Earlier this year, I reported that the FBI had about 400 terabytes of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. And that’s just the FBI. To date, the DOJ has only released approximately 300 gigabytes of documents responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). That’s less than 0.08 % of the files! Please make sure to restack and share this article. It’s a critical story that needs more attention.

The FBI deleted over 400 terabytes of files

According to a member of the FBI’s elite Computer Analysis Response Team (CART), in 2020, during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, the FBI was mandated to delete about 400 terabytes of Epstein files because their network was being “replaced.” I’m providing my paid subscribers with the documents proving this.

The DOJ has only released 300 gigabytes of files

Under the failed leadership of former Attorney General Pam Bondi and now Todd Blanche, the DOJ has produced far less than 1 percent of the files.

The EFTA was signed into law by President Donald Trump on November 19, 2025. The DOJ had 30 days to make the files publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format. Pretty soon it will have been a year and the DOJ has not produced 99 percent of the files.

The EFTA required the Attorney General within 30 days to make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices, that relate to:

(1)Jeffrey Epstein including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters.

(2) Ghislaine Maxwell.

(3)Flight logs or travel records, including but not limited to manifests, itineraries, pilot records, and customs or immigration documentation, for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity.

(4)Individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings.

(5)Entities (corporate, nonprofit, academic, or governmental) with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks.

(6)Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates.

(7)Internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.

(8)All communications, memoranda, directives, logs, or metadata concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of documents, recordings, or electronic data related to Epstein, his associates, his detention and death, or any investigative files.

(9) Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including incident reports, witness interviews, medical examiner files, autopsy reports, and written records detailing the circumstances and cause of death.

My Top 5 List of the Most Critical Missing Documents

After a cursory review of the millions of documents the DOJ has released so far, I have noticed substantial lapses. But I must forewarn you, my list does not pertain to the hundreds of victims who were sex trafficked. I am more focused on their abusers and Epstein’s co-conspirators.

In my opinion, Epstein is just a cutout in a vast criminal enterprise involved in instigating international proxy-wars, the illegal sale of military weapons, and money laundering. To that end, Epstein and his enablers corruptly influenced the powerful through bribes, blackmail, and extortion.

EFTA §2 (a)(1) & (2) requires production of all unclassified records, documents, and communications, that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

5. PHONE RECORDS: Missing the very basics of any investigation

Simple landline and cellular phone records including call logs and billing statements. The FBI obtained warrants for phone records of some witnesses. But the records are limited in time. Epstein probably had 100 various telephone numbers since the 1980s. Where is all the data? Where are all the wiretaps and recordings? Do we assume that all these years and the FBI not once tapped any phone lines?

The DOJ produced very limited phone records. Where are all the call logs and billing statements? This is critical information that can place Epstein in certain locations, at certain times, and help us determine the extent of his elaborate network of co-conspirators. It’s basic information to any investigation and should be provided.

4. EMAILS: The missing e-mail boxes

Where are all of Epstein’s emails from the early 2000s and 1990s? None were produced. The DOJ only produced emails from two of Epstein’s gmail accounts:

• jeevacation@gmail.com

• jeeproject@yahoo.com

And most of those emails were from 2008 until his death. The coverage between 2001 and 2008 is weak. What about Epstein’s CompuServe accounts? Surely he had at least one in the 1980s. What about these other known boxes:

• jeffrey@jeffreyepstein.org

• jeffreyepstein@live.com

• littlestjeff@yahoo.com

• jeevacation1@me.com

• jeeitunes@gmail.com

• zorroranch@aol.com

• epsteinj@wanadoo.fr

• jeffreye@mindspring.com

• jeffrey6@bellsouth.net

• gmax1@mindspring.com

For paid subscribers, I posted an email scrape I did a partial email scrape of the DOJ’s files.

3. BLACKMAIL VIDEOS AND SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT

It’s obvious that one function Epstein played in the overall criminal enterprise was to blackmail powerful individuals in sexual acts with children. We have a number of verified allegations from victims, including Virginia Giuffre, who have stated they were raped by individuals such as Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Barak. Where are all the recordings?

What about all the high-tech spy gear? The FBI apparently did not find any surveillance equipment? How is that possible? Where are the investigative notes about this? Who searched for it? When? Where? What experience did they have? Did someone in the DOJ or FBI tip Epstein off before he was arrested and the New York townhouse raided? Following his arrest, his people had at least a month to destroy evidence at Little St. James. And of course, the FBI never raided the Zorro Ranch. What about the Paris apartment? Nothing.

2. TAX RETURNS

The DOJ did not release Epstein personal tax returns and attachments. Surely the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS has significant files on Epstein. Where are they? Epstein’s personal and business tax returns, including all of the attachments, from the early 1980s to the present (including the estate’s returns), would provide some of the most critical information about the extent of Epstein’s money laundering network. Surely the FBI has copies of all of Epstein’s tax returns. Let’s see them.

1. ACCOUNTING

The DOJ did not release all of the books and records for Epstein’s businesses. This information will provide us with the details about the intercompany transfers and loans that enabled Epstein to launder money. What accounting software did the “financial genius” use? We should have copies of all those records dating back to the 1980s. This cache of data would enable us to trace the origins of illicit crime proceeds sent to Epstein and the various financial institutions, accounts, trusts, businesses, and other high net worth individuals he washed the money through. It’s FBI 101. Where are the records?

Read more

Andrew Tate, the infamous “king of toxic masculinity” and one of the manosphere’s most divisive figures, have been leaked online. Over 11 terabytes from his company’s medial library have been compromised.

The files were just posted on Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets). The files show the insanity within, including Tate’s podcast files, snippets, AI-library files, editing sandbox, promos, a video archive, and complete productions from titles like Heroes of Wudan, Tales of Wudan, Immortal Dragon, Money Glitch, and Real Life Tate.

Apparently, the trove contains the raw footage that has fueled Tate’s message to an audience of roughly 10 million followers on X (@Cobratate). Tate has been banned from other social media platforms.

DDoSecrets is not making the library available to the public. Access is restricted to journalists and researchers:

To minimize the public spread and availability of Tate’s misogyny and violence, the Tate Media Library is only being made available to journalists and researchers.

DDoSecrets has hosted some of the largest leaks, including from law enforcement agencies, governments, and even the email accounts of Israel’s former prime minister, Ehud Barak. Most of their leaks are available for download without restrictions. Only certain ones are held more closely.

The Tate leaks could not come at a worse time for him and his brother Tristan. Both have spent years fighting against unresolved human trafficking and organized crime investigation in Romania.

Separately, the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service filed 21 charges against the brothers in 2025, including rape, actual bodily harm, and human trafficking.

Tate and his brother Tristan were arrested on July 18 in the United States and are being held in the Miami Federal Detention Center, pending extradition to the UK. The brothers have objected to extradition. But yesterday, a federal judge denied the their request to be released.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is blowing our taxes on his bizarre life mission to prove a conspiracy theory that the U.S. Government funded “dangerous” research in China that resulted in a man-made mutation of the Coronavirus. He claims it was “maybe” leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology as COVID-19.

Mind you, Rand was an ophthalmologist for 17 years before becoming a lifelong politician. He performed LASIK corrections and has no demonstrable experience with infectious diseases. In fact, Paul was sued twice for medical malpractice.

Paul’s primary target is Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served throughout President Trump’s first term as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

President Joseph Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon for any offense he may have committed from January 1, 2014 through January 19, 2025, “arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”

J25 0219 Fauci Pardon

193KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download Joe Biden's Pardon of Dr. Anthony Fauci on February 19, 2025

Download

Paul subpoenaed Fauci to testify at a Senate committee hearing last Wednesday (July 29, 2026). In response to most questions, Fauci asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify and remained silent. Senators Paul and Hawley expressed bombastic, scripted anger—conduct that appeals to electors of the lowest IQ.

The Fifth Amendment privilege does not evaporate upon receipt of a pardon.

The Fifth Amendment declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Paul argued that because Fauci was pardoned, he no longer has the privilege. Senator Josh Hawley argued “when he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege.” Hawley cited to the Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896). But Hawley’s reliance on Brown is inapt.

Apparently, Hawley didn’t learn to read case law at Yale nor while interning for Justice John Roberts.

In Brown, the Supreme Court did not determine whether an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege is waived after receiving a presidential pardon.

Brown, was an auditor for a railway company. He was called as a witness to testify in federal court before a grand jury about certain issues involving other railway officers who had allegedly violated the Interstate Commerce Act of 1893.

The Act had a special provision that no one could be excused from testifying before the Interstate Commerce Commission on the grounds that his testimony would tend to incriminate him. But more importantly, the Act provided that no person could be prosecuted on account of their testimony.

Notwithstanding, Brown refused to testify and asserted the Fifth Amendment, was held in contempt, appealed, and lost.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Fifth Amendment conflicted with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1893’s specific provision that:

no person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or in obedience to the subpoena of the Commission, . . . on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said Commission, or in obedience to its subpoena, or the subpoena of either of them, or in any such case or proceeding.

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Interstate Commerce Act of 1893 protected Brown sufficiently enough such that Fifth Amendment privileges were unnecessary. The Court reiterated prior case law that a statute impermissibly supplants the Fifth Amendment when the statute compels a person to testify but still leaves him subject to criminal prosecution. On the other hand, if the statute affords him immunity against any future prosecution, then the witness must be compelled to testify and the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable.

The Fifth Amendment protects Fauci from incriminating himself with respect to state laws

It seems lost on the Right that a presidential pardon can only provide immunity from federal crimes—not state crimes.

Paul remains adamant, however, that Fauci should be held in contempt for not answering questions in the Senate committee hearing. Perhaps, Paul should stick to being a mediocre politician, and leave the legal work to attorneys.

The reality is yes, Biden granted Fauci sweeping immunities from federal crimes. But Fauci can still reasonably assert the Fifth Amendment on the grounds that he reasonably believes his testimony could incriminate him under state laws. It’s that simple. Fauci’s attorneys can to argue that he reasonably believes his testimony could be used in a criminal prosecution. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177.

The privilege applies strictly when there is a real and appreciable danger of prosecution, rather than a danger of an imaginary, unsubstantial, or sentimental character.

Fauci’s attorneys could easily cite to evidence of Paul’s statements, over the years, where he alleges Fauci has committed a range of unspecified crimes and belongs behind bars.

Moreover, Biden’s pardon does not protect Fauci from being prosecuted for perjuring himself during the Senate committee hearing. The pardon protects Fauci only for conduct leading up to January 19, 2025.

Before Rand began questioning Fauci during the hearing, Rand made a lengthy and bizarre opening statement as if he were a prosecutor in front of a jury.

Rand deployed obviously pre-drawn conclusions that Fauci had committed crimes.

The whole hearing was merely a show that Rand and Hawley could clip farm to market the Republican Party as our saviors who are protecting us from the perils of liberals who have a clandestine relationships with scientists in communist China. Do Republicans still buy that tired old narrative? I guess we’ll find out in the midterms.

Paul issued a subpoena to Dr. Fauci, ordering him to appear to testify last Wednesday (July 29, 2026) before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Paul’s weak threat that Fauci will be held in contempt

Paul’s next move is to call together a vote in his Senate committee on whether the committee should issue a contempt resolution against Fauci. Paul threatened to call the vote tomorrow. A majority of the committee has to vote. If the panel votes in favor, then the issue goes to the entire Senate to vote on.

That’s right, the full Senate, all 100 senators must vote on the issue. 51 of them must vote in favor of certifying contempt. Republicans have a working majority of 53-47 in the Senate, i.e. 45 Democrats and 2 independents. Democrats would likely lead a filibuster on any vote. Assuming that Paul and Hawley could convince their colleagues to certify contempt, the issue would likely be referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. for potential criminal prosecution under 2 USC § 192. If that office brought charges against Fauci, his legal team would obviously have multiple avenues to defend him against issue and the case would work likely weave a slow path up to the Supreme Court. The Senate could also pursue civil enforcement and ask the federal court to compel Fauci to answer questions. Meanwhile, Americans are facing extreme hikes to food, gas, rent, and their health insurance.

China’s Center for Disease Control (CCDC) noticed an increase in COVID-19 cases in late July 2026, and increased the alert level to “moderate prevalence.”1 The uptick has created problems for pharmacies unable to immediately fill prescriptions due to regulatory issues. Some hospitals report low supplies of only one medication. Domestic pharmaceutical manufacturers have activated emergency plans.

Difficulty of obtaining antivirals

In China, you must obtain a prescription for Covid-19 antiviral medications. But most in-store pharmacies are not authorized to sell them. The medications are typically obtained through hospitals or online platforms, which oftentimes come with red tape that makes immediate access impractical.

For infected patients, the main channel for obtaining medication is by visiting the hospital, testing positive on a nucleic acid or antigen test, receiving a prescription, and having it filled at the hospital’s pharmacy.

Alternatively, a patient can sign on to an e-commerce platform, upload their Covid-19 test results, consult with a physician, and obtain an electronic prescription, which is typically filled in 1-2 days. But according to Red Star News, the process can be delayed by regional transfers which “make immediate delivery impossible.” The delays can cause serious risks to patients who need the medications immediately.

Some community hospitals reportedly only have one medication (Mindevi) available in limited quantities.2 This is despite the fact that China has approved six domestically manufactured anti-Covid-19 drugs, plus imports including Pfizer’s Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) and Merck’s Lagevrio (molnupiravir). In China, domestic antivirals cost around $50-100 USD, with imports ranging from $225-300 USD.

The increase in Covid-19 cases has caused several Chinese pharmaceutical companies to activate emergency plans. Demand is certainly on the rise, as the sale of Covid-19 antivirals in China has increased fourfold over the past month.3

Bad timing for Senator Rand Paul’s witch hunt

This month’s uptick in Covid-19 cases is incredibly bad timing for Senator Rand Paul (R-KY),4 who is on a quest to prove that the U.S. government, including Dr. Anthony Fauci covered up the origins of the Coronavirus. Throughout President Trump’s first term, Dr. Fauci served as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Paul issued a subpoena to Dr. Fauci, ordering him to appear to testify last Wednesday (July 29, 2026) before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Paul claims the U.S. government funded “dangerous” gain-of-function research in China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which “may” have originated SARS-CoV-2.

Paul has pushed this theory for years at the expense of taxpayers. He accuses Dr. Fauci of destroying records and misleading lawmakers about whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded such research.

Last Wednesday, Paul and his fellow Republicans grilled Dr. Fauci with pointed questions, which he refused to answer by asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Dr. Fauci claims that Senator Paul has an “unhinged obsession” with him, and that Paul is seeking vindication for his repeated statements that Dr. Fauci should end up “behind bars.”

Many people have spoken out against Paul and other Senate Republicans who continue targeting Dr. Fauci as a scapegoat for Covid-19, which has taken the lives of more than 7 million people worldwide.

Tomorrow, August 5, 2026, Paul intends to conduct contempt hearings against Dr. Fauci.

Subscribe now

Paolo Zampolli is the one who “discovered” Melania Knavs and brought her to America to work as a model. He claims he had introduced Melania to Donald Trump in 1998 at the Kit Kat Club in New York City. But that is not true. Whenever someone comes forward with allegations that Epstein was involved with Melania, Zampolli rears his big head, steps out, and repeats his tired old false narrative.

You see, before Trump was elected in November 2016, gossip circulated that Epstein had dated Melania and eventually introduced her to Donald Trump. Earlier that year, Zampolli popped up in mainstream media to plant a false narrative that he had introduced the Trumps. It was such an important talking point that Zampolli went out of his way to lie for Melania. And Melania absolutely knows Zampolli did not introduce her to Donald.

But back when Epstein was alive (or his whereabouts were known), he believed he had kompromat on the Trumps. For example, in 2018, Epstein sent some notes to “journalist” Michael Wolff: “achilles heal, melania, transcript. melania also focused on dates of porn star, before birth of baron or after. . .”

It’s interesting that Zampolli claims Epstein hated him. But at what point did their differences become irreconcilable? In the 90’s they had a unique affair. Epstein was a patron of Zampolli’s ID Models agency. In 2004, they loved each other enough to partner up—in a failed attempt—to buy the New York branch of Elite Model Management out of bankruptcy.

Perhaps it was a love hate relationship? Zampolli and Epstein had a lot in common: they had “modeling agencies,” loved scouting (i.e. preying religiously) on younger women—if not children—from economically disadvantaged countries, and importing them to become “models.” They had a system worked out for the exploitation of ingénues—from R&D, recruitment, procurement, refinement, marketing, and worldwide distribution.

What caused Epstein to hate Zampolli?

Nowadays, even with Epstein out of the picture, the Trumps still cannot shake off their allegedly dark past with Epstein. And not even with the help of their “close” friends like Zampolli, publicists, or fixers.

The stories are redact-able but not indelible. And one of the most fascinating ones is how did Melania actually meet Trump? Melania and her cohort Zampolli tell two very different stories, both of which cannot be true. Of course the First Lady would never tell a lie. Therefore, Zampolli must be lying.

2016 - Paola Zampolli claims he had introduced Melania to Donald Trump

In June 2015, Trump announced he was running for president. Over the next year, rumors spread about his and Melania’s alleged involvement with Epstein. There were a slew of allegations that Trump and Epstein had raped children. And a slew of allegations about Melania that I discuss in the next section below.

In May 2016 (five months before the 2016 presidential election) Zampolli told Inside Edition that he was the one who introduced Melania to Donald: "I said, 'Melania, please meet my dear friend Donald.'"

Defamation about Melania ahead of the 2016 election

In August 2016, Daily Mail and Daily Online (Mail Media, Inc.) published a number of statements that Melania alleges are false and defamatory, including that she used to be an “elite escort” in the “sex business.” And that her “modeling career” was a “ruse.”

The following month, Melania filed a defamation suit.1 Melania alleged Mail Online knew the statements were false because they had spoken with Paolo Zampolli before publishing the article, and he “emphatically denied” the claims about Melania.

Melania further alleged, “Mr. Zampolli himself told Mail Online, prior to publication, that its claims about Melania Trump and his agency were ‘rubbish.’”

Melania Trump v. Mail Media, Inc. (First Amended Complaint)

339KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is one of two civil lawsuits Melania Trump filed in 2017 wherein she alleged defamation. This one was against Mail Media, Inc. for an article Daily News or Mail Online had published falsely claiming she was among other things, an "elite escort."

Download

Although Melania’s suit resulted in the publisher paying her $2.5 million to settle, the rumors continued to weave their way throughout Trump’s first term and have continued into his present Term.

2026 - Melania’s bizarre press conference about Epstein

On April 9, 2026, Melania held a bizarre press conference at the White House to deny any connection to Epstein. She denied that Epstein had introduced her to Trump and stated that she was never on his plane. “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Melania said.

Many believe the press conference was a preemptive move to get ahead of Amanda Ungaro’s story, which has been trickling out ever since. Ungaro was Zampolli’s partner for twenty years, and the two share a child. According to Ungaro, Zampolli—who is now an official in the Trump administration—directed ICE to arrest and detain her amidst a high-conflict child custody battle. Ungaro, who was deported to Brazil last year, claims Melania turned a cold shoulder to her plight.

Since Melania’s speech, Ungaro has gone public with allegations that Zampolli was abusive throughout their relationship, and that she had flown on Epstein’s private jet when she was only 17 years old. Ungaro also alleges that Zampolli admitted to her on multiple occasions that he was not, in fact, the person who introduced Melania to Trump.

Zampolli shifts his story

On April 9, 2026, Sky News’ Trump100 podcast reached out to Zampolli to ask whether Epstein had introduced Melania to Donald. While the show was recording, Zampolli replied to host Mark Stone. Stone read Zampolli’s response out loud, explaining that Zampolli “is ready to testify before Congress to prove that he was the individual who introduced President Trump to Melania Trump.”

“He is willing to go before Congress to prove that any suggestion that it was Epstein who introduced the Trumps is wrong, and that it was he who did that,” Stone said.

Zampolli then called into the podcast. Although the video of the phone interview appears to have been heavily edited, I transcribed the following directly from the audio-only version:

[ Mark Stone: ]

Hang on, hang on. He’s trying to call me now. I’m live on the podcast.

Hi, Paolo, how are you? I’m actually in the middle of recording our podcast, so I was going to ask you in a minute, if I could just ask you about the Melania thing, you know, what your reaction is to the First Lady’s statement.

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

Uh, the First Lady stands up for the people. Uh. And of course, she has nothing to do with this, whatever, criminal pedophile, like this. I’m ready to testify in front of Congress, if I’m asked to, and say the truth, because this is totally nonsense.

[ Mark Stone: ]

So you’re willing to testify in front of Congress to prove that you were the person that introduced Melania to Donald Trump?

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

Yeah, my friend Mark, this is old news. It is in the book of the White House, the biography the First Lady. This is 30 years ago, we all know that. Of course if i’m needed to say the truth, as an American citizen, I’m here to say the truth, without any problems.

[ Mark Stone: ]

And just remind us, how you did introduce the two of them?

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

Uhm, as you see from page 21 of the First Lady’s book, I met her in Milano. One of the VIP guests was Trump [inaudible]. But he arrived and, my—at the time 30 years ago—girlfriend Edit Molnar was there, sitting with Melania, and saying, Edit “say hi.” Uh, I said, “Donald meet Melania. Melania meet Donald.” And he was with I think Celina whatever…

Everybody knew Epstein. From your monarchs from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, he also knew everybody else!

[ Mark Stone: ]

And you knew him?

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

Well, I was so lucky the guy hated me! They say the only things that they find in Epstein’s files, which my name was mentioned, is “Paolo is trouble. Paolo is trouble.”

[ Mark Stone: ]

Fascinating.

Zampolli’s claim contradicts Melania’s book

Although Zampolli claims all of this is “old news” and that his version of events is supported on page 21 of Melania’s eponymously titled memoir Melania, that is not accurate. Melania wrote nothing about Zampolli introducing her to Donald Trump.

In fact, the only mention of Zampolli in Melania is that she met him at a casting call in Milan when he was the co-owner of Metropolitan Models in New York City. Melania wrote that she found him to be “straightforward” and that he had a “keen interest in [her] portfolio.”

Otherwise, Melania describes a very different version of the night she first laid eyes on Donald.

Melania wrote that one of her girlfriends—whom she does not name—called her up and said: “My boyfriend is throwing a party at the Kit Kat Club tomorrow night[.]”

Presumably, the unnamed girlfriend was Edit Molnar, who was dating Paolo Zampolli at the time.

On that Saturday night, Melania’s girlfriend picked her up in a limo. When they arrived at the Kit Kat Club, Melania “settled upstairs at [their] table in the VIP section[.]”

Melania wrote about her initial interaction with Donald:

I saw my friend wave at someone behind me. When I turned around, I noticed a man and an attractive blonde woman approaching us.

“Hi. I’m Donald Trump,” the man said when he reached my table. “Nice to meet you.” I recognized the name, and I knew he was a businessman or celebrity, but not much else. He put his hand out to shake mine.

“Hello,” I replied. “I’m Melania.”

His eyes filled with curiosity and interest, and, seizing the opportunity, he took the seat next to mine and started a conversation. He asked me about my time in New York, my Slovenian home, and my world travels. It was a moment of connection, a briet encounter that left a lasting impression. It was nice to make a new acquaintance.

He was accompanied by a beautiful date, so I initially dismissed our conversation as mere pleasantries exchanged at an industry event. The music was loud, and the crowd boisterous, making it difficult to truly connect with someone.

Inside Edition reported that Donald Trump arrived at the club with his then-girlfriend, Celina Midelfart. Other sources say that when Midelfart stepped out to the restroom, Trump made his move on Melania. Midelfart had also dated Jeffrey Epstein before Donald Trump—and to say she was all over Epstein's flight logs would be an understatement.

Melania claims: NOBODY introduced her to Donald

Zampolli’s claims directly contradict Melania’s own accounting of events. On May 17, 2005, just a few months after tying the knot, Donald and Melania Trump appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live, where King specifically asked how they met and whether anyone had introduced them.

[ Larry King: ]

Melania Trump, the international cover girl has now joined us. We got uh to discuss the meeting. How did you two meet?

[ Melania Trump: ]

Uh, we met in New York, 1998, it was a fashion week, September 1998.

[ Larry King: ]

The famous fashion week?

[ Melania Trump: ]

The famous fashion week in New York.

[ Larry King: ]

Were you introduced?

[ Melania Trump: ]

Well, no we were both at the same party, and that’s how we met.

Ultimately, either Melania or Zampolli is lying about how she first met Donald. Or, perhaps neither story is true. Be careful how you interpret this: I believe Melania’s account that nobody had introduced her to Donald at the Kit Kat Club.

President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell this week: if Iran assassinates him, he’s left instructions "to just literally bomb them at levels that they’ve never seen before.”

That single statement may be the most dangerous telegraph in modern geopolitics. Because it doesn’t just warn Iran, it hands Israel an enormous incentive to make sure something does happen to Trump.

After all, nothing would trigger the kind of unrestrained American retaliation Israel has been pushing for more effectively than a dead Trump at Iranian hands.

Israeli “Source” Claims Iran is Plotting the Assasination

This week, Wall Street Journal reported an unnamed “Israeli intelligence source” and “U.S. official” warned of an active Iranian plot to assassinate Trump.

Critics are already calling it what it smells like: another false flag operation from a highly motivated and historically opportunistic Israeli government desperate to drag the United States into a wider war with Iran.

Impeccable Timing

On Wednesday, Trump had the chance to fly aboard the new “Qatari One”, i.e. the newly Air Force One gifted to him by the Qatari government. Instead, a reported security threat forced him to ditch the new plane and fly out on the retired model. The optics couldn’t be clearer: even the world’s most heavily protected leader is suddenly vulnerable

Trump later walked back the severity of the threat to Qatari One and downplayed the Israeli intelligence warnings. In classic Trump fashion, he told reporters:

“I’m on every single one of their lists, and so far I guess I’ve been a little bit lucky, but that maybe doesn’t last very long, because that’s the way it goes.”

The Dangerous Incentive Structure

Let’s be brutally honest about what’s happening here. Trump has effectively told the world exactly what button to press to unleash hell on Iran. Israel, which has been lobbying hard for direct U.S. military escalation, now has a crystal-clear roadmap: remove Trump, frame Iran, and watch JD Vance go full scorched-earth.

This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s another example of Trump’s really very high IQ. When you publicly announce the precise conditions under which you’ll hand your allies the war they’ve always wanted, you create perverse incentives. And nobody in the world is better at making others do their work than Israel.

The pattern is familiar: vague, unattributed warnings from “Israeli sources,” conveniently timed security scares, and a steady drumbeat pushing toward wider conflict. Whether the current threat is real or manufactured, the structure of the game rewards those who benefit from escalation.

Trump’s tough talk may play well with his base, but it also paints a massive target on his back—one that aligns perfectly with Israel’s strategic goals. The real question isn’t whether Iran wants Trump dead. It’s who stands to gain the most if he actually is.

In February, AIPAC pushed Congress to pass a standalone bill known as the Futures Act, which would have merged our military with Israel. It was incredibly bad timing—perhaps intentional. You’ll remember at the time, our government was shut down twice because Congress was deadlocked over the federal budget and reforming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

With Congress, AIPAC got sneakier and took on a new strategy: quietly embed their bill within a piece of legislation our Congress is required to pass every year: the military’s budget. That’s right: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was enacted 65 years ago, requires that Congress, on a yearly basis, to pass legislation that determines which agencies are responsible for our defense, recommend funding levels, and set policies on how our taxes are spent on the military.

Every year corporations that profit from war and Pro-Israel PACs provide massive donations to the campaigns of members of Congress so they can maintain their power in our government. In return, our elected officials crank out legislation that uses our taxes to buy their weapons.

This “legal” kickback scheme is structured in part through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which requires Congress to pass a budget every year for our military and nuclear programs. The yearly legislation provides not only a budget but new laws and policies—some of which are secret and contained in a classified addendum.

The yearly NDAA is drafted through the Armed Services Committee with the help of outside lobbyists at AIPAC and weapons industries. This year, H.R. 8800, § 219, formerly § 224, originated from the United States-Israel FUTURES Act, which was originally a standalone bill that AIPAC heavily lobbied for at both the Department of Defense and on Capitol Hill. The core language of that bill was rolled directly into the House version of the NDAA.

By May, AIPAC was able to quietly plant its controversial provisions into the NDAA for fiscal year 2027. Initially proposed as § 224, it added to the confusion when it was shifted to § 219. The title was renamed to the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. (H.R. 8800, §219.) This section installs Israel in every facet of our military’s supply chain.

The bill gives Pete Hegseth the power to pick an agent to sync our military with Israel

§ 219 gives Pete Hegseth the authority to appoint an executive agent (EA) in his Department of War, who will be tasked with a sweeping mandate: sharing America’s trillion-dollar investments in research, development, manufacturing, and procurement directly with the government of Israel.

This covers virtually everything our military programs utilize, including advanced weaponry, defense technology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. And that’s not an exhaustive list.

Israel will gain deep integration into our military and nuclear R&D process—not just within our government, but across private sectors and our academic institutions. It gives Israel oversight into the manufacturing and procurement phases of the U.S. military supply chain.

In practice, § 219 is a blank check for Israel, enabling the Jewish State to bypass the traditional, highly scrutinized multi-billion-dollar foreign aid and welfare packages typically legislated by Congress each year. It also creates significant security risks which would enable Israel to disrupt our military supply chains whenever the Jewish State disagrees with our objectives—which is all the time.

The bill also provides an extension for the reserve stockpile for Israel, and requires the U.S. to cooperate more with Israel on subterranean anti-tunneling issues, and countering unmanned systems in all war fighting domains (§§1221-1223).

Downlaod the current draft of HR 8800's sections relating to Israel and read it for yourself.

70.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is the current draft of HR 8800, Sections 219, 1221-1223 which relate to Israel. Make sure to check Congress.gov for any updates to the draft. This version is current as of July 8, 2026.

Download

The bill creates a grave risk for our military

Embedding a foreign government so deeply into the infrastructure of the U.S. military’s systems introduces severe risks, primarily by creating an unprecedented and unnecessary dependence. The bill opens wide avenues for espionage within our armed forces, fosters potential corruption among defense contractors, and invites severe friction with both global allies and adversaries.

Consider the operational reality: if the U.S. military and Israel ever find themselves with diverging geopolitical objectives, this level of integration grants the ability to sabotage American military maneuvers, compromise supply lines, disrupt advanced weaponry, and manipulate the artificial intelligence models deployed in active warfare.

The bill will provide Israel with microscopic access to detect vulnerabilities in our military supply chain. This will essentially enable the Jewish State to embed its own kill switches in our weapons and computer networks, that can be deployed whenever Israel disagrees with our military objectives.

Furthermore, the bill exposes prime surfaces for Israeli intelligence gathering. This legislative push comes on the heels of major warnings from within the intelligence community. Just last month, the Pentagon raised the threat level regarding Israeli espionage against the U.S. to the highest point in history.

In June, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued a counterintelligence threat assessment that officially upgraded Israel’s threat status to “critical,” specifically highlighting its robust capability to conduct human espionage and surveillance on American soil.

What’s in it for Americans?

Other than a tax bill, Americans get nothing out of it. Unless, of course, you invest in military weapons corporations. The primary beneficiaries of this arrangement are clear. The Israeli government and its domestic military-industrial complex stand to reap massive profits funded directly by American taxpayers. Concurrently, major U.S. defense contractors are positioned to receive massive windfalls by embedding foreign interests into every stage of production—from initial R&D and manufacturing to final procurement. While defense conglomerates already derive immense profit lines from sustained conflict across the Middle East and Ukraine, § 224 ensures those profit margins climb even higher.

But for the everyday citizen, the ultimate question remains: will this policy keep Americans any safer? The structure of the bill suggests the answer is a resounding “no.”

Who are Israel’s shills that introduced the bill?

In May, Armed Services Committee Chairman, Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL) and ranking member, Adam Smith (D-WA), introduced the bill.

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers is a Republican from Alabama who has historically focused his time on expanding our military’s budget, labeling Russia and China as our enemies, and providing unwavering support for Israel. All this is to be expected from a neocon who continues to get elected from donations paid for by Pro-Israel and military defense PACs.

But Rep. Adam Smith, who claims to be a “progressive” Democrat, is far more concerning. He’s not progressive. He’s a Zionist war hawk just like his Republican counterpart Mike Rogers.

Rep. Smith is controlled opposition. He talks a big game about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But this election cycle alone has taken $457,236 from Pro-Israel PACs.

Two months ago, Rep. Smith provided sensational lip service:

Israel is blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza, enabling rapid settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank, and delegitimizing the new governments in Lebanon and Syria with military operations.

Be that as it may, Rep. Smith continues to fund Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and on-going manufactured wars against seven countries. How does he consider himself “progressive” when he keeps green lighting Israel’s war crimes and our participation in on-going manufactured wars in the Middle East and Ukraine?

Leftists should be very worried here. Rep. Smith is not alone, a majority of Democrats in Congress are one and the same. Why do they continue to put Israel’s interests ahead of ours? Well, the numbers don’t lie.

Rep. Smith is routinely one of the top recipients of defense sector campaign contributions in Congress. According to tracking by OpenSecrets and organizations like the Stimson Center, Smith consistently ranks among the top dozen members of Congress for lifetime and active-cycle defense industry contributions.

Over the course of a full two-year election cycle, Rep. Smith’s campaign committee routinely pulls in several hundred thousand dollars from the defense sector overall.

In the first quarter of 2026, Rep. Smith received nearly $130,000 in donations from defense industry PACs and individual aerospace/defense executives. Rep. Smith’s major corporate donors include Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and Northrop Grumman. Smith regularly receives donations from Next-gen defense tech executives, including Anduril Industries co-founder Brian Schimpf.

Who is opposed to it? And how much longer are liberals going to be duped by Democrat leadership in Congress?

Opposition to §219 is primarily led by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, working alongside anti-interventionist Republicans, including Thomas Massie (R-TN), who along with Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) jointly sponsored an amendment to the bill that would have stripoed § 219 from the NDAA.

Last week, the House Rules Committee blocked the amendment from coming to a vote. What is scary is the number of Democrats in Congress who continue to provide unwavering support for Israel while continuing to label themselves “liberal” or “progressive.” Reps. Massie and Khanna will offer the amendment again on July 13.

But How will the AIPAC controlled corporate Democrats in Congress such as Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff, John Fetterman, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Cory Booker, Glenn Ivey, Haley Stevens, and Shontel Brown vote? Will they attempt to merge our military with Israel’s? Of course they will.

That Congress is even considering this initiative is a stark testament to the corruption driving manufactured conflicts—a cycle set in motion the moment our war machine was signed over to private corporations. For nearly a century, war hawks, CEOs, and defense contractors have reaped historic profits under the guise of "capitalism," built entirely on steep incentives to manufacture endless war. It is no surprise that during the Second Red Scare, profiteers weaponized the fear of "communism" to prevent the government from reclaiming control of military production. Yet here we stand on the 250th anniversary of the United States in the third wave of the red scare. This Fourth of July, Donald Trump repeatedly warned against the phantom threat of "communism"—an absurd distraction in a nation with fewer than 20,000 communists, designed to keep us blind to the real corporate and Israeli capture of our military.

Updated July 6, 7:03 PM Pacific

One of the USA’s best players Folarin Balogun received a red card during the last round of the World Cup. The penalty for a red card is twofold: the recipient is ejected from the immediate game and suspended from the next one. Despite being down a player, USA eventually defeated Bosnia and Herzegovina 2-0 and advanced to play Belgium on July 6, in Seattle.

Over the weekend, FIFA made a bizarrely unprecedented decision to reverse the suspension and will allow Balogun to play tonight. Speculation emerged that Trump had influenced FIFA’s president Gianni Infantino to reverse the suspension—speculation that was confirmed by Trump in a press conference this morning.

This has raised a serious question about the strange relationship between Trump and Infantino, whether Trump’s conduct violates FIFA’s statutes, and whether it violates criminal laws that prohibit influencing the outcome of sports.

Additionally, Belgium lodged a new complaint this morning to FIFA that the USA should be suspended from the World Cup entirely. Belgium just demanded that the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland to kick USA out of the World Cup if Balogun plays. Belgium’s request is now mooted by the fact that they defeated USA this evening. USA is officially out of the World Cup tournament.

Balogun receives a red card

On July 1, 2026, USA played against Bosnia and Herzegovina in Round 32 of the World Cup. But in the latter half of the game USA’s Folarin Balogun’s foot stepped on the ankle of Bosnia defender Tarik Muharemović. Initially, when the two collided, FIFA Referee Raphael Claus waved play. But then FIFA’s new Video Assistant Referee (VAR) flagged the contact for a possible red card. Referee Claus reviewed the play and issued a red card against Balogun.

There is a genuine dispute as to whether a red card should have been issued. First, the referee did not initially flag the play. USA’s coach Pochettino called it “a normal action that happened by accident . . . Never a red card.” ESPN argued that this was not a red card offense. While the contact looked bad in slow motion, it did not appear intentional. But critics argue that Balogun’s cleats making contact with the other player’s ankle is dangerous and intent does not matter.

Please take a moment to type your email address in the box below and subscribe for free.

FIFA reverses Balogun’s suspension from the next game

What happened next, however, is more remarkable. Over the weekend, on Sunday, July 5, FIFA announced it was overruling Balogun’s one-game suspension and will allow him to play against Belgium tonight. Belgium challenged the decision but FIFA’s Appeal Committee dismissed it.

The Royal Belgium FA made a statement on July 6:

To date, the Royal Belgian FA has still not received any grounds for this decision, nor has it received the information it has been requesting since the start of this procedure.

FIFA has yet to provide us with a copy of the decision and the motivation declaring the player eligible as well as the referee’s report—this is a breach of FIFA regulations.

The RBFA has informed the United States Soccer Federation that it contests the eligibility of the player, should the player be listed on the referee’s team sheet. This leaves all further actions open.

Trump admits he asked FIFA to review the play

On Monday morning, July 6, Trump boasted, during a press-conference, that he had contacted FIFA:

So, I saw the play and I’m a person that loves sports, and was a good athlete, and I understand sports really well. Really well. And that wasn’t a foul. That wasn’t even an infraction. That was two guys running full speed, that happened to crash into each other. You can’t take your foot and properly place it on somebody else’s foot, when you’re going. No these were two great athletes that got tangled up. And this referee, who is a little bit suspect, if you check his, if you check his past, I don’t want to say that because I don’t want to create any controversy, but very suspect. If you’d like I will provide you with a past, he made a call that nobody could believe, even, you know people on the other side.

And you know it’s very interesting they don’t show him in slow motion. And I never realized that. I never heard of that before, that they’re not allowed to review in slow motion, ‘cause it’s so different, because you’ll take one little quarter of a second and you’ll see that a hand is touching a neck and you’ll see something. Whereas when you see it in fast motion, it will look like two guys collided, which is really what happened they got uh sort of entangled.

He didn’t do anything wrong, and he’s our best player or one of our best players, a very vital player and he gave him a red card. I didn’t know it meant that much. Then I started hearing he can’t play in the next game, at least in the next game.

I said boy that’s a big, you know, if it happened to another player, it would have been unfair but when they take your best player or just about, they have some great players. But and they say you can’t play, that’s very unfair.

You know, it’s one thing to penalize someone for the game, but how do you penalize them for a game that has been played yet? It’s very unfair you can’t do that.

So yes, I asked for a review by FIFA I spoke to a man who’s highly respected and by the way whose level of respect has gone up tenfold. And it was good before this started.

You know, he really pushed it in this country. I’m the one that got them to do it it was not Biden Biden was asleep I got him to do in fact it was very sad because I got him to do it and if the progression was normal I would have been retired the the

Democrats are saying man we should have just let him we would have had him gone but I said you know the saddest thing is I got the Olympics and I got the World Cup I tried to claim 250 years too but that didn’t work they said that one is what it is. No, I tried but it didn’t work. Wait, wait, so, I got him. I’m was so proud of it and then I realized that you know I wouldn’t be president during that because I would have been out of office by that time.

I felt badly. The beautiful thing about what I did is I ran. I thought of it. And then all of a sudden I realized, you know I just got the Olympics, and I totally got that myself. And I just got FIFA. I got that myself we get a little piece gave a little piece to Mexico.

FIFA President Infantino tweets about the decision

Infantino says that the decision was not his but rather of FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. On Monday morning July 6, Infantino tweeted:

I have seen the public comments regarding the decision of the independent FIFA Disciplinary Committee related to the suspension of Folarin Balogun, and I would like to reiterate a fundamental principle of FIFA’s governance.

FIFA’s judicial bodies are independent. They operate autonomously, apply the FIFA Disciplinary Code, and decide cases based on the applicable regulations and the specific facts before them. Their independence is essential to the credibility and integrity of football, and this must always be respected.

Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the FIFA World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues. During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how FIFA’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold.

I read the decisions of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree.

What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them. Whether we personally like a decision or not is irrelevant. Respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of FIFA at all times.

Fans argue Trump’s interference in the game violates FIFA’s own statutes

Critics argue Trump’s conduct violates FIFA’s statutes which directly prohibit government interference and FIFA should exercise its discretion to suspend USA football federation from the World Cup.

Federal law prohibits sports bribery

The USA played their last match against Bosnia and Herzegovina on July 1, 2026 at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. On July 6, USA will play Belgium in Seattle. This triggers federal jurisdiction and possibly California and Washington state law.1 Note that the federal bribery law 18 USC § 224 expressly does not displace state law.

§ 224 criminalizes carrying into effect, attempting to, or conspiring with any other person to carry into effect “any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest[.]”. The statute is punished by a fine or up to five years in prison.234

What is the bribe?

The big question is what if anything did Donald Trump give to FIFA and/or Gianni Infantino? Was there any quid pro quo? This morning, Trump boasted that he brought the World Cup to the U.S. Did Trump or anyone close to him bet on USA to win the tournament?

Trump and FIFA President Infantino definitely have an unusually cozy relationship that has been repeatedly criticized—over the past two years—by other teams.

Gianni Infantino has repeatedly appeared at the White House, including a cameo in First Lady Melania Trump’s recent movie “Melania.”

In 2018, Infantino met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the 2026 World Cup. U.S. Soccer Federation president Carlos Cordeiro was also at the White House. Infantino and Cordeiro both gave gifts to Trump. Infantino gave Trump the infamous blue FIFA jersey with his name on the back, a referee’s book, with yellow and red cards. Cordeiro gave Trump a U.S. jersey with the number “45” on the back, i.e. when Trump was the 45th president.

In 2019, Infantino met with Trump and Jared Kushner at the White House.

In 2025, Infantino joined Trump on his tour of the Middle East with Mohammed bin Salman, causing the FIFA Congress in Paraguay to walk out in protest. UEFA condemned Infantino for “private political interests.” Norway’s football federation similarly attacked Infantino for “putting the game second.”

In 2025, Infantino gave President Trump the FIFA Peace Prize at the Kennedy Space Center.

But pinpointing the graft, if any, in this situation could be difficult. If anything the appearance of impropriety between Trump and Infantino severely undermines the integrity of FIFA, which has historically been plagued by allegations of widespread corruption.

Although § 224 is a specialized sports bribery statute, general federal bribery principles inform what constitutes “bribery” under the law. Bribery requires a quid pro quo, meaning a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 119 S. Ct. 1402 (1999).

For bribery, there must be a quid pro quo, a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2004).

The government is not required in a bribery case to prove an expressed intention or agreement to engage in a quid pro quo. Quinn, at 666. Nor must the government prove that the defendant intended for payments to be tied to specific official acts or omissions. Id.

Rather, it is sufficient to show that the payor intended for each payment to induce the official to adopt a specific course of action. Quinn at 666. The quid pro quo requirement is satisfied so long as the evidence shows a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor. Id.

The record must support all of the elements of a paradigmatic quid pro quo bribe, including testimony regarding the deal or arrangement and evidence of actions in exchange for the bribe. United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2013). There must be proof of a causal connection between the bribe-giver’s actions and the recipient’s conduct. Id.

The definition of “thing of value” in the context of federal bribery statutes is interpreted broadly to cover both tangible and intangible items, including those with only subjective value, so long as the recipient believes the item is valuable. United States v. Calk, 87 F.4th 164 (2d Cir. 2023).

A “thing of value” may cover subjectively valuable intangibles, such as political assistance, including endorsements, guidance, and referrals. Calk, at 164. The broad statutory language and the public policy objective of deterring improper influence support this expansive interpretation. Id.

Note that presidential immunity would not likely apply in this situation. Another hurdle for enforcing federal criminal statutes against President Trump is that he has wielded unparalleled control over the U.S. Department of Justice and recently appointed his personal criminal defense attorney Todd Blanche to serve as the U.S. Attorney General. There is zero chance that federal prosecutors under Trump’s DOJ would seek to indict Trump for bribery or wire fraud. But there is always an option for California and Washington state authorities to investigate and potentially prosecute under their own laws.

Update: tonight, July 6, Belgium had a significant 4-1 victory over USA. The fact that Belgium won does not impact the potential for criminal liability.

President Donald J. Trump has opened the White House lawn for Freedom 250, a mixed martial arts battle presented by the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). The event took place on Trump’s 80th birthday and the nation’s 250th.

Is UFC’s Freedom 250 a gift to Trump? Or, is Trump paying a kickback to his talent agent Ari Emanuel at William Morris Endeavor?

Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, all have one thing in common: they are represented by William Morris Endeavor.

Spencer Pratt loses election

This week disgraced has-been Spencer Pratt lost his bid to become the next mayor of the City of Los Angeles. Councilwoman Nithya Raman knocked Pratt out of the primary. Raman and will square off against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in November.

Republican pundits including all the way up to Donald Trump, without any factual basis, claim the election was rigged. What can progressives learn from Spencer Pratt’s campaign? It was a dirty campaign. Pratt was hyped by a dark publicity machine comparable to Trump’s. That makes sense when you realize both men are represented by William Morris Endeavor. Pratt failed to disclose the KSS Pratt Children’s Family Trust of 2007. Why didn’t Pratt report the income he received from GoFundMe under the pretext that he lost everything in the Palisades Fire?

After being eliminated from the election, Pratt released a threatening video about Los Angeles. Unfortunate for us, it looks like Pratt doesn’t get the picture yet demands more narco supply.

TikTok permanently bans L3G4L

L3G4L posted a video report about House Democrats deposing Bill Gates this week about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Mainstream media incorporated the narrative that Gates wants you to believe: that he had cheated on his wife and Epstein exploited it for leverage. Why does legacy media gloss over the critical questions: what did Gates get out of his relationship with Epstein? What about Melanie Starnes Walker? Epstein groomed her since 1992. Walker became a neurosurgeon and a director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Walker married Steve Sinofsky, President of Microsoft Windows Division. Epstein had a much deeper relationship with Microsoft than simply finding STD meds for Bill Gates. What about Gates’s former Chief Science Advisor Boris Nikolic? Epstein named Nikolic the executor of his estate.

Ashley St. Clair outs her baby’s trillionaire daddy Elon Musk

Musk is became a trillionaire this week after his company SpaceX’s initial public offering. A conspiracy theory emerges about Elon Musk’s plan for the future. Musk claims that no one will have to work in the future. Is it because he plans to replace all humans with robots, except for his bloodline?

Mainstream Media’s Misdirection

According to reports from outlets like CNN, Gates testified in Congress today that Epstein attempted to use knowledge of an extramarital affair as leverage against him. But legacy media and Congress rarely digs past the surface-level billionaire drama.

Gates gave a press conference before testifying. CNN reported that Gates met Epstein in 2011. And the DOJ released emails between the men about having breakfast in 2014. CNN explained all of the interaction with Gates were after 2008, when Epstein was convicted on “prostitution related charges.” CNN did not bother to mention Epstein was convicted for soliciting prostitution from a child.

“It’s factually true I went to dinners. You know, I never went to the island, never met any women, so the more that comes out, the more clear that it will be, that although the time was a mistake, it had nothing to do with that kind of behavior.” Gates told Nine News in February.

CNN says Epstein’s emails suggests he had facilitated sexual encounters for Gates. For example, in an email he never sent, Epstein wrote that he had helped Gates get STD drugs “in order to deal with the consequences of sex with Russian girls.” Gates claims Epstein’s allegations were false.

CNN relayed that Gates claims his relationship with Epstein lasted from 2011 to 2014. But CNN did not discuss Melanie Walker, the woman Epstein reportedly met in 1992 and supported through medical school. Walker later became a director at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and married Steven Sinofsky, the former president of Microsoft’s Windows division.

Subscribe now

Over the years—and even as a married woman—Walker maintained a close and flirtatious relationship with Epstein.

In 2011, Walker and Gates’s then-Chief Science advisor Boris Nikolic reportedly introduced him to Epstein.1

Epstein negotiates Steve Sinofsky’s severance from Microsoft

In 2012, weeks after Microsoft 8 was released, Sinofsky abruptly left Microsoft. Rumors circulated that there was an internal war between Sinofsky and Microsoft’s Chief Executive Steven Ballmer.

Sinofsky wrote some parting words to Microsoft’s employees:

Some might notice a bit of chatter speculating about this decision or timing. I can assure you that none could be true as this was a personal and private choice that in no way reflects any speculation or theories one might read - about me, opportunity, the company or its leadership. . .

Steve Sinofsky's Departure letter to Microsoft employees

469KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Melanie Walker sent Epstein a copy of this letter.

Download

A couple months later, Sinofsky visited Epstein in New York. Epstein helped Sinofsky, behind the scenes, to negotiate a severance from Microsoft.

In 2014, Walker warned Gates to keep a “healthy distance” from Epstein. Perhaps it was too. A few years later, Gates reportedly hooked up with Sinofsky’s wife Melanie Walker, M.D.

Bill Gates’s advisor Boris Nikolic (Epstein helped negotiate is severance too)

Mainstream media won’t mention how Gates’ former chief science advisor, Dr. Boris Nikolic, found himself named as a backup executor in Epstein’s will. Instead, the public is fed a sanitized narrative: a brilliant Harvard dropout turned global philanthropist who somehow needed a shadow-dwelling fixer to navigate his personal life.

It feels less like a complete news report and more like a limited hangout—exposing minor indiscretions to shield a far uglier truth.

However, there has been some more recent reporting in the Wall Street Journal about how Gates has promised to invest millions in Boris Nikolic’s start up. But in 2013, there was a falling out among Gates, his wife Melinda, and Nikolic, who begged Gates to continue working. Nikolic quickly cozied up to Epstein, who worked behind the scenes to negotiate a severance package for him. Epstein helped Nikolic gain some leverage in negotiating a severance by concentrating on Gates’ marital issues with Melinda.

“I hope you are able to convince Melinda to allow me to continue doing my job, a job you described as I could not have done better.” Epstein wrote in a draft suggestion to Nikolic.

The deeper questions remain unasked by major networks: Who did Epstein actually work for? Who enabled him?

While the horrific reality of his sex trafficking network demands relentless coverage, focusing solely on the salacious details obscures a larger picture. Independent research frequently points toward the military-industrial complex, illicit weapons trading, and intelligence networks that benefit global superpowers and defense contractors.

But asking those questions online is becoming an extinct luxury. One hour after my Gates video went live, TikTok permanently banned my account @L3G4L_com.

The video had merely 241 views, 1 share, 23 hearts, and 3 comments. But that was enough to receive a permaban. TikTok has become a wasteland of bots that report you for oppositional viewpoints.

I have had the account for about six months. I obtained a quarter of a million likes, about 11,000 followers, and millions of views. All that time, money, and effort: gone permanently. No chance for an appeal. No way to speak with TikTok.

I have heard of politicians including Ro Khanna and Gavin Newsom mention content creator rights. Read Rep. Ro Khanna’s press release re: content creators. I’m more interested in that now than ever.

The censorship didn’t happen overnight; it was a systemic tightening of the digital noose. Not long ago, TikTok functioned as a rare haven for independent journalists documenting the realities of global conflicts, including raw, unfiltered footage of civilian casualties and Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.

Then came the bipartisan squeeze. In a rare display of total unity, the U.S. Congress—Democrats and Republicans alike—voted to force TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest its American operations or face a total ban.

The legislation paved the way for U.S. corporate oversight, and the platform’s landscape shifted dramatically.

Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, the algorithm changed. Content critical of foreign policy or Zionism began to vanish, while institutional Trumpian narratives were pushed to the forefront.

Masterclass in TikTok Strikes

My journey to a permanent ban was a masterclass in arbitrary content moderation.

My first strike was for posting a photo of Jeffrey Epstein’s passport, which was obtained directly from public documents released by House Oversight Committee Democrats. Appeal denied.

My second strike was for sharing a video of commentator Alex Jones discussing public photographs of Senator Lindsey Graham at Disney World. The strike was for content relating to “violent terrorist.” Appeal denied. Believe me, I do not like Alex Jones either. But Larry Ellison awfully loved Lindsey Graham.

My third strike, a satirical video highlighting a dark irony from a White House Press Secretary briefing. Appeal denied.

After the third strike, a warning banner appeared on my profile. The Gates video was simply the final straw.

I didn’t expect to last forever on a platform that had already heavily throttled my reach. In many ways, TikTok’s era as a frontier for free expression is dead.

Structurally, it is no longer a leader. Platforms like InstaGram currently command a significantly larger, more stable footprint, yielding millions more views per month without the same erratic censorship. Moving forward, my energy belongs where the speech is still allowed to breathe. But I’m cautious because I am certainly no fan of Mark Zuckerberg or Meta’s sketchy origins.

What happened to my account is a localized symptom of a much larger disease. When the U.S. government claims the authority to dictate who owns a communications platform, it inherently claims the power to decide which speech is permissible. This isn’t a partisan failure—both political parties hand-delivered this tool of digital suppression. Yes, I am talking to you Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi. Here’s a list of every member of Congress who voted to ban TikTok. It’s important that we remove these individuals from office. They put Israel above us.

Pro-Israel TikTok

They didn’t just ban an account today; they codified the boundaries of what you are allowed to know about Israel.

Legacy media will not report much about the girl Epstein groomed in 1992, Melanie Starnes Walker, who Epstein supported through med school. After becoming a neurosurgeon, Walker became a director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Walker also married Steve Sinofsky, President of the Windows Division of Microsoft.

Additionally, Bills Gates’ Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Boris Nikolic, magically found his way into Epstein’s will.

But Gates and the media continues to sell the story of him as Harvard dropout, turned one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the word. Somehow he needed Epstein to get laid? Are we expected to be believe that?

Media will never focus on the critical issues: who did Epstein work for? Who were his enablers? Do not get me wrong. The sex trafficking and other gross abuses of human rights should always be reported on. But Gates having sex with Russian and Asian prostitutes is a limited hangout.

If you do your own research you will likely come to the same conclusion: Epstein worked for the military-industrial complex primarily in the illicit weapons trades.
His work clearly benefited Israel, the Pentagon, and weapons shareholders.

Land of the Free

TikTok used to be a safe haven for independent journalists who live streamed Israel’s systemic genocide of Palestine. Day after day we saw Israel killing Palestinian journalists on TikTok. We saw the white phosphorus. We saw the war crimes. We saw the images that do not resonate the western media dominated by Zionist ownership.

Out of nowhere, U.S. Congress banned TikTok. It was unanimous, approved by Republicans and Democrats alike. They voted to divest TikTok from its existence as a Singaporean entity owned by ByteDance of China. The law required TikTok be banned or authorized the U.S. President to approve of the sale to an American entity. That’s when Zionist Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle swooped in and took over the U.S. version of TikTok.

In the time leading up to Ellison’s newfound control, TikTok changed dramatically. TikTok was doing favors for Trump leading up to the 2024 presidential election. It was too obvious. TikTok began censoring Palestinian voices and opponents of Zionism. TikTok did not pull down pro-Zionist content.

TikTok typically gives three strikes. My first strike was for posting an image of Jeffrey Epstein’s passport which I obtained from the House Oversight Democrat’s release of certain documents from their files. Appeal denied.

My second strike was for posting a video of Alex Jones innocently discussing pictures of Linsday Graham holding a princess saber at Disney World. Appeal denied.

My third strike was for a humorous video I made about White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt joking minutes before the shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner that "there will be some shots fired tonight in the room.” Appeal denied.

After receiving three strikes, TikTok places a notification on your profile view that warns your account is close to being suspended.

Today, an hour after I posted my video report about Bill Gates, TikTok informed me that my account is permanently banned. There are no options to appeal. I have the option to download all of my content. That’s all.

I did not expect to last on TikTok, which has heavily throttled my videos. TikTok is a dying cause. I enjoyed the user interface and so many new friends. But the reality is, InstaGram has a much larger audience and I receive an average of 5 million more views per month on it.

It is far better to spend time focusing on social media platforms that do not suppress my content.

So much for the First Amendment, i.e. the most important amendment. The U.S. Congress and President get to direct who owns the social media platform, who in turn gets to choose what speech is favorable. To be expected. I cannot emphasize enough how both Republicans and Democrats must be blamed equally for divesting us from speaking about Israel’s war crimes including genocide.

Subscribe now

After the Palisades Fire he claimed that he lost everything. One of Spencer and his wife Heidi Montag’s friends set up a GoFundMe that collected over $143,000 in donations from their fans.

The truth is, when the fires broke out, Speidi escaped to their $6 million dollar, second-home, a beach front mansion near Montecito in Santa Barbara County. They continued to live a lavish lifestyle as documented on their own TikTok accounts.

I dug deep and found that Pratt had a wealthy grandfather William Chauncey Pratt Jr., the wealthy founder and CEO of Kelly-Clarke, Inc.—the largest food distribution company in the Western United States. He died in 2005. Spencer did not write much about him in his recent memoir. I thought that was unusual. Spencer wrote at length about nearly everyone other successful person around him. But not grandaddy Pratt.

I began digging into real property records in Los Angeles County. That’s where I found several properties passed on by Pratt’s grandfather William Pratt Jr., to his father William Pratt III, then on to Pratt and his sisters.

The KSS Pratt Children’s Family Trust was created in 2007 by Spencer’s parents. They named the trust “KSS” after their three children: Kristen, Spencer, and Stephanie.

Spencer’s parents transferred a one percent interest in each property to the trust in 2007, to take advantage of changes to gift taxes in the revenue code.

At the same time, Spencer’s parents created three LLCs, one for each property. They transferred the remaining 99 percent interest to each LLC. And eventually, they terminated the LLCs.

Presumably each child holds a one third of the shares of each LLC but the Pratts are not required to disclose the membership units to the Secretary of State. Regardless, the LLCs are ghosts now.

On January 30, Pratt filed his initial disclosure but did not disclose the existence of the his family trust or his GoFundMe income.

Yet Pratt verified that the disclosures were “True and complete” under penalty of perjury.

Later that week, Pratt filed an amended Schedule A-2 which included various business entities he and his wife Heidi Montag had received income from. However, Pratt still did not disclose the family trust or GoFundMe.com income.

26 0130 Spencer Pratt's Original Disclosure Form 700

543KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

26 0203 Spencer Pratt's First Amendmendment To Disclosure Form 700

466KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

On May 5, I published my podcast Spencer Pratt: Loser (Listen Now) , and revealed my findings that he had withheld the trust from his financial disclosures.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)—which is tasked with handling financial disclosures for public officials—got involved.1

On May 28, days before the June 2 election, Pratt amended his disclosures to include the trust and three properties that he had originally hid. You can download his most recent amendment below for free.

26 0528 Spencer Pratt's Second Amendment To Disclosure Form 700

587KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Pratt listed the address of the KSS Pratt Children’s Trust of 2007 as his parent’s house that was destroyed in the Palisades Fire, i.e. 333 Lombard Ave, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272.

Pratt disclosed that he is the trustee of the three properties, including the two apartment complexes located at 823 5th Street and 1307 15th Street in Santa Monica. And the $6 million dollar beach front mansion at 4513 Del Mar Avenue, Carpenteria, Santa Barbara County, where Pratt and his wife Heidi Montag presently reside.

Last month, TMZ reported that Pratt was staying at the luxury Bel-Air Hotel. Pratt falsely told TMZ, “I don’t live in an Airstream, I don’t live in a [sic] Santa Barbara, I don’t have a house!”

Surprisingly, when Pratt amended his disclosures, he did not include the $143,000 in funds him and his wife Heidi have received from GoFundMe.

The infamous duo nicknamed “Speidi” took to social media and gained a million followers overnight by claiming to have lost everything in the Palisades Fire.

Subscribe now

Pratt claimed on TikTok that when his and his parents neighboring homes burned down, they lost it all and now have “nothing.” But that statement was false.

One of Pratt’s “close” friends Brandon Johns started a GoFundMe for Speidi. Johns is apparently a wealthy fanboy from Georgia who met Spencer and Heidi through TikTok.

Their GoFundMe page has raised more than $143,000. But while the donations came rolling in, Speidi continued living in the lap of luxury. They stayed at Rosewood Miramar Beach, a high-end luxury hotel on the beach in Santa Barbara. Its cheapest rooms run more than $3,200 per night. Heidi boasted on TikTok that they were eating dinner at a table with a $5,000 minimum.

TMZ reported that over the past month, Pratt has been living at the Hotel Bel-Air. When Harvey Levin interview Pratt on Wednesday, Pratt piped back at Harvey Levin and argued, ““I don’t live anywhere!”

Pratt who is vying to be the next mayor of Los Angeles wants his followers and potential voters to believe that he has nothing. In fact, he did not reveal on his mandatory financial disclosures for office, nor his generational wealth, that he is trustee of the KSS Pratt Family Trust of 2007, nor that it owns two apartment complexes in Santa Monica, nor that it owns the oceanfront mansion they currently reside in near Montecito.

Pratt did not disclose that he recently borrowed $2 million against his fire damaged lot in Pacific Palisades. He is in no way the strapped for cash. Yet he and Heidi continue to rake in cash from their GoFundMe.

Please restack this story and comment on it. It goes a long way. And please do the same on my TikTok and Instagram channels. Pratt’s campaign has unfairly resorted to using bot farms to eat up the narrative on social media and sequester opposition. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to get any attention for independent investigations like this.

Please also make sure subscribe to my free podcast L3G4L and listen to the recent podcast Spencer Pratt Loser.

I also have a companion article Spencer Pratt Loser.

Pratt did not list the KSS Pratt Children’s Trust of 2007 nor any of the property held by the trust.

In 2007, Pratt’s parents created the KSS Pratt Children’s Trust of 2007 and transferred at four properties to the trust. They named Spencer and his two sisters as co-trustees of the trust. Today, the trust still owns at least three of the properties, which happened to be two apartment complexes in Santa Monica and a beachfront home in Carpinteria, California, where Spencer presently resides.

Here is a grant deed transferring a partial ownership interest in the apartment complex located at 823 5th Street, Santa Monica to the trust.

Here is a another grant deed transferring a partial ownership interest in the apartment complex located at 1307 15th Street, Santa Monica, to the trust.

Pratt has chastised liberals as “socialists” and “communists” and blames them and current Mayor Karen Bass for homelessness in Los Angeles. Pratt claims he will solve homelessness by kicking everyone off the streets and forcing them into drug rehab. But requiring taxpayers to foot the bill for mandatory drug rehab prisons is a form of socialism.

Pratt ignores that the primary cause of homelessness is lack of affordable housing, not drugs. Pratt ignores that the primary cause of homeless is his family’s greed and significant ownership of luxury properties, apartment complexes, and commercial real estate.

In California, property is heavily concentrated in the hands of the wealthy class and corporations that continue to reap massive revenues from generational wealth that causes exorbitant rents.

This podcast is a companion to my lengthy article which provides significantly more detail and the supporting evidence. Click here if you want to read the full article.

If you would rather listen to the podcast on a different platform, it is widely distributed and freely available on: iTunes, Spotify, and Amazon Music, and almost every other service you can name.

Summary of this Episode

In this episode, I reveal my special investigation and reveal big questions about Spencer’s mandatory financial disclosures for office and two questionable PPP loans his company Pratt Productions, Inc. received during the Coronavirus pandemic.

I dig deep into the background, finances, and character of one of LA’s most controversial mayoral candidates. What I found raises serious questions.

The Financial Disclosures Pratt is required by law to file a Form 700 disclosing his financial interests as a candidate for public office. I discovered that Pratt appears to have failed to disclose a family trust on those mandatory forms. And then there are the PPP loans — Pratt’s company, Pratt Productions, Inc., received pandemic relief funds during COVID-19, with Pratt claiming he had 10 employees at the time. Ed investigates whether the information Pratt provided to obtain those loans was accurate.

The Memoir I read Pratt’s recently published memoir — and found more questions than answers. Pratt openly brags about his habitual abuse of drugs and alcohol, including mairjuna, ephedrine, benzos, and acid. Pratt glorifies the lifestyle.

But there’s something conspicuously missing: his grandfather. Why does Pratt hide who is grandfather was? William Chauncey Pratt Jr. Why does Spencer Pratt barely mention him? What is Spencer hiding about his family’s background?

The Conspiracy Theories & Paranoid Thinking Pratt has been publicly blaming the devastating Palisades Fire — which destroyed his own home — on DEI initiatives. I fact-check Pratt’s claims and exposes the misinformation embedded in his campaign. This isn’t the only conspiracy theory Pratt has promoted. His pattern of paranoid, unfounded thinking raises real concerns about his fitness for office. Pratt worships Alex Jones and has appeared on his show multiple times.

The Personal Allegations Pratt’s own sister has alleged that he committed domestic violence against her — and that he introduced her to hard drugs when she was just 15 years old. She has also alleged that he was involved in a cult. These are serious accusations that deserve serious scrutiny.

Oh, and this: Pratt and his wife Heidi Montag once blew through $10 million dollars because they genuinely believed an asteroid was going to destroy the Earth. Pratt and his wife Heidi Montag believed in the Mayan Apocalypse! They believed crazed star killers were going to unalive them. So, they escaped to Costa Rica.

The Propaganda Machine Who is funding and promoting Spencer Pratt’s mayoral run? Ed pulls back the curtain on the powerful interests behind Pratt’s campaign — including connections to Omnicom’s Octagon Entertainment and William Morris Endeavor. And why is progressive attorney and Internet personality Ben Meiselas’ Los Angeles Magazine publishing what looks like propaganda on Pratt’s behalf?

Visit us on:

L3G4L.COM - CONFIDENTIAL

Independent investigative journalism, legal analysis, and opinion.

By Edward M. Lyman, Esq.

@L3G4L.US on Instagram

@L3G4L.com on TikTok

@l3g4l_com on X

This is my lengthy special investigation into Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt. I did the deep dive and found some omissions on his mandatory financial disclosures required for public office. I question the PPP loans Pratt Productions, Inc. received during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is suing the city and more than a dozen other defendants for the loss of his palatial home in the Palisades Fire. He wants the taxpayers to foot the bill. I examine his habitual use of and glorification of drugs. Why does Los Angeles Magazine—owned by Ben Meiselas and Marc Geragos—publish lies false statements about Karen Bass while pumping Spencer Pratt? Why do traditional media outlets like NBC’s Today publish positive features about Pratt while ignoring his sisters allegations that he had committed domestic violence? I unlock the propaganda machine behind him, including Omnicom’s Octagon Entertainment and William Morris Endeavor. This article has a companion podcast available on iTunes, Spotify, and Amazon.

Spencer Pratt announces his candidacy

Five months ago I could not tell you who he is. But on the one year anniversary of the Palisades Fire local news plastered videos of Pratt on social media showing an overweight bro dressed like douchebag in a black trucker’s hat with a knock off Thrasher logo that read: “They Let us Burn! Gavin Newsom.”

Spencer Pratt’s eyes were hidden behind an overpriced pair of tacky sunglasses while he read a script from his iPhone to announce that he was running to be the next mayor of Los Angeles. He blames the Palisades Fire on DEI!

I asked a friend displaced by the fires, who the fuck is Spencer Pratt? She told me he was a washed personality on MTV’s reality series “The Hills.” The show was about Lauren Conrad who moved to L.A. to pursue a career in the fashion industry. Spencer dated her roommate Heidi Montag. His relationship grew into a recurring spot on the show. Spencer and Heidi eloped in 2008 and were infamously dubbed “Speidi” by irrelevant gossip rags.

When I began researching Spencer, I quickly figured out that he is a Pro-ICE. I called him out on Twitter/X. And he blocked me! This triggered me to check the comments on his social media posts. Almost all of the comments on his posts are abnormal praise, seemingly generated from bot farms. If Spencer was an elected government official (thankfully he is not) it would be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to block my criticism.

Spencer allegedly committed domestic violence against his sister Stephanie who was hospitalized

Soon after Spencer announced his candidacy, his sister Stephanie Pratt, who was a fixture on “The Hills” slammed him on X.com.

Stephanie alleges Spencer beat her when she was 18 and sent to her to the hospital. In California, that constitutes domestic violence. Spencer has not refuted her claim.

Stephanie accused Spencer of being in a cult years ago. She further posted:

Did anyone know after the cult they went to Costa Rica and were arrested for firearms? He called my dad from jail after not speaking to our family for 8 yeas bc of his cult, to bail him out.

Speidi appear on Alex Jones InfoWars

In 2010, during the last season of “The Hills,” Spencer openly criticized the New World Order. That same year, the show was cancelled.

Years later, in 2017, Spencer and Heidi appeared on Alex Jones’ infoWars. Spencer told Alex Jones that they were chanting death to the New World Order and then a week later they were no longer on television.

Spencer told Alex Jones that during the last season of “The Hills” after outing the New World Order, black helicopters began following him over the set.

However, I wonder if Spencer’s absurd paranoia was due to all the acid he was doing. In his recent memoir, he confessed that he was probably on acid while MTV was filming the last season.

The Mayan Apocalypse: Speidi blow $10 million dollars because the world is ending

After “The Hills” was cancelled, Spencer in Heidi, infamously nicknamed “Speidi” claim they quickly blew through $10 million dollars. Speidi reported they blew all their money because they believed an asteroid was going to destroy Earth on December 21, 2012, i.e. the Mayan Apocalypse.

In 2017, Speidi appeared on Alex Jones’ InfoWars. Spencer explained that while filming the last season of “The Hills,” black helicopters appeared overhead because Spencer had openly criticized the tyrannical New World Order.

But in Spencer’s recently published memoir, “The Guy You Loved to Hate: Confessions from a Reality Villain,” he wrote that by the last season of “The Hills,” he and Heidi had a “spiritual bodyguard” named “Hugo,” who sprayed him multi times every day with an “essential oil blend.” Heidi swears she saw Spencer levitating. Spencer forgets what happened. In the book, Spencer suggests that in reality, he may have been micro-dosing LSD.

“The Hills” was cancelled in 2010. Later that year Heidi filed for divorce in Los Angeles County. For whatever reason, in his book, Spencer claims she had filed in Orange County. But I found dissolution filings in Los Angeles County. Speidi later told reporters that the filing was a publicity stunt. Regardless of whether Heidi filed sham pleadings, the case was eventually dismissed and they are still married.

By 2012, Speidi claims they had blown through $10 million dollars and were dead ass broke. Spencer later told Alex Jones that unspecified persons were trying to off Speidi so they escaped to Costa Rica.

Costa Rica did not go as planned. When Speidi were returning to the U.S., Spencer got arrested in Costa Rica for felony firearm possession. He had two handguns in his bags.

My records indicate they had lived for about seven years in his father’s beachfront property in Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County—the same place Speidi have been living at since the Palisades Fire.

Spencer sells healing crystals

While Speidi was purportedly broke and living in Carpinteria, Heidi still managed to get more plastic surgery. Spencer tells the romantic story of how after one surgery, Heidi was in severe pain that would not go away. Spencer found a magical healing crystal. He gave the crystal to Heidi and her pain stopped. This started Spencer on the path of obsessively buying and hoarding crystals.

In 2018, he started the website prattdaddy.com and began selling crystals, jewelry, and $40 “Make Heidi Great Again” hoodies.

In 2019, Speidi had their first child. I assume that they moved to Pacific Palisades around that time because in 2020, Spencer’s parents gifted Spencer and Heidi a 50 percent interest in their Palisades Home.

In 2020, Spencer formed the Pratt Daddy Crystals, a California Corporation. The Crystal biz must not have worked out too well because California’s Franchise Tax Board suspended the corporation in 2024. But Prattdaddy.com appears to be still up, running, and selling crystals, jewelry, and Speidi branded garb.

Questionable PPP Loans

In 2009, Spencer created Pratt Productions, Inc. (CA SOS 4553956). During the COVID-19 pandemic the corporation received two Paycheck Protection Loans (PPP) for the purpose of covering its payroll.

In 2020, the Pratt Productions, Inc. reported it was white male owned with 10 employees. On that basis it received $103,965 to cover payroll.

In 2021, the corporation reported it was a white female owned with seven employees and received $90,340 to cover payroll.

Both loans forgiven. It is interesting that Pratt’s corporation received government handouts while he blasts his political opponents as being “socialists” and “communists.”

I am still attempting to verify whether Pratt Productions, Inc. actually had 7 to 10 employees on payroll during the pandemic. In 2024, California’s Franchise Tax Board suspending Pratt Productions, Inc. It was restored in April 2025.

Perhaps Spencer will release redacted versions of all the W-2 wage statements, Forms 941, 940, and W-3’s for tax years 2020 and 2021 so we can review whether legitimate information was provided on the PPP loan applications.

I am not implying that Spencer, Heidi, or Pratt Productions, Inc. committed fraud. I am not suggesting any wrongdoing whatsoever. They should be given the benefit of any doubts!

But, I have questions about the PPP loans. In 2021, Y! Entertainment’s Lex Briscuso reported Speidi “had lost nearly all of their money for a second time in May 2021, after his Pratt Daddy Crystals business struggled amid the coronavirus pandemic.” And that Speidi’s combined net worth was estimated at merely $300,000.

“I mean I obviously didn’t want to show that our really successful crystal business made us go broke like that,” Spencer told The Sun.

Spencer fails to report everything on his mandatory financial disclosures for office (Form 700)

California’s Political Reform Act requires candidates to disclose their finances so the public can identify potential conflicts of interest. The core ideas is transparency. Candidates must complete Form 700 which requires disclosure of investments, real property, income, business positions, and gifts.

I reviewed Spencer’s Form 700 and noticed that he did not disclose that he is a trustee of multiple properties held by the KSS Children’s Family Trust.

In 2007, Spencer’s parents created the trust and appointed Spencer and his sisters as co-trustees. The KSS Children’s Family Trust of 2007 currently holds interests in two apartment complexes in Santa Monica and the beachfront home that Spencer currently resides in Santa Barbara County. I did not conduct an exhaustive search of all the properties potentially held by the trust.

Pratt did not identify any trusts on Form 700 attachment A-2. Pratt did not disclose any of the real properties held by the trust.

A verbally abusive bigot, xenophobe, racist, misogynist

Do the LGBTQ and Pride festivals that book Heidi realize her husband Spencer is a bigot? He certainly is.

The first clue was when Pratt announced his candidacy for mayor, he blamed the Palisades Fire on “DEI.”

The second clue was his support for ICE. He believes Mayor Karen Bass needs to back off and let ICE agents do their jobs. You might remember when ICE agents and the National Guard stormed Los Angeles. Trump ordered National Guard troops, hummers, and horses to invade MacCarthur park. Mayor Bass showed up at the scene and stood up for immigrants.

The third clue that Spencer is a bigot: he frequently mocks Mayor Bass by referring to her as “Karen Basura.” In Spanish, basura means trash. In machista, calling a woman basura is a derogatory and misogynistic insult.

I did not have to look very far to find several other examples of Spencer’s bigotry.

A fourth example is Spencer Pratt’s racial and ethnic stereotypic and cultural mockery. Before Spencer was on “The Hills” he was featured on the reality television show “Princes of Malibu.” It was so bad Fox cancelled the show after airing the second episode. The show was about Brody Jenner’s life with his mom Linda Thompson and her his stepdad grammy winning producer David Foster. Spencer follows the family around their $40 million dollar mansion in Malibu. Brody’s mom Linda Thompson was previously married to then-Bruce Jenner.

In episode four, which never aired, Spencer raided the closet of Linda Thompson. pencer pulls ones of her dresses that has feathers sewn onto it. Spencer holds the dress up to the camera.

“This is what she wore when she was dating Geronimo, the Indian.” Pratt said. His friends laugh out loud.

I even found examples of Spencer mocking gender identities and the Spanish accent. In 2021, Spencer appears on the podcast “Juicy Scoop with Heather McDonald” and joked about the gender identity of his hummingbird named “Sugar.” Here’s what he said:

I have a new hummer that lands every time on my hand. Shout out, Sugar. I’m not sure if sugar is a male or female or how sugar wants to be identified. Maybe non -binary, gender fluid. I don’t know. So I wouldn’t put any label on sugar. Yeah, you don’t know. Oh, I don’t. And maybe sugar has a Spanish accent and it is entitled to have that. But again, I don’t judge anyone. I’m Mr. Judge -free. That’s my goal every day.

It appears Spencer deleted a large number of tweets on his X.com account before announcing his candidacy. He wiped a lot of the pejoratives he obsessively spewed there.

In 2010, he posted a xenophobic rant on Twitter: “Glad we didn’t let you in America foreigner bitch! USA is to [sic] smart for you fool. log off our American website and go do something foreigner.”

Separately, he targeted a fellow cast member: “I pray to see @lobosworth ugly bitc out in a club now that i can do whatever i want without feeling bad for heidi! lo your [sic] fucked! Whore!”

I was able to recover a couple of the old Twitter posts Spencer deleted, including one from 2010 where he is purportedly casting “breasts” for a show he wanted to produce called “Tower 69.”

Why does Spencer hide the fact that his grandfather was the highly successful founder and CEO of Kelley-Clarke, Inc.?

Spencer is unusually sensitive about his family’s wealth. Spencer’s dad William Pratt III is a wealthy dentist who has substantial property holdings throughout California. Spencer’s book leads you to believe that his father made a killing around 1980 when the gold market briefly surged.

Spencer tells the story of how his father noticed that the price of gold dental alloy was not quick to catch up with the gold market. His father seized the opportunity and purchased dental gold at 30 percent under market value and drove to the Jewelry District to hawk it for a profit.

But being able to put three children through Crossroads in Santa Monica, one of the most expensive private schools in the world, is quite an amazing feat for a young dentist who had a brief stint reselling undervalued dental gold alloys to buyers in the Jewelry District.

It seems something is missing from the equation. Spencer made a major omission in his book. He wrote a lot about his maternal grandparents. In contrast he provided sparse details about his paternal grandfather William Chauncey Pratt Jr. In fact, Spencer even incorrectly referred to him as William Chancey III. But that is the name of his Spencer’s father—not his grandfather. That’s a big typo. Perhaps intentional.

Spencer wrote that his grandfather served in WWII and boxed at UCLA.

Spencer made no mention that his grandfather William Chauncey Jr. created and Kelley-Clarke, Inc. in 1981 and served as its CEO for decades. The corporation grew into one of the largest food distributors in the West. Spencer mentioned nothing of this. Spencer merely described his grandfather as “frugal.”

What is the disconnect? Spencer named dropped just about anyone and everyone he knows. He even mentioned that Larry Ellison purchased his friend’s old home in Malibu. Spencer brags about his conversations with TMZ’s Harvey Levin. Spencer boasts about being represented by lawyers at Greenberg Traurig LLP—a fact that might impress a 1L in the 90s.

Spencer’s memoir is filled with descriptions about his connections to the wealth and fame of successful people. But when it comes to his grandfather, Spencer is silent. William Pratt Jr. probably thought his grandson Spencer was a loser.

Spencer’s conspiracy theories about the Palisades Fires

Spencer has been spreading conspiracy theories about the fire, capitalizing off of despair, supplying the trauma survivors need for answers, their quest for truth, their quest for justice. Spencer Pratt’s goal is to impregnate the minds of his neighbors who have suffered through this trauma.

It is through that trauma bond that Spencer manipulates his neighbors, the other victims, the other people suffering. He exploits their fears. He sells them a sense of closure by supplying them with conspiracy theories about what happened. He tells you who is to blame. Once he has got you locked in, he asks for you to open your wallet and to support him.

Two days after the fire broke out, Spencer’s friend Perez Hilton interviewed him and Heidi on a TikTok live stream. Heidi claimed the water to the fire hydrants was cut off. That is not true. Nobody cut off the water.

Spencer continues to spread the conspiracy theory that if the Santa Inez Reservoir had not been empty during the Palisades Fire, the fire would have been quickly contained and everyone’s home would still be standing. Spencer’s claim is inherently false.

In July 2025, Pratt wrote on social media, quote, the Santa Ynez Reservoir was built to provide a critical public use, fire protection, end quote. His statement is a selective omission. It is only half-true. Yes, the reservoir was design in part to provide fire protection—but not wildfire protection.

The Santa Ynez Reservoir was engineered in the 1960s for the purpose of providing drinking water and fire protection to the residents of the Palisades. But what type of fire protection? Spencer Pratt’s not telling you it wasn’t designed to provide wildfire protection. Spencer Pratt does not want to tell you there’s different types of fires.

Spencer does not tell you the reservoir was designed to help protect against urban structural fires. Even if the reservoir had been filled and assuming firefighters would have had the necessary infrastructure to move the water to areas where they could use it, the water still would not have made a dent in the Palisades Fire.

I calculated that if the reservoir had been full, the water would have been less than 1/60th of the volume of the Palisades Fire. Imagine trying to contain 60 buckets of fire with 1 bucket of water. How does that work Spencer?

In fact, I do not believe any reservoir has ever been constructed for the purpose of fighting wildfires. Spencer has a fundamental disconnect with how firefighting works.

Now, nobody said Spencer is smart. He got D’s in math. He had to switch his major at USC to political science because he could not keep up with the requirements for a business degree. It took him 10 years to get a four year degree. Now he is a self-appointed fire investigator on TikTok. And if he is not elected mayor, then what?

UCLA debunks misconceptions about the Palisades Fire

It is because of Spencer Pratt and similar attention seekers who spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about the Palisades Fire, that our community has been confused.

Gavin Newsom ordered an investigation on whether the reservoir could have made a different in combatting the wildfire. The report confirmed that the use of the reservoir could not have influenced the outcome of the wildfire. If the reservoir had been filled, the rate of water flowing from it would not have been able to maintain sufficient water pressure.

To that end, UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation and UCLA’s Latino Policy & Politics Institution, got together with the experts to address these issues. They completed a report to answer a number of questions about the Palisades Fire. One of the questions they were asked was whether the Palisades Fire would have been so destructive if the Santa Ynez Reservoir was full. UCLA answered: no!

The reservoir was designed to provide drinking water and protection against urban structural fires—not wildfires.

UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation and UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Institute

166KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Do Urban Water Supply Systems Put Out Wildfires? Frequently Asked Questions

Download

UCLA’s report also addressed the questions and misconceptions about why fire hydrants in the Palisades quickly lost water pressure. And more generally: what is the role of a fire hydrant in a wildfire?

Although UCLA’s study set the record straight, Spencer Pratt continues to spread misinformation about the Palisades Fire.

Spencer Pratt is suing the City of and a dozen other defendants for the loss of his home

Spencer Pratt, his parents, and some other individuals are suing the city of Los Angeles through the Department of Water and Power. the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the state of California, Southern Cal Ed, Edison International, Charter Communications, Charter Communications, Frontier Communications, AT&T, the County of Los Angeles, suing Las Virgines Municipal Water District, suing Sempra Energy, Southern California Gas Company, and they’re suing the J. Paul Getty Trust.

A few days after Palisades Fires broke out, Speidi was interviewed on TikTok by their friend Perez Hilton. Keep in mind Spencer is suing multiple electric companies for the fire. Here’s what he told Perez Hilton:

We didn’t think it was really going to burn down because I was up on the hill at 10:30 a.m. when whoever started this fire, because it was definitely started, so there’s no electrical wires where this was. 100 % arson. I’ll take that to the grave. Well, he said it right there. There were no electrical wires, but he’s suing a couple of power companies, and he’s also blaming it on an arsonist. And that’s pretty legit, though.

So, how is he suing the electric companies for causing the fire? He clearly states in the interview there were not any electrical wires where the fire was.

Ben Meiselas’ Los Angeles Magazine repeatedly publishes false statements about Mayor Karen Bass while pumping Spencer Pratt

Once Spencer Pratt announced he was running for mayor, I started to see different things about him popping up on my TikTok FYP, including video posts by “Los Angeles Magazine.”

LAmag reporter Samson Crouppen aka “Secret Service Sam” has a posted a number of videos on LAMag’s TikTok channel containing false statements about Mayor Karen Bass.

• LaMag False Statement: “The L .A. mayor race is hot. It is between Karen Bass and Spencer Pratt. But here’s something you need to know. Spencer Pratt is looking like the front runner.” Crouppen said.

Definitely not true. Spencer Pratt has never been the front runner in the mayoral race. There were no polls at the time LAmag posted the video that would indicate Spencer Pratt as a front runner.

• LaMag False Statement: “Everybody believes that Karen Bass has done nothing. But if you look online, if you look at all the comments. Everybody loves Spencer Pratt. They love what he did during the Palisades fire. They believe he’s a real Angeleno. Despite his sordid past, they are ready to elect Spencer Pratt.” Crouppen said.

That statement is an inherently false generalization about Mayor Bass. Surely she has done something. It is also false. Not everybody loves Spencer Pratt.

Crouppen encourages his viewers to look at all of the comments online. Well, Pratt blocked my comments. The comments on Pratt’s social media are curated and cleansed. Pratt silences his opposition. How is that a fair election?

He is not leading in the polls. Here, Crouppen falsely frames Spencer as someone who has did some unspecified thing during the Palisades Fire that “they love.”

What is Crouppen talking about? Is he referring to all of the conspiracy theories Spencer has been spreading? Who loves that? Who loves authoritarian politicians who silence their opposition? Apparently the “journalists” and “editors” at LAMag love de-platforming.

• LaMag False Statement: “Secret Service Sam here for L .A. Magazine. And Jeanie Buss, the governor of the L.A. Lakers, has donated the max amount to Spencer Pratt’s L.A. mayoral campaign run. This is crazy. She has put all the money you can behind Spencer Pratt.” Crouppen said.

This is misleading, the maximum amount one can contribute to a mayoral candidate is $1,800. But Crouppen does not inform his viewers of that. Instead, Crouppen leads his viewers to believe that the Governess Buss has donated millions of dollars to Pratt’s campaign

Too, it is inherently wrong to conflate Governess Buss’ title within the organization with the donation when political contributions given that Buss’ contribution was personal.

• LaMag’s Repeated Pratt’s Misogyny: “Secret Service Sam I’m here for LA Magazine, and Spencer Pratt is taking Karen Basole [sic], Karen Bass, to the cleaner.” Crouppen said.

Los Angeles Magazine’s Michele McPhee provides highly biased coverage in favor of Spencer Pratt

Is Ben Meiselas aware of what is going on at his publication LAmag? LAmag has another journalist, Michele McPhee, who has written three “news articles” about Pratt that read like more like features crafted by a publicist. Definitely not legitimate new reporting.

McPhee writes favorably about Pratt without questioning him or providing opposition. While at the same time McPhee misleads about Mayor Bass. McPhee is obviously just an arm of the the advertising vehicle that is Spencer Pratt.

In her first article about Pratt, McPhee juxtaposed the fact that Pratt had lost his home in the Palisades with Gavin Newsom calling Pratt a “C-list reality star.”

Last year, Spencer came up with a wild conspiracy theory after asking AI, including Chat GPT and Elon Musk’s Grok, to analyze California Senate Bill 549 (SB 549).

Spencer posted a video of himself on social media decrying that Gavin Newsom broke his promise to protect Palisades residents.

Spencer falsely claimed SB549 passed and enables the State of California to buy up property in the Palisades for low prices and convert it into affordable housing.

Gavin Newsom’s team noticed Spencer Pratt’s conspiracy theory and misinformation about SB549 went viral. Newsom’s team debunked Pratt on X.

First, SB549 never passed. It was never voted on. It was withdrawn before it ever made it to the floor. Second, the proposed law did not enable California to do what Spencer claimed. Third, California is not attempting to buy land cheaply and convert it to affordable living.

Instead of correcting himself, Spencer used the attention as to pump out more misinformation.

In LAMag’s Michele McPhee’s article, she falsely characterized Spencer’s conspiracy theory post as “calling out” Gavin Newsom for a “questionable piece of legislation[.]”

McPhee rhetorically frames the story as a victory for Spencer Pratt who in fact did not actually call out Newsom. But was spreading misinformation and a conspiracy theory.

I reached out to Meidas Touch Network and asked:

Why does your magazine Los Angeles Magazine keep pumping out propaganda for Spencer Pratt and making false statements about city of LA mayor Karen Bass? Does the CEO or editors have a “relationship” with Spencer Pratt’s agent, manager, or publicist? Seems bizarre.

No response yet.

The Propaganda Trifecta: Omnicom, Octagon Entertainment, and William Morris Endeavor

I researched the question: who are the people behind Spencer Pratt? I found both Spencer and Heidi are managed by Kyle Thomas of Octagon Entertainment, a subsidiary of Omnicom. IYKYK. This brings us into BlackRock territory.

Omnicom is the world’s largest advertisement agency network. It is largest buyer of commercial ad space across the world. Its power is unparalleled. Omnicom buys ad space for its thousands of subsidiary agencies and their clients. They employ about 120,000 employees.

When Trump returned to the White House, his FTC allowed Omnicom Group, Inc. to acquire The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (IPG) for $13.5 billion. The acquisition raised concerns of antitrust and that Omnicom combined with IPG would dominate the industry given that they were two of the so-called “Big Six” global advertising holding companies. Omnicom and IPG had the third and fourth largest share of the market for media buying services in the U.S. The acquisition instantly made Omnicom the largest and substantially lessened competition. Today, the market is controlled by five major players. One major concern is advertisers using their resources to essentially censor certain programming without transparency.

Think of the implications for political campaigns. Local candidates such as Karen Bass do not typically have multi-billion dollar ad agency networks and a slew of agents behind them.

How is it that Spencer Pratt gets a walk on to the Joe Rogan Experience only to be asked softball questions while freely blasting his opinions without being challenged whatsoever? Why does Rogan quickly endorse Pratt without interviewing other candidates? Without asking Pratt any difficult questions? Without even living in Los Angeles?

To answer that questions, just look at William Morris Endeavor (WME). Patt and Rogan are both represented by WME. Pratt’s agents at WME are Rich Gambale and Eve Attermann. Rogan’s agent at WME is Stacy Mark. That means all it takes for Pratt to get on the Joe Rogan Experience is sending an assistant down the hall in WME’s Beverly Hills office to coordinate the schedule. How often do you think Rogan turns down requests when WME wants him to interview one of their other assets? That’s synergy. Rogan is just an advertising vehicle.

Do you ever wonder why you see the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fighters all the time surrounding WME’s other assets? Why Donald Trump is hosting one of UFC’s violent matches at the White House this summer?

Just turn to WME’s president Mark Shapiro, who is also the president of TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of UFC and WWE.

These agents and their entities control and dominate the ad space, content creators, the narrative, so much that it is easy to drown out the opposition. Does it make for a fair mayoral race? Absolutely not.

They attempt to drown you in fantasies they have created about Spencer Pratt. They want you to believe he is a community activist.

They want to hide from you that he is a Republican. Want evidence of that? Just read Michele McPhee’s articles in LAMag where she falsely repeats that he is an “independent.” They dilute reality.

But Spencer Pratt is not a self-made outsider challenging a broken system—he is a product of generational wealth, Hollywood agents, and one of the most powerful advertising conglomerates in the world.

From the omissions on his mandatory financial disclosures, to the unanswered questions surrounding his PPP loans, to the conspiracy theories he weaponizes against his own traumatized neighbors, Pratt has demonstrated a consistent pattern of concealment, opportunism, and deception.

His sister alleges he committed domestic violence. His own memoir brags about habitual drug abuse. He blames DEI for a wildfire. He chastises Mayor Karen Bass over homelessness, while his family quietly collects rent from apartment buildings he never bothered to disclose. This is not a candidate. This is a grift dressed up in a knockoff Thrasher hat, and bootleg L.A. Dodgers shirt.

The machinery behind Spencer Pratt—Omnicom, Octagon Entertainment, William Morris Endeavor, and compliant outlets like Los Angeles Magazine—is far more powerful and far more dangerous than Pratt himself.

These entities are not interested in good governance for the City of Los Angeles. They are interested in installing a friendly face who will protect their access, advance their interests, and affect policies favorable for their bigger corporate assets.

Angelinos deserve a mayor who earned her way through public service, not one who was packaged and programmed by ad executives in Century City.

Spencer Pratt es un perdedor.

The Daily Express has come under sharp criticism for publishing a sensationalized and misleading report that falsely portrays Iran as issuing a direct nuclear threat against Israel.

The article, titled “Iran threatens to nuke Israel with chilling image showing missile obliterating Tel Aviv,” appeared on Express.co.uk on March 6, 2026, authored by reporter Rebecca Robinson.

Robinson wrote the article in an alarmist tone. She essentially claimed that Iran had used deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s X.com account to share a threat that Iran was going to nuke Israel. But that is not what happened.

Khamenei’s first social media post since his death included an AI generated image of three panels depicting the assembly, transport, and launch of an Iranian Khorramshahr-4. An urban area flying the Israeli flag is struck by the missile. The following description accompanied the image:

The Zionist regime has made a big mistake, and its consequences will make the regime desperate, by God’s grace. Martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution June 13, 2025 KHAMENEI.IR

Robins mischaracterized the image in her Daily Express article:

Iran has shared a chilling image of a nuclear missile striking an Israeli city, which appears to be Tel Aviv. In a post on X, the account peviously beloging to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni warned that “Khorramshahr is ahead”, in refrence to the ballistic missile named after the Iranian city.

A Daily Express reader commented this “only justifies war.”

The top of Robinson’s article bizarrely starts out with a different image of missile—an image that was not actually posted on Khamenei’s X account.

Instead, Daily Express apparently used an image posted on Mossad’s official X account (@MOSSADil) on March 5. Mossad’s version of the image is written in Farsi unlike the English version on Khamenei’s X account. Even Mossad—notorious for extreme propoganda—did not claim that it was a nuclear weapon. Why did Robinson?

No Evidence of a nuclear missile

The Khorramshahr-4 (خرمشهر) missile depicted in the image is not a nuclear weapon by itself. This fourth version of is a conventional medium-range ballistic misile (MRBM) with an estimated range of 2,000 km while carrying a 1,500 kg warhead. he missile reportedly reaches speeds of Mach 16. Once out of the atmosphere, the missile’s specialized navigation system can stay on course without relying on terminal guidance systems that can be jammed such as cameras, radar, or infrared.

While the Khorramshahr-4 is not designated a nuclear missile. However the missile could theoretically carry a nuclear warhead if Iran had one—it does not.

Iran has many other missiles that could tow a nuclear weapon, including the Sejjil, Emad, Ghadr, and Shahab-3.

Before Rebecca Robinson published her article, IRGC had fired four Khorramshahr-4 missiles at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport and the Lod Airbase in Tel Aviv. The missiles disrupted airport operations. But the extent of any damage remains unknown because Israeli and most mainstream Western media outlets have censored coverage.

IRGC fired more Khorramshahr-4 missiles at Haifa and Tel Aviv on March 6. A year before that, in June 2025, IRGC fired one at Israel in response to the U.S.’s attack.

It is mind boggling that Robinson thinks the image posted on Ayatollah Khamenei’s X account is a nuclear weapon. The Khorramshahr-4 has never been used with a nuclear warhead. And there is nothing in the social media suggesting the same. There are no markings on the missile that reflect it is carrying a nuclear payload. A portable Code Management System (CMS) or “T-handle” device necessary to activate a nuclear warhead is not present in the picture.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon

Experts consistently agree: Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. The country does not have necessary fissile material nor the ability to build a functional nuclear warhead.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is actively monitoring possible radiological emergencies in the region.

On March 2, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi stated there is “no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb,” though concerns persist over its enriched uranium stockpiles and limited inspector access. No credible sources indicate Iran has issued an explicit nuclear threat in this context.

How the misinformation spread

The Daily Express article was quickly amplified and picked up by news aggregators, including DrudgeReport.com which posted the headline “IRAN THREAT TO NUKE TEL AVIV,” with a link to the article.

Robinson’s article is clearly inflammatory misinformation that unnecessarily heightens regional tensions by conflating conventional missile rhetoric with nuclear aggression.

About the reporter and lack of response

Robinson is a relatively unknown younger news reporter for Daily Express. Her X account (@beccarobinson26) only has 103 followers. She did not respond to our request for comments on her sourcing, image analysis, or the potential consequences of the framing.

In 2022, Robinson posted the question on her X account: “Is Iran at the point of no return?”

Since creating her X account, Robinson has mostly expressed or retweeted liberal political ideologies, including on the topics of abortion rights, gender issues, her support of Palestinians, criticism of Israel and disdain of President Donald Trump.

One of her retweets insinuates that President Donald Trump is a war criminal. This makes it all the more curious why she has suddenly flipped to fear monger for Israel.

This incident highlights broader issues with rapid, click-driven reporting on high-stakes geopolitical topics, where right-wing news sources instigate conflicts that increase the profits of military weapons manufacturers.

Daily Express and owner Reach PLC: propaganda arms of the weapons industry

Daily Express is owned by Reach PLC, a publicly traded British company (LSH:RCH) that owns over 120 news brands including Daily Mirror, Sunday Express, and Daily Star.

Reach PLC (Trinity Mirror) acquired most of the newspapers owned by Ghislaine Maxwell’s father Robert Maxwell’s irror Group Newspapers (MGN) and Pergamon Holdings, including Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Sunday People, Daily Record, and Sunday Mail.

Beyond his media empire, Robert Maxwell operated as a high-stakes broker in the underworld of international arms dealing. He is credited with arming in Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He sold and helped smuggle an arsenal of military weapons to the nascent Israeli state.

As President Donald Trump directs the ongoing joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, his critics and supporters alike are looking back at the origins of his “America First” doctrine.

The current conflict, which the administration says is aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and removing its leadership, follows years of escalating tension that many trace back to the very beginning of Trump’s political career.

While the world watches the strikes on Tehran and the fallout from the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Trump’s disruptive and immature leadership remains as central to his presidency as it was to his first campaign.

In June 2015, Donald Trump descended his golden escalator at Trump Tower in New York City and delivered a speech announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination.

The following month, Trump staged a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Arizona. He claimed 15,000 people were in attendance, but the Phoenix Fire Department stated the crowd was only 4,200—the maximum capacity for the North Ballroom.

Trump opened by bragging that the crowd turned out because "the word is getting out that we have to stop illegal immigration. ... We have a situation that is absolutely out of control. We have incompetent politicians ... right here in your own state, you have John McCain."

Trump argued McCain lacked common sense and an understanding of current events. “Maybe it’s special interest, maybe it’s lobbyist, but for some reason some people don’t get it,” Trump said.

McCain, who was running for reelection to the Senate, responded by telling The New Yorker that Trump’s rhetoric had “fired up the crazies.”1 Trump retorted that McCain was a “dummy” and demanded an apology.

A week later, Trump appeared at a Q&A session at the Christian conservative Family Leadership Summit in Iowa. Republican strategist Frank Luntz questioned Trump: “Referring to John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a [prisoner of war] and you call him a ‘dummy’—is that appropriate in running for president?”

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured. Okay?”

Trump’s comments did not alienate his supporters, for whom “Make America Great Again” is not just a political preference but a part of their identity. When Trump is criticized, his followers perceive it as an attack on their core values, including lifestyle, community, and religion.

I posted this video on Instagram today and was surprised by how many people continue to defend and rationalize Trump’s comments. Understandably, Trump’s remaining followers have—for over a decade—invested their emotional energy, familial relationships, friendships, and reputations into supporting him. For those holding on, it is easier to blame others than simply let it go.

IRAN—The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has been irrevocably altered by two criminals who have control over the U.S. Military: President Donald J. Trump—a convicted felon and rapist—and Benjamin Netanyahu currently under an arrest warrant for war crimes including starving citizens to death in Palestine.

The United States and Israel in joint Operation Epic Fury carried out widespread attacks in Iran on Saturday morning and assassinated its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (علی خامنه‌ای).

The attacks violate international law including the United Nations Charter, former President Ronald Reagan’s executive order prohibiting assassinations, and exceed the powers afforded to presidents under Article II of the United States Constitution. Even the most conservative jurists who demand strict interpretation of the law cannot deny it with a straight face, Article I is clear: only Congress has the power to declare war. Not President Trump. Yet by Sunday, Trump declared war against Iran.

The U.S. and Israel attacked Iran during peace negotiations

The attack did not occur in a vacuum. In the days leading up to the attack, a flurry of diplomatic activity suggested a potential breakthrough in negotiations among the conflicting nations.

On Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu’s godson Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, a billionaire real estate developer appointed by President Trump as special envoy to the Middle East, met in Geneva with de facto mediator Omani Foreign Minister, Sayyid Badr Albusaid, to negotiate with Iran.

Neither Kushner nor Witkoff has any prior experience in the State Department, military, or foreign service. Both men are rife with financial conflicts and continue self-enrich themselves by exploiting the U.S. Military and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

The Witkoff Group, Inc. was in financial ruin during the first Trump administration only to be bailed out by the Qatari government which provided heavily funding.

The Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) purchased the Park Lane Hotel in Manhattan from the Witkoff Group for $623 million in 2023, a deal that helped Steven Witkoff exit a heavily indebted investment. Additionally, in 2025, the Witkoff Group received $100 million from the Apollo Trust, a fund partly owned by Qatar, for a project in Palm Beach.

In 2021, Jared Kushner created the private equity firm Affinity Partners—mostly funded by the Saudi government.

Since returning to the White House in 2025, Kushner has served with Witkoff in diplomatic negotiations over the Gaza War and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

During last week’s negotiations, Kushner and Witkoff demanded Iran dismantle its nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. Iran maintains its nuclear program is aimed at production of power for civilian purposes not weapons.

On Friday, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, joined the negotiations. He noted negotiations were the “most intense so far.” The U.S., Israel, and Iran were planned to resume negotiations on Monday in Vienna, Austria.

U.S. and Israel launch a surprise attack on Iran

Although the countries were scheduled to continue negotiations with Iran on Monday, the U.S. and Israel stunned Iran with a massive surprise attack on Saturday morning.

Trump’s administration described the strikes as a “pathway to diplomacy.”

On Saturday morning, the Minab school, an all-girls primary school in Southern Iran, was bombed. 115 girls between the ages seven and 12 were killed.

Trump speaking from Mar-a-Lago attempts to sell the attack to Americans

Saturday afternoon, President Trump attempted to market the war to his highly susceptible and easily manipulated supporters. Trump spoke from a podium in Florida at his luxury residence Mar-a-Largo, valued at over $1 billion. Trump wore a white trucker hat with embroidered with “USA.”

In the eight minute speech, Trump deployed his typical rhetoric and hyperbole that has effectively persuaded his followers over the last decade. To that end, he frequently misstated the history of conflicts in the Middle East, omitted critical history, and spoon-fed simple phrases to his followers who typically lack the appetite for complexities.

Trump argued that for “47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted ‘Death to America’ and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops, and the innocent people in many, many countries.” Trump argued the Iranian regime only wanted to “practice evil.”

Trump’s simplistic characterization of nearly five decades of history lacked context and was used to further manipulate his followers to justify the military action that continues to financially enrich Trump and cronies.

“It’s been mass terror, and we’re not going to put up with it any longer.” Trump said. Ultimately, Trump provided no justification under international law for the U.S. and Israel to use force against Iran.

Trump and Netanyahu announce the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Later on Saturday, Netanyahu claimed Khamenei was dead. Trump announced on his privately owned social media platform Truth Social that Khamenei was killed.1

“He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was a not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do,” Trump wrote.

Israeli video depicts the bombing of Khamenei’s home.

The Israeli Army released aerial footage showing Khamenei’s home exploding. Presumably he was killed in the blast. The video evidences an intentional, premeditated, planned assassination—a clear violation of the UN Charter.

American Muslim writer Daniel Haqiqatjou criticized that the killing “has turned [Khamenei] into a global symbol of resistance.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian characterized the killing of Khamenei as a “declaration of war against Muslims.”

“The assassination of the highest political authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a prominent leader of Shiism worldwide… is perceived as an open declaration of war against Muslims, and particularly against Shiites, everywhere in the world,” Pezeshkian said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded. "The assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader is a brutal murder that violates all ethics and international law." Putin said.

The Russia Federation is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Russia has been highly critical in the UN of Israel’s war crimes.

Trump has been deeply critical of the UN and sought to undermine its authority, including by failing to pay nearly $4 billion dollars in debt the U.S. owes to the UN. Trump has referred to the UN as a “con job” because it does not support his approach to immigration and energy policies. In 2026, Trump created the “Board of Peace” at the 56th World Economic Forum as his own alternative to the UN. Participating countries are required to contribute $1 billion every three years. To date, there are 22 member states of the Board of Peace, including Israel. Iran is not a member. Trump believes his Board of Peace could replace the UN. There are currently 193 member states to the UN Charter.

The UN Charter prohibits use of force except in cases of “self-defense”

Trump and Netanyahu have consistently used force throughout the Middle East that clearly violates the UN Charter. They have frequently attempted to undermine and usurp the UN to avoid the consequences of their war crimes. In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for using starvation as a method of murdering civilian populations in Palestine.2

The core purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace. Member nations, including the U.S., Israel, and Iran, are prohibited under Article 2(4) from using force:

Article 2(4) prohibits all members from the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Specifically, Article 2(4) provides:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

There is one exception: self-defense from an armed attack under Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The White House and its UN Ambassador Mike Waltz argued on Saturday morning at the UN in New York that the U.S. was acting out of self-defense and therefore justified under Article 51. Waltz argued:

The United States has made every effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of this conflict with Iran, but Iran has failed to take that opportunity. So in close coordination with the Government of Israel, the United States has taken lawful actions to address these threats, in line with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

And Mr. President, I’ll just say on a final note, you know who is not complaining tonight? You know who is not citing the vagaries of international law? You know who is celebrating in the streets around the world? The Iranian people.

The U.S. was not facing an armed attack

Waltz has grossly misinterpreted Article 51 in defiance of the binding interpretations promulgated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Security Council (UNSC). The ICJ is primarily responsible for interpreting the UN Charter. Whereas the Security Council has authority to determine whether a member state’s unilateral action constitutes “self-defense” under the Charter and to issue sanctions and pass binding resolutions.

Citing Article 51 themselves, Iran labeled the move “blatant military aggression.” Foreign Minister Esmaeil Baghaei warned that the fabric of the UN Charter is at stake, stating, “Any location providing logistical support to the aggressor is a legitimate target.”

Pete Hegseth’s Tweet proves the attacks were not justified under International law

On Saturday, U.S. Department of War, Secretary Pete Hegseth thumped his chest in a lengthy social media post. “The Iranian regime had their chance, yet refused to make a deal — and now they are suffering the consequences,” Hegseth wrote. This proves that the U.S. and Israel did not attack Iran in “self-defense” but because Trump and Netanyahu did not get the deal they wanted.

Lack of imminence

Under the Caroline Test—the gold standard of international law—preemptive self-defense is only legal when the threat is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Because the U.S. and Israel had ample time to plan “Epic Fury” and were simultaneously engaged in diplomacy, they clearly fail to meet the strict requirements of imminence necessary to justify the use of force.

Lack of proportionality

Self-defense must be proportional to the injury suffered. As there was no active Iranian kinetic operation against the U.S. mainland or Israel at the time of the strike, the assassination of a Head of State—an act of forced regime change—arguably exceeds the legal bounds of repelling an attack.

By Sunday, President Trump posted on social media that if Iran hits harder than they have ever hit before, then the U.S. “will hit them with a force that has never been seen before!” This implies a U.S. response will be more than proportional.

Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 prohibits assassinations

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, explicitly stating: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.” While the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argues that “targeted killings” of “lawful military targets” are exempt, the assassination of a sovereign leader during peacetime negotiations is a clear violation of the spirit of the order.

“Assassination” as defined by Oxford English Dictionary:

The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack, typically with a political or ideological motive, sometimes carried out by a hired or professional killer; a murderous attack of this kind.3

The term assassination originated from the Hashīshīn, a 12th Century Shia Muslim sect in the Middle East infamously known for getting high from hashish and murdering its opponents.

Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12333

131KB ∙ PDF file

Download

On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 on United States Intelligence Activities. It became the foundational authority for which the National Security Agency (NSA) spies on the communications of Americans and foreign nationals alike. The order's prohibition on U.S. sponsored assassinations was carried over from President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 11905.

Download

Trump’s attack violates the United States Constitution Article II on Separation of Powers

The United States Constitution provides for a separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government. Article II vests President Trump with the executive power and makes him commander in chief of the military.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides the Congress with war powers.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

. . .

And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

A strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution clearly vests war authority in the Congress—not the president. Article II which enumerates the president’s power clarifies this. Article II Section 1, Clause 1 provides:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article II section 2, clause 1 provides:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Throughout time, including as a result of the proliferation of the military industrial complex in the United States, most modern presidents have argued that their role as command in chief vests them with inherent authority to direct military actions without formally declaring war.

Since the Korean War, the Executive Branch primarily through its self-serving Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has rendered legal opinions that not every “military action” constitutes “war.” The OLC has argued that a “war” only exists if a conflict reaches a certain threshold of intensity.

They argue congressional approval is only required based on the nature, scope, and duration of the military action. For example, is the mission limited to merely a drone strike rather than a ground invasion? Does the scope involve a significant risk of high casualties or prolonged engagement? Is it one-off strike?

Regardless of whether you accept this uprooting of the separation of powers and the plain and ordinary requirements in Article I that only Congress has the power to engage in war, the nature, scope, and duration of Operation Epic Fury far exceeds a simplistic military strike.

On Saturday, Pete Hegseth, Secretary of the U.S. Department of War described the attack as “the most lethal, most complex aerial operation in history.”

Ever since the Iraq War, presidents have sought to justify their unilateral military actions in the Middle East by claiming that in 2001 and 2002, the Congress issued memos on the Authorization of the Use Military Force (AUMF) without any expiration. However, the 2001 AUMF was authorization for military force against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to combat the so-called “Global war on terror.” Not Iran. Presidents attempt to couch any military action in the Middle East as being associated with terror groups. The 2002 AUMF was for the war against Iraq. But presidents still attempt to equivocate the language to rationalize their unapproved and unrelated military actions in the Middle East.

Some argue the War Powers Resolution in 1973 created a loophole. However, the resolution was reated to limit the President from military action. It authorized the President to introduce troops on the ground into hostilities for 60 to 90 days before congressional authorization. Presidents rely on this grace period to conduct short-term strikes and argue congressional approval is unnecessary for the first 90 days. But the Wars Power Resolution was not an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, the resolution only authorizes the introduction of armed forces “into hostilities.” President Trump has not deployed troops on the ground in Iran nor in a any existing hostility.

War Powers Resolution 1973

1.06MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The Senate and House created a joint resolution in 1973 to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States to insure that the collective judgment of both the United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Download

Presidents also attempt to justify their military actions by arguing their inherent authority as the Commander-in-Chief authorizes them to protect “national interests” without congressional approval. These constitutional interpretations are heavily promulgated by the war industry. In 2024, the top 100 global arms producers generated $679 billion in revenue, with nearly half of that amount or $334 billion flowing to 39 U.S.-based weapons manufacturers.

During Trump’s State of the Union Speech last month, he touted a $1 trillion dollar defense budget. Trump recently proposed a 50 percent increase in the Pentagon’s budget to be implemented in 2027 to build his “dream military.”

Weapon and aerospace defense industry stocks have seen substantial gains over the past year. Shareholders of Cleveland based Sifco Industries, Inc., (SIF) which manufactures metal components used for weapons, has seen a 150.72 percent over the last year. Traditional and new weapons manufactures have realized unprecedented growth and profits during Trump’s first year back in office.

Dangerous territory

By executing Operation Epic Fury in the middle of active diplomatic channels, the United States and Israel have signaled that the "negotiating table" may now serve as a tactical distraction rather than a tool for peace.

If the UN Charter’s prohibitions on the use of force and the domestic bans on assassination are treated as mere "vagaries" of law—as suggested by Ambassador Waltz—the global community enters a volatile new era. In this landscape, the Caroline Test of imminence has been replaced by a doctrine of convenience, and the line between statecraft and state-sponsored killing has been all but erased. As the world waits for Iran’s next move, one thing is certain: the events of February 28 have ensured that diplomacy will never be viewed the same way again.

Update: on Sunday afternoon, Trump spoke again from Mar-a-Lago to announce that the U.S. had taken out nine Iranian navy ships. “The entire military command is gone as well,” Trump said. “They have waged war against civilization itself.” Trump declared while he continued to distort that Iranians are celebrating the surprise attacks and assassination of Khamenei. “We are undertaking this massive operation not only to ensure security for own time and place but for our children . . . This is the duty and burden of a free people.” Trump called the Iranian regime “radical and bloodthirsty . . . wicked extremists.” But Trump’s second speech about the attack was devoid of any evidence justifying under International law the use of force.