it was a good fit.”

In January, Laurie traveled to Dallas to meet with Glenn and Joel, an experience she described as “an instant meeting of the minds.”

“Glenn’s candor was both surprising and refreshing. There was no intimidation, no ‘trick’ questions, just an honest conversation. Glenn and I talked about many things that morning,” she explained. “We asked each other questions, swapped war stories about our experiences in cable news, and compared philosophies. It just felt like a natural fit for everyone. Then it was a matter of figuring out what opportunity would best fit my strengths.”

Fortunately, it didn't take long for a good fit to come along. “In mid-March, that first opportunity came in the form of hosting the inaugural episode of the new investigative series For the Record,” she said. “I'm honored to host this program and grateful to work with an experienced, knowledgeable and fearless group that's dedicated to bringing viewers the truth, even if it's not pretty.”

For The Record is unlike any other project Laurie has worked on mainly because it is unlike any other show on television.

“For the Record is a return to investigative journalism the way it used to be: probing, unforgiving and fair. The program is built around the simple but essential principle of truth. There's no political agenda; rather, we dedicate ourselves to telling stories with sincerity and integrity,” Laurie explained. “Network news organizations have been known to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours in focus groups designing their shows with their primary considerations being: Who's the audience? What's the main theme? Who will be the key sponsors? For the Record was designed differently. The mandate was simple: find stories the mainstream media either refused to report or simply didn’t have an interest in reporting. We've never had a discussion about target markets or themes. Finding stories has actually been rather easy because so many of them are either disliked or ignored by others. And the truth of the matter is, other outlets are simply too scared to report them.”

The stories may be easy to find, but with topics ranging from sex trafficking to Christian persecution, government surveillance to fallen heroes, the material is both time sensitive and emotionally sensitive.

“For the Record isn't easy to deliver. We've got sources and contributors literally around the world, many of whom have faced grave consequences to provide information,” Laurie said. “When you watch an episode you’ll never notice the late night cross-country flights – and the delays that go along with them – with gear in tow, the cold winds that pierce your body when you’re doing an interview in the dead of winter, the 8AM Saturday script writing sessions that sometimes linger into Sunday mornings. And you're not supposed to.”

The one thing that keeps both Laurie and the For The Record team going is the desire to provide TheBlaze audience and the world with these important stories that simply aren’t available anyplace else.

“Glenn has given us the gift of time, a precious commodity in this business. We take the necessary time and resources to tell the stories that need to be told, the stories no one else is telling,” Laurie said. “Many of our sources and interview subjects won't talk to any other new outlets because they know their words will be twisted. Our stories – in particular, the shows about the NSA whistleblowers and Extortion 17 – are getting plenty of attention. While we're gratified that Washington is sitting up and taking notice, that's certainly not our raison d'etre.”

With Laurie now a member of TheBlaze team fulltime, audiences will soon see her return to her roots – providing news updates throughout TheBlaze TV’s primetime lineup, in addition to afternoon news updates on TheBlaze Radio. She will continue to host For The Record and offer original commentary on various programs. Apart from her work for TheBlaze, Laurie began hosting a weekly talk show on Veria Living TV called Over the Hump in June, which tackles issues of concern to women.

Laurie’s career has taken her all around the industry, and she quite familiar with the trappings and shortfalls that often plague media conglomerates. One of the reasons she was so excited to join TheBlaze was because of the freedom it offered.

“Why did I join TheBlaze? That’s easy: the opportunity to be on the ground floor of something truly groundbreaking doesn’t come along very often, if ever. TheBlaze is growing by leaps and bounds, expanding every day as other media outlets downsize. Oh, and saying no to Glenn Beck is impossible,” Laurie joked. “The slogan, 'The Truth Lives Here’, is bold, just like Glenn. Glenn once told me that there are no sacred cows at TheBlaze except for freedom and decency. He’s both sincere and fearless, a rare combination in news, and isn’t beholden to anyone but the viewers. There’s no parent company telling him what he can and cannot say. I think that’s real freedom of the press!”

Don’t miss Laurie TONIGHT on a brand-new episode of For The Record at 8pm ET only on TheBlaze. Not a subscriber? Start your 14-day free trial HERE.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.