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.

In the Mid-1980s, Jeffrey Epstein was living in London. He met and formed a close relationship with Rosa Monckton, then-CEO of Tiffany & Co.’s London division. In 1991, Monckton married Dominic Lawson, a notable UK Journalist. Monckton was one of Princess Diana’s close friends.

2025: Ghislaine Maxwell’s Revelation from Prison

Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking, was recently interviewed by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blanche was Donald Trump’s criminal defense attorney. But when Trump was inaugurated a second time, he appointed Blanche to serve as number two in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice.

During Blanche’s interview of Maxwell, she recalled a specific “event” that Jeffrey Epstein attended with Princess Diana.

1994: Was Epstein shadowing Princess Diana on her “revenge dress” night?

In June 1994, then-Prince Charles admitted his infidelity while being interviewed on ITV. That same night, Princess Diana stepped out in her “revenge dress.” Was Epstein shadowing Diana at the event? Did Rosa Monckton introduce him to her close friend Diana?

1998: Dominic Lawson’s cover blown. Labour party files a motion revealing he’s an “intelligence asset” in the newsroom

The bridge between Epstein and the Palace wasn’t just social; it appears to have been structural.

Rosa Monckton’s husband Dominic Lawson, is a well-known journalist in the UK. He started at the BBC. Lawson edited The Sunday Telegraph from 1995 to 2005.

In 1998, the Labour party filed an Early Day Motion in the UK Parliament requesting that Dominic Lawson be removed from his editorial role at The Sunday Telegraph because he was an intelligence asset of the British Security Services.

“That this House is greatly disturbed by the news that a national newspaper editor, Mr. Dominic Lawson. . . has for a considerable period of time served as an intelligence asset of the British security services...” — UK Parliament Motion, 1998.

The motion states:

That this House is greatly disturbed by the news that a national newspaper editor, Mr Dominic Lawson of the Sunday Telegraph, has for a considerable period of time served as intelligence asset of the British security services, which paid him large sums of money into foreign bank accounts for the services he rendered under the guise of a journalist and editor; considers that his actions constitute not only a fraud upon his readership but a danger to genuine journalists, especially those working abroad; and calls upon Mr Lawson to resign his editorial position, failing which it calls upon his proprietor Mr Conrad Black to dismiss him forthwith.

(EDM 142: tabled on 16 December 1998, emphasis added.)

1999: Rosa Monckton, Dominic Lawson, and their daughters stay at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence

In 1995, Monckton’s and Lawson’s second daughter Domenica was born with Down syndrome. Princess Diana was her godmother.

While the family was navigating the challenges of raising a child with special needs, Epstein provided a strategic escape, he offered the use of his Palm Beach residence. In January 1999, they took Epstein up on his offer. Note that shortly before their visit, Epstein traveled to his newly acquired island with Prince Andrew.

In 2003, Vanity Fair journalist Vicki Ward interviewed Monckton about her friendship with Epstein. Monckton was heavily quoted in Ward’s article The Talented Mr. Epstein—a publicity piece for Epstein who was relatively unknown at the time.

2000-2001: Maxwell and Epstein rape 16-year-old Virginia Roberts and use her to blackmail Prince Andrew

In 2000, then 16-year-old Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), was working as a locker-room attendant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. That’s when Ghislaine Maxwell began grooming her into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring. In 2001, Epstein and Maxwell sex trafficked Virginia Giuffre to Prince Andrew. Giuffre discusses these incidents in her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl.

On June 28, 2002, Maxwell sent a package to Rosa Monckton, who was then working at Asprey & Garrard, Ltd. Months prior, Monckton had stepped down as the company’s CEO to become as what her husband’s newspaper describe as a “non-executive” chairperson. Lawson picked up the FedEx.

Maxwell sent a two pound package to Monckton’s at Cox’s Mill in Dallington. Monckton and Lawson use the address for professional correspondence.

Around the time Maxwell sent the 2002 package, it was publicly announced that billionaire Edgar Bronfman Jr., was going to acquire a 40 percent interest in Asprey. Prior to that Bronfman was the CEO of The Seagram Company Ltd., (VO) which he sold to Vivendi (Vivendi SE). Epstein had many communications with Edgar Bronfman Jr. and his son William Bronfman.

2015: Prince Andrew is Exposed for raping Viriginia Roberts (Giuffre)

On 12/30/2014, Giuffre as Jane Doe 3, filed a sealed motion to join a lawsuit that Epstein’s victims had filed against the United States Government for violating their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by giving Epstein a “sweetheart deal.”

Giuffre had alleged—under seal—Epstein forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was a minor at Maxwell’s flat in London, Epstein’s townhouse in New York, and on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin islands. Giuffre alleged the third time on the island was an orgy that included numerous other “under-aged girls.” Epstein had demanded that Giuffre give Prince Andrew whatever he demanded.

Days after the sealed allegations were filed, Buckingham Palace publicly denied that Prince Andrew had sexually abused the “unnamed alleged victim” in court filings.

Prince Andrew “categorically denied” the unnamed alleged victim’s allegations.

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said:

“This relates to long-running and ongoing civil proceedings in the U.S. to which the Duke of York is not a party. As such we would not comment on the detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.”

At that time, Virginia Robert’s was not known to be Jane Doe 3. London Daily Telegraph’s Gordon Rayner, had acknowledged in his article “Prince Andrew denies claims in sex lawsuit” that the allegations were from an “unknown victim.”

Interestingly, at the end of Rayner’s article he mentioned Virginia Roberts as one of the 40 women who were abused by Epstein.

Obviously, someone had leaked Virginia Robert’s name to London Daily Telegraph.

The next day, Sunday Independent published an article by Robert Mendick with the infamous photo of Virginia Roberts standing next to Prince Andrew at Maxwell’s flat in London.

Daily Mail wrote “Andrew will NEVER return to royal fold after ‘underage orgy’ claims.

Dominic Lawson writes an article quick to defend Prince Andrew, puts Epstein on a pedestal, shames Virignia Roberts

On March 13, 2011, someone emailed Epstein an article in The Times written by Dominic Lawson who publicly defended Prince Andrew while minimizing Epstein’s crimes. The day before the article was published, Epstein had instructed this unknown person to pull up articles from Dominic Lawson and Kate Mansey of The Times. The U.S. Department of Justice redacted Kate Mansey’s name from the email below for unknown reasons.

In the article: “Dominic Lawson: I stayed at Epstein’s so don’t hound Andrew,” Lawson claimed that Prince Andrew should not be considered guilty merely by his association with Epstein.

Lawson wrote:

“Guilt by association is a conveniently elastic property for the press, when it is engaged in a manhunt. In this case the man is Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and he has been associating with a sex offender named Jeffrey Epstein.”

Lawson admitted that he too had stayed at Epstein’s:

I suppose, before I am outed by the Mirror as a paedophile at one remove, I had better confess all. In January 1999 we enjoyed a brief family holiday at Epstein’s now notorious Florida home. My wife had known Epstein since the mid-1980s; when she told him in the winter of 1998 that our younger child had been most unwell for a long period, he said that what she needed was some sunshine and insisted we stay at his Palm Beach home.

The place was empty, apart from us and the housekeeper; but, yes, I did notice a photograph in it of Epstein and his then girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell with Prince Andrew. This, of course, was before Andrew took on the job of being Britain’s “special trade representative” — and long before the world knew of Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls (not the same thing as “paedophilia”, by the way, since none of the girls was pre-pubescent, but undeniably both sordid and exploitative).

Lawson went on to write about Epstein’s educational background in “physics and calculus” and career as a “financial trader and adviser.” And although Epstein had previously been convicted of soliciting prostitution with a minor, Lawson praised Epstein in the article:

As a billionaire he retained a consuming fascination with science, being a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and a visiting fellow at Harvard: his biggest charitable donations are in the fields of particle physics and artificial intelligence.

On the one occasion I had a conversation with him, it was about the development of chess computers and how they could be made to simulate human methods of calculation; it soon became embarrassingly clear that I could not grasp a fraction of what he understood. As I said, it was impossible to see what he had in common, intellectually at least, with the Duke of York. On the other hand, the notionally republican Americans have a perennial obsession with the British royal family — the impending wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton seems almost bigger news there than here — and I suspect Epstein, an avid collector of objects and people, wanted to add a part of the House of Windsor to his fabulously expensive portfolio of exotica.

In the background, Epstein was e-mailing Lawson and establishing a backchannel with Lawson through his wife Rosa Monckton. Newly released emails from the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrate this.

On March 14, 2011, Epstein instructed Maxwell to ask Lawson if he would speak off the record.

Maxwell responded, by instructing Epstein to call Rosa Monckton because Maxwell thought Epstein would be more likely to get what he wanted that way.

On March 15, 2011 Dominic Lawson wrote to Epstein “Will be on my mobile from now until Thursday night . . .”

Dominic Lawson and Epstein continued to correspondent with each other during the summer of 2011. Epstein emailed Lawson a copy of Virginia Robert’s criminal records.

Epstein and Lawson discussed the sexual abuse allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn aka DSK, who had just stepped down as managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

Epstein likened sexual abuse victims to “unpunished accusers.”

Lawson responded by explaining a story he had heard about the allegations against DSK. Someone close to DSK told Lawson that DSK had “ordered a girl from an escort agency and then the chambermaid came in at the same time the escort was due, and there was a . . . . misunderstanding . . . Anyway it looks as if she’s the one who’s going to get put away.”

2019: Epstein allegedly kills himself in jail. Dominic Lawson does another drive by on Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Lawson continues defending Prince Andrew and now Alan Dershowitz

In 2019, Epstein was arrested on new charges of child sex trafficking. In August 2019, while in jail awaiting trial, Epstein purportedly hanged himself. In November 2019, Dominic Lawson published another article, this time in The Daily Mail defending Prince Andrew—again.

In Lawson’s article self-titled article, DOMINIC LAWSON: I believe Prince Andrew. But his honesty doesn’t excuse a naive royal arrogance, Lawson defending Prince Andrew while omitting and misstating critical facts about Virignia Giuffre’s allegations against the Duke of York.

Lawson falsely wrote:

I am not claiming Ms Giuffre is lying about the way she was sexually used by Epstein himself. But when she gave the photograph of herself posing with Prince Andrew to the Mail on Sunday in 2011, she made no claim of having been sexually trafficked to the (now) eighth in line to the British throne.

She advanced that assertion only four years later — along with a claim that she had been similarly trafficked to Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, now 81.

Essentially, Lawson was obviously implying that Giuffre’s allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz were not credible because she did not reveal the details until sometime around 2016. But regardless, Lawson’s statements are false. In 2010, Giuffre had filed sealed allegations in a federal lawsuit, alleging that Epstein forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. Prior to filing the allegations, Virignia Roberts had reported the incidents to the FBI.

In the article, Lawson likened Giuffre to “a kind of in-house prostitute.” Giuffre committed suicide in 2025.

You’ve likely heard long ago that when FBI special agents raided Ghislaine Maxwell’s New Hampshire residence in 2020, that they found one of her iPhones wrapped in tin foil. I just found a picture of it in the U.S. DOJ’s latest release from the Epstein files.

Hilariously, the phone was lying next to Sarah Young’s book Jesus Calling, a devotional memoir that encourages Christians to have a close relationship with Jesus.

On July 2, 2020, the FBI executed arrest warrant for Ghislaine Maxwell at her residence in Bradford, New Hampshire. Special agents breached a locked gate and proceeded up the road to the main residence. They encountered a man running with a handheld radio who turned out to be part of Maxwell’s security team. Agents knocked on the front door of the residence and announced themselves. They observed Maxwell run into a room. They breached the front door and immediately arrested her.

Special agents discovered multiple cellphones, including one covered in tin foil. An agent asked Maxwell if she wanted to bring the cell phone with her. “No.” Maxwell said.

EFTA01648962

112KB ∙ PDF file

Download

FBI FD-302 Report of Ghislaine Maxwell Arrest on 7/21/2020

Download

Newly released documents from the DOJ reveal the depravity of Leon Black’s violent rape of multiple children at Jeffrey Epstein’s New York townhouse. The documents show multiple lawyers for the victims, including Jeanne M. Christensen and Douglas Wigdor growing frustrated by federal prosecutors who failed to pursue Black. Christensen had provided overwhelming evidence to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York—but prosecutors did nothing.

“Outrageous that criminal charges have not been brought against him.” Christensen wrote to the USAO in 2023.

Victims independently alleged Leon Black had mutilated their bodies by suddenly clenching his teeth into their genitalia.

Specifically, a Victim 1 alleged that around 2001, Leon Black violently raped her at Epstein’s townhouse in New York. Victim 1 alleged Black “violently bit down on her vulva, labia and clitoris. The biting would get harder and his teeth clamp down more when she yelled out in pain.”

Victim 2 alleged she met Leon Black at Epstein’s New York residence sometime in the early 2000’s. She gave Black a massage while he was on his stomach. Then he wanted to give her a massage. She recalled having difficulty breathing when he forced his obese body on top of her. Black violently raped and bit her. Later, he called her to meet for a drink and paid her $5,000—hoping she would keep quiet.

Victim 3 alleged Leon Black had raped her around 2001-2002 in Epstein’s townhouse. The victim described that Black had inserted something “sharp” in her vagina, on a massage table, while her head was on the floor, and her legs on his shoulders. “Excruciating.” Victim 3 recalled Black had caused her to bleed rectally. Victim 3 reported the rape to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Victim 4 was 16 years old when she was violently raped by Leon Black, who forced sex toys in her rectum and vagina. Victim 4 felt severe pinching in her vagina and began bleeding from her rectum. Black and others at Epstein’s house would not take her to the doctor and instead flew her out of New York the next day. Victim 4 never went back. The next few years she stayed in Palm Beach and Epstein’s island.

Victim 5 alleged that Epstein and Leon Black used to talk about a 10 year old victim. From 2001-2004, she was trafficked to at least 25 different men. The DOJ redacted the trafficker’s name. Victim 5 alleged someone—whose name was redacted—had sex with men in front of her. And then handed the her off to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.

Leon Black is a financier who was closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein for decades. Black was formerly the CEO of Apollo Global Management and served as the Chairman of the Museum of Modern Art from 2018 to 2021. Apollo Management Group receives substantial funding from Saudi Arabia’s government.

Leon Black resigned after an internal investigation of Apollo revealed their disgraced CEO had paid $158 million to Jeffrey Epstein.

In March 2021, Russian model Guzel Ganieva claimed, in a series of social media posts on Twitter, that she "was sexually harassed and abused by Leon Black] for years [and ultimately] forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement under duress."

Leon Black publicly characterized his relationship with Ganieva as a “consensual affair” and that she was trying to extort him.

Ganieva responded in by filing a defamation suit against Leon Black.1 Ganieva was represented by high powered employment attorney Jeanne M. Christensen, a partner at Wigdor LLP.

When other victims discovered Ganieva’s defamation suit, they contacted Christensen to provide evidence that they too had been brutally raped by Leon Black. Christensen relayed their evidence to federal prosecutors.

Attorney Christensen wrote to federal prosecutors that one of the victims was videotaped in a hotel having sex with three men. One of them was Leon Black’s former friend. The video had been circulating on the Internet.

A victim’s journal turned over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office described: “The blood from Leon is no longer there.”

Leon Black’s company Apollo Global Management retained the law firm Dechert LLP to conduct an “independent” investigation into Black’s conduct, which after reviewing 60,000 documents found:

Dechert has seen no evidence that Black or any employee of the Family Office or Apollo was involved in any way with Epstein’s criminal activities at any time. There is no evidence that Epstein ever introduced Black, or offered to introduce Black, to any underage woman.

To date, Leon Black has not been charged with a crime.

WASHINGTON (Jan. 30, 2026) — Donald Trump’s Department of Justice produced on its website another 3.5 million records relating to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation but minutes later, allegedly deleted one of the files—a spreadsheet containing the names of 13 individuals who had reported Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and others to the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center (“NTOC”). The spreadsheet contains a summary of each reporter’s allegations, the FBI’s follow up efforts, and whether the reporter had any criminal history.

The list appears to be cherry-picked by Trump’s DOJ from reporters who Trump can easily disprove. Perhaps the list was released by the DOJ and intentionally deleted to quickly draw the attention of news media. The names of the individual who sent the email and recipient(s) was redacted.

Despite claims by mainstream media and social media posters, that the file had been deleted from Justice.gov, I was able to download the file. Here’s a link to the file EFTA01660651.pdf on the DOJ’s website.

The spreadsheet was attached to an email with the subject line: “Re: NTOC Names.” This internal government email was sent on August 7, 2025, while Trump was well into his term as the 47 President of the United States.

Shortly after the DOJ released batches 9, 10, and 11 of the Epstein files this morning on Justice.gov, reports emerged that the DOJ took the spreadsheet file down.

Around 12:00 PM Eastern Time, CNN’s Jack Tapper, MSNow’s Katy Tur, and other mainstream media reported that the DOJ had deleted the spreadsheet from Justice.gov. This was also reported widely by bloggers Ben Meiselas, Meidas Touch Network, and Krassenstein.

Meidas+

DOJ Just DELETED This Document from the Epstein Files. We Saved It.

The Trump Department of Justice has done it again. The DOJ just abruptly removed a document from today’s Epstein Files release after our social media post, which included screenshots of the document, went viral. The document contained numerous complaints and allegations involving powerful individuals, including Donald Trump…

Read more

2 months ago · 2274 likes · 380 comments · Ben Meiselas and MeidasTouch Network

The spreadsheet was attached to an email that states: “Please see below with criminal history and disposition. I am reaching out to get clarification on the response [ redacted ].”

Here what the 13 tipsters had reported to the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center:

• Reporter 1 alleged approximately 35 years ago, Donald Trump forced a 13-14 year old girl to perform oral sex on him in New Jersey. The victim allegedly bit Trump’s penis. Trump hit her in the face. She was also abused by Epstein.

• Reporter 2 alleged one of Epstein’s personal assistant’s Leslie McMichael, who worked for him from 1982 until 1992, has a list of Epstein’s guests, who included Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.

• Reporter 3 alleged when she was a 16 year old model, she attended eight (8) parties at Epstein’s New York residence. On one occasion, caller reported she was sexually assaulted by Epstein. On another occasion, two twin brothers, Allen and Oren, lured caller and her friend upstairs but they escaped back downstairs. Caller stated Oren raped her best friend and a third brother, Tal, raped a 14 year old girl named Katie LNU. Caller named other individuals involved in “big orgy

  parties” with her. Other young girls, and older Victoria’s Secret models, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Reporter 3 also alleged she wa a victim and witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA between 1995 and 1996. She reported Ghislaine Maxwell as the madam or broker for the sex parties. Clients included Epstein, Robin Leach, and Donald Trump. She reported participating in orgies and that some girls went missing, rumored to have been murdered and buried at the facility. She reported being threatened by Trump’s then head of security that, if she ever talked, she would end up as “fertilizer for the back nine holes like the other cunts.” She claims to have video of high-profile sex parties, dealing with cartels, and having witnessed Robin Leach strangle a young girl to death at a party. The FBI followed up with Reporter 3 and deemed her not credible. FBI research showed three separate incidents involving police which requested mandatory psychiatric evaluations of Reporter 3.

• Reporter 4 claims he was contacted by a female victim who knew about criminal activity that occurred in multiple states and on airplanes, and was told there were films of Epstien, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell.

• Reporter 5 claims that when she was 14 years old, Ghislaine Maxwell approached her about modeling, international travel. Because of her hip defect she never responded to Ghislaine about potentially modeling. In 2000, she was Lisa Villeneuve’s roommate. She went to a party at Epstein’s in Palm Beach, where she was approached by Bobby Cox, a model scout. Villeneuve referred to Bobby Cox as a “pimp.” Villeneuve allegedly spoke with a hostess at the residence, who Reporter 5 believed was Ghislaine Maxwell. While at the party, they were all invited by Donald Trump to Mar-a-Lago. Reporter 5 wanted to go the Mar-a-Lago but Villeneuve told her it was for prostitutes. Reporter 5 allegedly made a podcast of her story. FBI spoke with her twice. Reporter 5 claimed to be a pilates instructor. Also said the royal family called her about the image of Prince Andrews and Guiffre.

• Reporter 6 reported his ex-girlfriend’s daughters were victims of Epstein’s and one was murdered. While working as a limousine driver, complainant recalled picking up Donald Trump in 1995 to take him to Dallas Fort Worth Airport. During that ride, complainant recalled some of the things Trump spoke about on his cell phone were very concerning and described being “a few seconds from pulling the limousine over on the median and within a few seconds of pulling him out of the car and hurting him due to some of the things he was saying.’ Complainant noted Trump repeatedly stated the name “Jeffrey” while on the phone. One of complainant’s ex-girlfriend’s daughters told complainant Trump raped her, as did Epstein.

• Reporter 7 Caller is talking about crimes committed against her. She claims to be a prisoner. She references Lisa Marie Presley, the British Royal Family, President Trump, and Jeffrey Epstein.

• Reporter 8 Complainant reported her neighbor, sought modeling gigs at the Trump Modeling Agency in NYC between the years of 1998-2000. Complainant reported neighbor allegedly went on cruises set up by a recruiter or head of the agency and once showed complainant a photo of the recruiter whom complainant recalled looking like Epstein. Complainant reported neighbor was allegedly raped several times during this time period.

• Reporter 8 - Caller provided information to reference prior civil case from 13 years ago that involved Trump and mentioned Jeffrey Epstein with a minor.

• Reporter 9 - Complainant following up after a call with NYPD officer regarding her previous tip, reporting that she was forced to perform sex acts when she was 13 years old and pregnant in 1984. Complainant also reported there were high profile individuals involved in her sex trafficking and the murder and disposal of her newborn daughter. Complainant reported Donald Trump participated regularly in paying money to force her to perform sex acts with him and alleged Trump was present when her uncle murdered her newborn child.

• Reporter 10 - Caller was taken by boat to Epstein’s Island. Caller said it was complicated and involved Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Caller became a school counselor and had a meeting with the school principal, Linda Kitts, and a police officer where the caller was informed there were pictures of herself with Epstein. Caller reported the school was mad at her for not being a Trump person and that the school wanted her to testify and say things against Andrew Cuomo. The FBI and Donald Trump were on the phone during the meeting. Caller believes the FBI has baby pictures of her with Epstein.

• Reporter 11 - Caller reported that in 1987 a friend (Victim 1) was out drinking and ended up at Trump Plaza. Victim 1 saw Donald Trump and wanted to meet him. A unknown man approached her and offered to introduce her to Trump. The unknown man gave Victim 1 a drink and Victim 1 woke up naked and sore with $300 on the bed. Victim 1 didn’t remember how she got to the room. She remembered seeing ‘a flash’ of Trump’s face. Victim 1 called the Caller and told her she thought she had been raped. Victim 1 did not go to a hospital to have a rape kit performed because she didn’t think anyone would believe her especially because she was drunk. Victim l’s husband’s business had problems with suppliers and Victim 1 believed Trump was behind it. Victim 1 also started dating a lawyer, identifier’s unknown, who was married. Victim 1 had a fight with her lawyer boyfriend and went to a bar. Victim 1 left a bar with a man who no one in the bar recognized but who seemed familiar with Victim 1. Victim 1 was never seen again. A few years ago, remains were discovered that matched the description of what Victim 1 was wearing when she went missing. DNA

  tests at the time were inconclusive.

• Reporter 12 - In 2004 or 2005, Sir Ivan Wilzig, hosted a party where Jeffrey Epstein, Sammy Sosa, and Donald Trump were in attendance. Patti LaBelle’s PR agent stood at the door. At the party, caller met an individual who was approximately 18 to 23 years of age, who was brought from Oklahoma for a

  modeling job but then sold to a man in France. Several women were being auctioned. and a woman possibly known as Colette LNU was the madam. A

  couple of years later, caller saw Colette at the Cheetah Club in New York, NY. and she told one of Santos friends that Jamie Foxx was interested in spending a night with her, and that he could pay her a lot money.

• Reporter 13 - Donald Trump, the president, had parties at Mar-a-Lago called *calendar girls’ Jeffrey Epstein would bring the children in and trump would auction them off. He measured the children’s vulva and vaginas by entering a finger and rated the children on tightness. The guests were elder men and

  included Elon Musk, Don Trump Jr. , Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump were there. Attorney Allan Dershowitz was also there with Attorney Bob Shapiro. We were taken in rooms. forced to give oral sex to Donald J Trump. Forced to allow them to

  penetrate us. I was 13 years old wren Donald J Trump raped me. Ghislaine Maxwell was also present.

NOTC Names List Deleted from DOJ Server EFTA01660651.pdf

464KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This file was posted on the U.S. DOJ's website on January 30, 2026 but quickly removed.

Download

In no way am I arguing that the reporter’s allegations are false. But after reviewing the spreadsheet, I do believe the allegations contained therein are difficult to prove and that Donald Trump and his DOJ will use these allegations to discredit other victims whose allegations are highly credible (or have already been proven in a court of law). One of Trump’s key strategies is to create red herrings that distract us from focusing on credible victims.

Whistleblowers have leaked an internal memo circulated by ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, instructing agents that they may conduct searches of private residences without a judicial warrant. ICE’s policy is based on legal advice rendered by James H. Percival, General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The directive constitutes a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment, which strictly prohibits the government from entering or searching a home without a valid warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. While the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out narrow exceptions for warrantless searches—such as hot pursuit or immediate danger—none of those exceptions apply to the administrative arrests described in the Lyons memo.

Leaked Ice Memo

5.91MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Ice Memo from Ice Director Todd Lyons Instructing ICE Agents that a judicial warrant is not required to search homes

Download

The Origins of the Prohibition on Unreasonable Searches

The Fourth Amendment was drafted by James Madison and ratified in 1791 as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It guarantees:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment was the culmination of two centuries of English common law designed to check absolute monarchical power. In the landmark Semayne’s Case (1604), Sir Edward Coke famously declared that “the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.” Coke argued that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude upon a dwelling; entry was only permitted for lawful purposes after a warrant was obtained.

While England protected the “castles” of its citizens at home, it did not afford the same dignity to its American colonists. British tax collectors utilized “writs of assistance”—general warrants that gave officers near-unlimited authority to search any place at any time. In 1761, colonial merchants petitioned the courts to end these intrusive practices. They lost the legal battle, but a young John Adams was in the courtroom. He later described the argument against those warrantless searches as “the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”

Following independence, these protections were codified in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) and the Massachusetts Constitution, before being refined into the Fourth Amendment. The intent was clear: to place an iron barrier between the state and the private sanctuary of the home.

Modern Application and the Secret Lyons ICE Memo

Under modern jurisprudence, a search of a residence is “per se unreasonable” if not authorized by a judicial warrant. While the Fourth Amendment was not applied to the states until 1961 (Mapp v. Ohio), its application to federal agents has been absolute since the founding.

Todd Lyons’ secret memo defies this history. It attempts to bypass the judiciary by instructing agents that they may enter a residence to conduct an administrative arrest provided they have a “Form I-205” (Warrant of Removal/Deportation). The memo argues that a final order of removal “establishes probable cause,” thereby granting agents the authority to “use necessary and reasonable force” to enter a home if admittance is refused.

However, the Supreme Court addressed this exact issue in Payton v. New York (1980). The Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest. If a felony arrest warrant—signed by a judge—does not grant the police the right to break into a home without a separate search warrant or exigent circumstances, then an administrative form signed by an ICE official certainly does not.

Englands prohibition on unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures did not apply to its American Colonies. The King’s officers had almost unlimited authority to search anywhere in the colonies at anytime. Tax collectors frequently conducted warrantless searches of homes in America to seize prohibited goods. By 1761 merchants had enough and petitioned the court to denounce British colonial practices. They lost. But John Adams was present in the courtroom. Adams viewed the warrantless searches as “the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”

The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) recognized the dangers and restricted government actors:

That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

John Adams incorporated these requirements into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and added that all searches must be “reasonable.”

Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws. (Massachusetts Constitution, Article XIV.)

This language found its way into the Fourth Amendment. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment was to place clear limits on the government’s power. When the Constitution was proposed, Anti-Federalists demanded protections and limits to the government’s power. In response to their demands, James Madison drafted corrective proposals, including the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791.

In reality, the Fourth Amendment had little application in the 1800’s because federal criminal law was extremely limited. Crime was mostly codified by states. Things shifted by 1908 when the Bureau of Investigation (now FBI) was created.

The Fourth Amendment did not apply to state and local agencies until the Supreme Court held in 1961 that the Fourth Amendment applies to states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Modern Day Application of the Fourth Amendment

In general, a search of a person, their residence, or property, is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the search is not authorized by a judicial search warrant. A search warrant is a written order signed by a judge that permits a law enforcement officer to search a particular person, place, or thing. There are some limited exceptions to this, such as a search incident to an arrest, exigent circumstances, emergencies, voluntary consent. These exceptions have little application when ICE agents searching one’s home, unless a person voluntarily consents to the search.

Todd Lyon’s Secret Memo Evidences an Illegal Pattern and Practice of Violating Constitutional Rights

ICE Director Todd Lyons’ secret memo instructing ICE officers they do not need a judicial warrant to search a person’s residence defies Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence. Lyons attempts to justify these illegal searches by relying on legal advice from DHS’ General Counsel James H. Percival.

Lyons’ leaked memo states: “ICE immigration officers may arrest and detain aliens . . . in their place of residence.” Lyons’ memo instructs ICE agents that prior to entering a residence to conduct an administrative immigration arrest, they “must ensure the Form I-205 is properly completed and is supported by an order of final removal. . . this is essential because that order establishes probable cause. . . Officers and Agents must have also have reason to believe that the subject alien resides at and is currently located in the address where the Form I-205 is to be served.”

Form I-205 is titled a “warrant of removal/deportation” that is typically signed by an immigration officer that calls for a person to be deported. Immigrations officers are not judicial officers. They work for an administrative agency.

Sample I-205 Administrative Warrant to Remove/Deport

454KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Deportation warrants are not issued to by Judges but administrative agents including immigration officers. Form I-205 is not a judicial search warrant, which is required under the Fourth Amendment to search a person's home.

Download

Before entering a home without a judicial warrant, Lyons instructs ICE agents must:

1. Knock and announce;

2. Allow “those inside the residence a reasonable chance to act lawfully”; and

3. If an “alien” refuses admittance, ICE officers can use necessary and reasonable force to enter the alien’s residence.

However, the Supreme Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) held the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. The Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional for police officers in New York to enter the residence of individuals who had felony arrest warrants, without first obtaining a judicial search warrant.

A judicial warrant to search a home requires an authorized law enforcement agent to apply to a judge to request that a specific property be searched. The application requires the officer to provide an affidavit showing facts that demonstrate probable cause to search the property.

Federal Application for Judicial Search Warrant

532KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

By treating a Form I-205 as a skeleton key to the American home, the DHS and ICE are attempting to resurrect the general warrants and so-called “writs of assistance" that John Adams vehemently despised.

Should the Executive Branch continue to bypass judicial oversight, the 'castle' of private protections will dissolve into a radical commune. It is a striking irony: Trump’s path leads directly toward the anarcho-communism his base considers their greatest enemy.

In a move that has left diplomats scratching their heads and international observers aghast, a purportedly leaked letter from President Donald Trump to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre reveals a stunning blend of personal grievance and audacious geopolitical demands. The letter, quickly circulating online, suggests Trump believes his failure to receive a Nobel Peace Prize for “stopping 8 Wars PLUS” somehow nullifies his “obligation to think purely of Peace,” opening the door to a demand for the United States to seize Greenland.

Trump’s letter was triggered by Prime Minister Støre, who sent to Donald Trump text messages, requesting request to set up a telephone call to discuss Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine, and Trump’s latest tariffs.

On Sunday afternoon at 3:48 pm, Prime Minister Støre sent the following text message to Donald Trump:

Dear Mr President, dear Donald - on the contact across the Atlantic - on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine - and your tariff announcement yesterday. You know our position on these issues. But we believe we all should work to take this down and de-escalate - so much is happening around us where we need to stand together. We are proposing a call with you later today - with both of us or separately - give us a hint of what you prefer! Best - Alex and Jonas

Less than half an hour later at 4:15 pm, Donald Trump responded on White House letterhead.

Trump’s letter, addressed informally to “Jonas,” reportedly dismisses Denmark’s “right of ownership” over Greenland, arguing, “[t]here are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.”

This reasoning has drawn widespread ridicule. “Is this how we’re rewriting history now? ‘First dibs’ for any boat that landed?” quipped one Twitter user, whose post quickly went viral. “By that logic, half the world belongs to the Vikings!”

Trump’s declaration: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” raises serious questions about the strategic implications of such a demand, particularly given Greenland’s critical location in the Arctic and its indigenous population.

Critics are pointing to the letter as further evidence of Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy, where alliances and international law take a backseat to personal perceived slights and nationalistic ambitions.

As the letter continues to ignite furious debate across social media and news outlets, the world waits to see how Norway, Denmark, and the broader international community will respond to this latest, extraordinary missive from the former U.S. President. One thing is clear: the image of an astronaut riding a horse on Mars seems less fantastical than some of the demands laid out in this unprecedented diplomatic spectacle.

Here’s the plain text version of Donald Trump’s letter to Prime Minister Støre:

Dear Jonas:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.

Thank you!

President DJT

A series of explosive, yet highly questionable, allegations involving high-ranking political figures has surfaced on Voldeng’s Substack page "Outlaws of Chivalry." As expected, her politically charged posts have further divided MAGA loyalists from the left. Again, Donald Trump’s pattern of sexual abuse is now being punted between party lines. And Voldeng’s presentation of the allegations only plays into the division. How does that help victims?

Voldeng has no known professional license in therapy, medicine, or law. But she conducted a lengthy recorded interviews of Sascha Riley in July 2025 about him being sexually abused as a minor.

Riley (born 1973) alleges his adoptive parents trafficked him in the early 1980s into a child sex and snuff film ring led by Donald Trump. While the nature of the claims is grave, the lack of professional vetting and the background of the interviewer raise significant red flags regarding the reliability of his “testimony” and its potential impact on credible advocacy for victims.

Danger of Causing Serious Harm to Sexual Abuse Victims

When an unlicensed or untrained individual interviews a victim of sexual abuse, they risk causing profound harm that can span legal, psychological, and social dimensions.

An unlicensed person often lacks the training to navigate the neurobiology of trauma, which dictates how victims remember and process their experiences.

Throughout Voldeng’s interview of Riley, she engages in highly unethical and unprofessional discussions with Riley. Voldeng used leading questions to suggest what happened to Riley. She also fails to dispose of her political biases. She used charged language to describe her personal disdain for Trump.

Danger of Contaminating Evidence

Voldgeng’s suggestive questioning throughout the interview contaminates the evidence and could severely undermine Riley’s testimony in a legal proceeding.

Untrained individuals like Voldeng often ask leading questions to victims. This can plant false memories or cause victims to agree with the interviewer’s suggestions just to end the stress. Voldeng also elicited duplicative answers, which leads to inconsistencies. You have probably heard of the trial objection “asked and answered.” There’s a reason why your adversary cannot repeatedly ask you a question that was previously answered. It’s an improper technique that confuses the record and leds to inconsistencies.

Although Riley’s recorded interview is not verified testimony under penalty of perjury, and technically constitutes hearsay, his recorded statements can likely be used against him in legal proceedings. If Riley finds himself involved in legal proceedings and testifies, his adversaries can impeach him with the recordings by showing that he made a prior inconsistent statement—a common exception to the hearsay rule.

Moreover, leading questions are used in legal proceedings while cross-examining an adversary. There is no justification for Voldeng to essentially depose Riley, record it, and release it to the public. This places Riley in a risky position. No longer can he control the narrative.

As a lawyer, the last thing in the world I would want for any client is to have recorded interview of their allegations floating around. I do not record interviews with my clients, even though the recordings are protected from disclosure under the work product and attorney-client privileges.

As a lawyer who represents victims, I want to control and limit what evidence their adversaries have. I don’t want to create evidence and hand it to them on a platter.

The more someone speaks, the more evidence they provide, the more likely they are to make mistakes. That is normal. But defense attorneys can destroy a person’s credibility by pointing out slight inconsistencies.

Because trauma often results in fragmented or non-linear memory, an unlicensed person might push for a strict timeline that the victim’s brain cannot provide. This creates artificial inconsistencies—ones that defense counsel will use to destroy the victim in front of a jury.

The Recordings Expose Riley to Defamation Claims

While “the truth” is obviously a defense to defamation, it may be very difficult for Riley to prove his allegations are in fact true given that the alleged abuse occurred nearly four and a half decades ago.

I would never want to expose a client to being sued for defamation. Let alone by Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Lindsey Graham, and Clarence Thomas. If they sue Riley for defamation per se, their burden is to show that he made statements accusing them of a serious crime; that those statements were published to a third party; and that third party understood the statements were about them.1 They are not required to prove they are innocent. A defamation case is not a criminal trial.

Once Trump and Co. present evidence that Riley and/or Voldeng published allegations that they had committed serious crimes, then Riley can attempt to defend against their claims by proving that Trump and Co. did in fact commit those crimes.And that’s where it gets difficult. It’s not easy to prove that someone was sexually abused in 1980-1983. It is difficult for victims to obtain relevant, admissible evidence of crimes that occurred so long ago.

When an individual files a police report or raises the allegations in a civil lawsuit, the the statements are typically exempt from defamation claims.2 But once the accuser publishes the allegations to third persons (outside the context of litigation), they risk being sued.

You may recall that Virginia Giuffre was very wise to keep most of her allegations within the context of litigation. But even then, that did not stop Alan Dershowitz from victim shaming her in the news.

As a result, Giuffre sued Alan Dershowitz for defamation in 2019.3 But he aggressively defended the lawsuit and countersued her for the same. Dershowitz’s legal team deployed scorched earth tactics for three years until both sides agreed to dismiss their claims against each other. Unfortunately, Giuffre never got to bring her claims against Dershowitz to trial.

Subscribe now

That’s why if you are a victim, it is very important to have highly experienced therapists, physicians, and legal counsel in these situations. In these situations, we do not want the abuser to control the narrative, file a defamation lawsuit, or resort to other tactics that muddy the waters—tactics that give the abuser significant control and power.

Secondary Victimization

Asking a sexual abuse survivor to recall details can lead to retraumatization. When working with an abuse victim, you don’t want to have them relive the events without appropriate grounding techniques. Otherwise, you can easily trigger severe PTSD symptoms. I’m not here to diagnose Riley, but he even discloses that while he was in the Army and serving in the Iraq war, he came under heavy fire. He could have severe PTSD from the sexual abuse and serving in combat. Individuals with multiple sources of PTSD and be a high risk for experiencing panic attacks, dissociation, and even paralysis when triggered. Voldeng’s work here unnecessarily places Riley in a risky situation.

There’s also the risk when interviewing an abuse victim of inducing guilt and shame and loss of agency. In these situations, an interviewer can unintentionally dictate the flow of the conversation and divest the victim of their power. This could further harm the victim.

Ethical Risks

In this situation, Voldeng broadcasted Riley’s allegations in a very sensational way on her blog. What’s her plan now? She has alerted the alleged perpetrators. If Riley’s allegations are true, he’s immediately as risk of physical harm and continued intimidation. It’s interesting that the conclusion of Voldeng’s blog post explains that she reported all of his allegations to her “allies,” church officials, and police. And that when the FBI contacted Riley, she removed him from the “country.” Is that a good plan? Why expose a victim to all this. Voldeng’s credibility is weakened by the fact that she uses highly charged descriptions of Trump throughout her interview and on her blog.

Voldeng’s Lack of Credentials and Monetization

Voldeng possesses no apparent license to practice therapy, nor any documented professional experience in investigative journalism or forensic interviewing.

On her personal website, Voldeng describes herself as an investor in “individuals and companies involved in the pursuit of justice,” alongside interests in “advanced technology, finance, and content companies.”

The distribution of these interviews has a clear commercial component. Voldeng’s Substack charges $350 for an annual membership and offers a “founding member” tier for $2,500. For this price, subscribers receive “fireside-esque conversations on living chivalrously” and “remote training sessions on practical preparedness.”

The use of a paywalled blog to prosecute individuals for alleged sexual abuse is bizarre and could place victims in significant harms ways.

Voldeng also has a website Voldeng.com where she has a portfolio section that showcases several of her “companies and brands” and “apparel, books, handbooks, paintings, photography, music, mixed media, multi markets.”

Voldeng wrote that she published the audio recordings of Riley for herself and for Sascha “[a]nd for his friends Samantha, Patricia, and Sarah, all of whom died.”

Dangers of Blindly Accepting Riley’s Allegations as Truth

I have received a lot of flak from my last article where I discussed what I believe are some of the exaggerations in Riley’s recorded statements. Unfortunately, it is important to vet Riley’s allegations before blindly supporting him.

I understand the urge to believe everything that is thrown out there. And I know there are many victims of Donald Trump. But I think it is dangerous for us to automatically confirm and get behind any allegation without first carefully vetting each claim with corroborating evidence.

Otherwise, we are doing injustice to the other victims whose claims we already have substantial, reliable, and credible evidence of.

According to The New York Times columnist Jessica Bennett, as many as 69 women have accused Trump of sexual abuse.4

In 1990, Donald Trump’s ex-wife Ivana Trump testified in a deposition, under penalty of perjury, that when he found out she had visited a plastic surgeon, he was angry, assaulted her, battered her, ripped out hair, and raped her.5

In 1997, Jill Harth filed a lawsuit against Trump alleging he had sexually assaulted her at Mar-a-Lago in Ivanaka Trump’s bedroom and later stalked her. The case settled for an undisclosed amount.

In 2016, an anonymous woman using the pseudonym Katie Johnson filed a lawsuit in California accusing Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of forcibly raping her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Her lawsuit also alleged that Trump had threatened her, that if she ever told anyone, he would make her disappear like he did to her friend Maria, a 12 year old. The lawsuit was dropped immediately before election day in 2016.

In 2023, a federal jury found that Trump had assaulted, battered, and forcibly penetrated E. Jean Carroll.6

Many other women have publicly alleged they were sexually abused by Donald Trump, including Jessica Leeds, Kristin Anderson, Stacey Williams, Beatrice Keul, Lisa Boyne, Cathy Heller, Temple Taggart McDowell, Amy Dorris, Karena Virginia, Karen Johnson, Mindy McGillivray, Rachel Crooks, Natasha Stoynoff, Juliet Huddy, Jessica Drake, Ninni Laaksonen, Cassandra Searles, Mariah Billado, Bridget Sullivan, Tasha Dixon, and Samantha Holvey. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Each of these women have highly credible allegations that have been vetted.

But blindly adopting Sascha Riley’s allegations, who has no known connection, contact, access, or relationship to Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Clarence Thomas, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, or Lindsey Graham, is not good for anyone. Riley is an outlier.

Subscribe now

The problem I have with Riley’s allegations is that they often clash with established historical timelines. That’s not to say that his allegations are false. But he admittedly has difficulties recalling certain information. That’s normal. It does not mean he is lying.

Anachronisms and Logical Inconsistencies

Here are some of the inconsistencies in his allegations. As a recap, Riley alleges he was trafficked to a snuff ring led by Donald Trump in the early-to-mid 1980s—a ring he claims included Jeffrey Epstein, Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham, and Clarence Thomas.

Critically, the claims include several historical improbabilities:

• The Putin Connection: Riley claims Vladimir Putin’s name was frequently mentioned by his adoptive parents during the 1980-1983 incidents. First of all, Putin has very limited English speaking skills. It’s not probably that he would be “hanging out” in the social circles of Sascha Riley’s father William Kyle Riley. At the time, Putin was a low-ranking KGB official in East Germany; he remained virtually unknown in the United States until his rise to power in 1999. There are no verified records of Putin ever visiting the United States in the early 1980s. During that time period, Putin was serving in Leningrad at the First Department as a counterintelligence agent. Putin was tasked with monitoring foreign officials—not recruiting Westerners. In the past, both Riley and Voldeng posted politically charged statements and rhetoric about Trump, Russia, and Putin.

• The Jim Jordan Timeline: Riley alleges Jim Jordan was a participant in the ring. However, in the early 1980’s Jordan was attending Graham High School in Ohio. By 1982, he started attending University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he was a three-time All American and Two Time NCAA Division I wrestling champion. Riley alleges he was forced to fight Jordan in front of a group of people. At the time, Riley would have been approximately 10 years old while Jordan was 19.
  

  “So he assaulted me in front of a crowd, and I think that it was filmed, but I can’t swear that it was filmed, but it was in front of those 25 or 50 people. . . The reason that I remember Jim Jordan is first he stood out because he wasn’t that much,

  he’s only like seven or eight years older than me.” Riley alleged.

• Trump’s relationship with Epstein

Riley alleges that Trump ran the child sex-trafficking and snuff film ring. Whereas Jeffrey Epstein played a lower function in the ring. The difficulty with these allegations is that there is no known association between Donald Trump and Epstein during the early 1980s. There is little evidence of Trump having any connection to Epstein until at least the late 1980s. According to Trump, he met Epstein in 1987. That’s not to say that Trump and Epstein did not know each other in the early 1980s, but if they did, and you have evidence of that, please send it to me. Investigative journalists have sought out information about the foundations of Trump’s relationship with Epstein for more than a decade.

Kicking a Wooden Stake in Donald Trump

One specific account involves Riley allegedly causing a life-threatening injury to Donald Trump using a wooden tent stake—an incident Riley claims resulted in Trump being “life-flighted” out of a barn in Enterprise, Alabama.

There is no public record of such a medical emergency or injury. There is chatter that the anal injuries line up with the fact that Donald Trump’s personal physician was gastroenterologist Harold Bornstein. Bornstein claimed his office and records were raided by Trump’s people when Trump became president. Bornstein died in 2021. There are also rumors that Trump wears diapers and stinks out his staff. People who have adopted Riley’s allegations contend that these rumors information somehow proves that Riley impaled Trump in the early 1980s.

Subscribe now

The biggest problem I see with Riley’s claim about impaling Trump with wooden stake is that there are no known time periods between 1981 and 1983 where Trump was temporarily disabled, such that Trump was unable to walk. I found photos of Donald Trump standing and in good spirits nearly every month from 1982 through 1985. I am missing some months but have not spent a lot of time searching. Trump was a well known-public figure in the early 80s.

In a hypothetical scenario where a person sustains a traumatic impalement, the medical consequences would be severe and life-threatening. Rectal impalement involves complex trauma. Trump’s colon could have been perforated. He could have suffered from internal organ damage depending on the angle and force. Riley could have penetrated Trump’s bladder, small intestine, or even his liver, diaphragm, or lungs. There would likely have been significant internal bleeding, nerve damage, and loss of mobility. Trump would have needed immediate surgery and hospitalization. A full recovery from that severe of an injury could take over a year.

There is no readily available evidence that Trump suffered such a severe injury in the early 1980s. Perhaps someone will locate it. If Riley’s allegations are true, it should be relatively easy to find witnesses close to Trump at the time who would know whether Trump was severely injured. We will see.

The Danger of Unvetted and Unverified Testimony

Voldeng frequently refers to the recordings as “testimony,” despite the fact that the interview was not conducted under penalty of perjury. Riley did not take an oath.

Voldeng’s conduct during the interviews has also drawn scrutiny. At one point, approximately 50 minutes into the first recording, Voldeng laughs and compares the alleged events of Riley kicking the wooden stake into Donald Trump to the Denzel Washington film The Equalizer.

This injection of levity and a pop-culture reference stands in stark contrast to the standard of care required when discussing sexual trauma with a victim.

Furthermore, Voldeng’s use of Latin phrases like “Veritas vincit” (truth conquers) and frequent biblical citations on her Substack post, where she revealed the recording of Riley, suggests that she is on a crusade-like political mission, rather than an objective investigation.

While every allegation of abuse deserves to be heard, they must be approached with extreme caution when they lack corroboration and are presented by uncertified intermediaries.

The primary concern is that Riley’s accounts—which feature significant chronological gaps and sensationalized details—could be used to muddy the waters. By associating high-profile figures with improbable scenarios, such reports risk undermining the efforts of other victims whose allegations are supported by credible, forensic evidence, and findings made by a jury.

Without corroboration, these recordings remain a cautionary tale of the dangers of “citizen journalism” in the sensitive arena of sexual abuse.

Yesterday, Sascha Riley’s (born 1973) allegations against Donald Trump and several others began to blow up on social media. In the past, Riley has revealed tidbits of his allegations on his own social media accounts. But on November 23, 2025, Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack post Don’t worry. Boys are hard to find Part 1 of 2 provided links to six audio files she recorded while interviewing Riley in July 2025.

Riley’s allegations should be carefully reviewed and discussed with extreme caution. My fear is that Riley’s account of multiple sexual abuse incidents with Donald Trump could be used to muddy the waters and undermine other victims whose allegations are supported by credible evidence.

Sascha Riley’s Allegations

Riley (born 1973) alleges he was sex trafficked by his adoptive parents to a criminal ring led by Donald Trump in the early-mid 1980s. Riley alleges Epstein was lower in the enterprise. Riley claims that the ring made snuff films of children being raped and murdered.

Riley alleges that sometime around 1980-1981, he first encountered Donald Trump, who killed several puppies, then sexually assaulted Riley. Trump allegedly paid Riley’s parent’s for the experience.

“I think the payday that they were supposed to get was $25,000.” Riley said.

Riley alleges that sometime in 1982-1983, while he was at an unspecified location in a barn, he witnessed 4 or 5 big guys shoot to death a girl named Patricia while she was on a bed. The men threatened Riley: “If you don’t do everything that the next person coming in here wants, we’re gonna shoot you, just like we did to her.” Then, they went to find another bed.

That’s when Donald Trump came in. Riley felt like they were going to kill him. Donald Trump allegedly laid on his stomach, face down in the bed. That’s when Riley alleges he put a condom over a wooden tent stake, put the stake inside Trump’s butt, then kicked the stake in an attempt to kill him.

Riley allegedly caused Trump to be “life flighted” out because Riley “ripped him open.”

During the interview, Voldeng laughed and asked Riley if he had ever seen The Equalizer with Denzel Washington. This part of the interview, which is about 50 minutes into the first recording, labeled “A of 6” significantly undermines Voldeng’s credibility and the serious nature of the allegations. It reveals Voldengs lack of professionalism and competence.

Riley goes on to allege others involved in the ring included Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham, and Clerence Thomas.

Riley alleges that his parents discussed Vladimir Putin’s a lot. But this is improbable given that Putin was a low rank KGB official in the mid 1980s. Putin’s name only became publicly known in America about a decade and a half later in 1999, when he became the Prime Minister of Russia.

Jim Jordan is a truly despicable individual, but he is only 11 years older that Riley. It seems improbable that Jim Jordan, would have had access to Donald Trump and the so-called “Dixie Mafia” while Jordan was in high school—let alone while attending University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Riley alleges that it was also a fighting ring, where groups would watch bare knuckle fightings between adults and children. Riley says he was pitted against Jim Jordan. At the time Jim Jordan would have been about 17-22 years old.

Voldeng’s Substack post also includes a bible passage and politically charged rhetoric, which undermine her credibility as someone reporting on a serious topic. Her approach to the interview is unprofessional, often inserting her personal opinions and characterizations of the individuals involved.

My concern is Sascha Riley’s allegations do not fit the typical timeline we’ve known from other credible victims. Riley claims that Trump and Epstein were running the ring in the early 1980s. But there is no known association between the duo until 1987 or thereafter.

Riley mentions that his adoptive mother struggled with pronouncing Ghislaine Maxwell’s name. But Maxwell was not associated with Epstein until the early 90s. In 1983, Ghislaine Maxwell would have been 22 years old.

Because Riley’s allegations appear to be greatly exaggerated, they could be used to undermine, mock, and humiliate other credible victims.

That’s not to say that Riley’s claims shouldn’t be taken seriously, but at this point I think it’s critical to find corroborating evidence, which is obviously difficult given that the incident allegedly occurred more than 4.5 decades ago.

The ICE Agent in Minnesota appears to have used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits government actors from unreasonable seizures. When law enforcement kills someone it constitutes a “seizure” of the person.

In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court created a test for determining whether a peace-officers use of force is excessive.

The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

The victim’s surviving family members will likely file a civil lawsuit against the ICE agent and Department of Homeland Security for wrongful death and violations of the Fourth Amendment under 12 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants will likely first file a motion to dismiss claiming immunity. This gives the trial court judge at the beginning of the case to apply some alleged facts to the Graham test. Regardless of whether the motion to dismiss is granted or denied, either party will likely appeal the issue.

I predict the State of Minnesota will file a separate criminal case against the ICE agent and charge him with murder and/or lesser included offenses. In that situation, the U.S. Constitutions Supremacy Clause will likely be raised and the case would be removed from Minnesota State Court to Federal Court. However, the criminal case would still be prosecuted by Minnesota prosecutors, not the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Typically when criminal charges are filed against an officer in these situations, the civil case against him will be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case.

In 1994, Jeffrey Epstein used his corporation Hyperion Air, Inc., to purchase a 1974 Gulfstream G-1159B, serial number 151. Epstein changed the tail number to N909JE.

In 1997, Veruzhka Ramírez was crowned Miss Venezuela. The following year, she was the first runner up in Donald Trump’s Miss Universe pageant. Ramírez sought out Trump backstage, in front of a reporter from ____.

Tim Ryan of the Star-Bulletin wrote an article about the Miss Universe Pageant where he observed Veruska Ramirez backstage with Donald Trump. Ramirez tried to capture Trump’s attention.

Ramirez was 18 at the time. Trump was 51. Ramirez darted down a hallway searching for Trump, where she observed him talking to Hawaii’s then-governor Ben Cayetano. “Miss Venezuela, in 5 inch heals waits, tapping her toe, and frowning.” Ryan wrote.

Virginia Giuffre alleged that in 2001, the former prime minister of Israel, Ehud Barak had raped her on Epstien’s Gulfstream jet, not to be confused with his 727 infamously described as “Lolita’s Express.” Virginia Giuffre reported these incidents in 2007, when she was approached by the FBI.

Giuffre alleged she was brutally battered by Ehud Barak while he raped her on Epstein’s island Little St. James. Giuffre alleged she was raped a second time by Barak while on board Epstein’s Gulfstream jet during a one hour flight that circled around West Palm Beach.

In 2007, Epstein had the Gulfstream overhauled and painted with new stripes along the fuselage.

In 2013, Epstein transferred his Gulfstream to Starbridge Landing, Inc. of Delaware. Problem is, no such entity ever existed. However, the corporation was created in Florida by Oscar A. Faria.

According to an FAA Special Agent, Faria deregistered the plane on December 2, 2014, exported the plane and registered it in Venezuela. Faria’s new tail number was YV569T.

FAA Special Agents Email Correspondence

497KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

It is surprising the Epstein was able to transfer the plane under the FBI’s nose while they were investigating his involvement in an international child sex trafficking, money laundering, and blackmail ring. The plane was evidence.

In 2023, Veruzhka Ramírez and her husband Oscar Faria were at Trump National golf course in Doral, Florida.

Soon after Ramirez and her husband were at Trump National golf course, the Gulfstream jet was intentionally wrecked at Opa Locka airport in Miami.

In this video I break down the text messages between Jeffrey Epstein and Steve Bannon, that the FBI extracted from Jeffrey Epstein’s iPhone. At the bottom of this article you can download the original source documents released by the House Oversight Committee.

In 2018 and 2019, Jeffrey Epstein and Steve Bannon, former Trump’s advisor and White House Chief Strategist and Counsel, exchanged a number of texts about Venezuela and Maduro.

On August 30, 2018, Epstein texted Bannon that Argentina would be next to collapse. The whole “South America” including Brazil, Venezuela, and Argentina. Epstein wrote, "they are “soon to be the best investment of a lifetime.”

“Venezuela. More oil reserves than Saudi.” Epstein wrote.

“I’m. meeting with Cisneros when I get back from Venice,” Bannon replied.

On March 10, 2018, Epstein texted Steve Bannon about a Chinese airplane having arrived in Caracas to deliver medicine and medical supplies to Maduro’s government.

“China ‘lebensraum’; Australia; Venezuela; Brazil,” Bannon replied.

Subscribe now

On May 9, 2019, Epstein wrote to Bannon that Venezuelan Vice President, Edgar Zambrano, was surrounded by intelligence officers when leaving his party’s headquarters in Caracas.

Here are the original source files from the House Oversight Committee. The source files appear to be exports from Cellebrite software used by the FBI to extract the data from Jeffrey Epstein’s iPhone. To make it easier to read, I used the data to recreate the iChat bubbles that you see above.

House Oversight 025734

65.4KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

House Oversight 027594

111KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

House Oversight 027695

37KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores arrived in New York Saturday evening, where they will be arraigned on federal charges of conspiring in narco terrorism, cocaine trafficking, and possession of machine guns.

Trump’s arrest of Maduro and his wife clearly violates international laws. But Trump justifies his actions based on a craft memo written in 1989 by William Barr, then-Assistant Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. Barr’s opined that opined the FBI has authority to arrest individuals abroad under the U.S. Constitution’s presidential powers. But admittedly ignored international customs and treaties to get there.

Subscribe now

The Spectacle of Trump’s Illegal Arrest of Maduro

Early this morning, following U.S. Military strikes in Caracas, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. law enforcement had “captured” Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores and flew them out of the country. They were taken aboard a U.S. Special Forces MV-22B Ospreys, CH-53E Super Stallion, and AH-1Z attack helicopters were spotted across the Caracas skyline around 2:00 am local time.

“The word integration does not explain the sheer complexity of such a mission, an extraction so precise it involved more than 150 aircraft launching across the western hemisphere in close coordination, all coming together in time and place to layer effects for a single purpose, to get an interdiction force into downtown Caracas while maintaining the element of tactical surprise,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said.

Maduro and his wife were dropped off on the USS Iwo Jima, an aircraft carrier positioned in the Caribbean.

From there, they departed on the DOJ’s 757 which arrived in New York at Stewart Air National Guard Base. From there, Maduro and his wife were transported by helicopter to New York City where they were booked around 7 pm. Maduro and his wife are being detained at Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

Maduro and his wife will likely be arraigned on Monday morning at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan.

The Grand Jury’s Charges against Maduro

This morning, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against Maduro and his family, issued by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York. The indictment contains sweeping allegations against Maduro and his family for conspiring with the FARC, ELN, Sinaloa Cartel, the Zetas, and Tren de Argua (TdA), to import cocaine to the United States.

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York convinced a secret grand jury that there was probable cause that Maduro, his wife, son, and other Venezuelan officials had violated U.S. law. This morning, the DOJ unsealed the indictment which contains four charges and requests forfeiture of all assets obtained therefrom:

1. Narco Terrorism Conspiracy—violations of 21 USC § 960a: Providing pecuniary value to terrorist organizations through drug distribution.

2. Cocaine Importation Conspiracy—violations of 21 USC §§ 952(a), 959(c), 960(a)(1), 960(a)(3), 960(b)(l)(B), 963, and 18 USC § 3238: Importation of at least five kilograms of cocaine into the U.S.

3. Possession of Machine Guns and Destructive Devices—18 USC §§ 924(c)(l)(A), 924(c)(l)(B)(ii), 3238: Knowingly using and carrying heavy weaponry, including machine guns, in furtherance of drug crimes.

4. Conspiracy to Possess Machine Guns and Destructive Devices—18 USC §§ 924(c): Agreeing to use machine guns and destructive devices to protect the drug trade.

Maduro's Second Indictment 2025

557KB ∙ PDF file

Download

A federal grand jury indicted Maduro in 2025. The indictment was unsealed by federal prosecutors on January 3, 2026, following his arrest in Caracas.

Download

Maduro and his wife Cilia will be held in federal custody in New York City and arraigned on the charges. Prosecutors will likely extend a plea agreement to Maduro. Upon arraignment, they will likely plead not guilty. Thereafter, they will have time to strike up a plea deal with U.S. Attorneys. But Maduro will most likely maintain his innocence and take his chances before a jury. This will require prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Maduro, his wife, and the other defendants committed every element of each charged offense.

Despite the large scale spectacle orchestrated by Trump and his DOJ, Maduro and his wife are considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury.

This is Maduro’s second indictment. He was previously indicted in 2020 under Trump’s first administration.

Then Attorney-General William Barr held a press conference on March 26, 2020, about the first indictment. “As alleged, the Maduro regime is awash in corruption and criminality. Maduro and the other defendants have betrayed the Venezuelan people and corrupted Venezuela’s institutions. While the Venezuelan people suffer, this cabal lines their pockets with drug money and the proceeds of their corruption. This has to come to an end.” Barr said.

Maduro First Indictment 2020

1.14MB ∙ PDF file

Download

In 2020, a federal grand jury indicted Maduro on similar charges.

Download

In the 2020 indictment, Maduro was charged with the same crimes. One of the most significant differences betwen the 2020 and 2025 indictments are the defendants.

In 2020, Nicolás Maduro, Diosdado Cabello Rondón, El Pollo, Ivan Marquez, and Jesús Santrich were indicted.

Whereas in 2025, Nicolás Maduro, Diosdado Cabello Rondón, Ramon Chacin, Cilia Flores, Nicolasito (Maduro’s son), and Niño Guerrero (leader of Tren de Aragua) were indicted.

Trump’s Justification for Ignoring International Law

The U.S. has justified its 2026 operation by relying on a controversial 1989 legal memo written by then-Assistant Attorney General William Barr. The Barr Memo advocates for broad executive privileges and that the U.S. President has power to unilaterally remove officials while resisting Congressional oversight.

In 1980, the Office of Legal Counsel, under the Carter administration, released an opinion that the FBI lacked authority under 28 U.S.C. § 533(1) to apprehend and abduct a fugitive residing in a foreign state when those actions would be contrary to customary international law.

Nearly a decade later, the FBI requested reconsideration of the 1980 opinion. And Barr drafted his infamous 1989 legal memo, which provided a completely different authority—authorizing the FBI to arrest individuals abroad without the consent of a foreign jurisdiction.

William Barr's 1989 Memo on Authority of The FBI To Override Customary International Law

737KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The 1989 Barr Memo contains the following major conclusions about the FBI’s authority under the President’s power, to arrest individuals abroad:

At the direction of the President or the Attorney General, the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law.

The President, acting through the Attorney General, has the inherent constitutional authority to deploy the FBI to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if those actions contravene customary international law.

Extraterritorial law enforcement activities that are authorized by domestic law are not barred even if they contravene unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions, such as Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

An arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Barr testified about his memo before Congress. Barr’s memo admittedly ignored implications of deploying the FBI in violation of customary international law and treaties.

William Barr 's 1989 Congressional Hearing on the FBI's Authority to Apprehend Suspects AbroadFbi Authority To Seize Suspects Abroad

5.84MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Prior to Barr’s memo and testimony about it before Congress in 1989, a 1980 opinion stated the FBI had no authority under 28 U.S.C. § 533(1) to apprehend and abduct a fugitive residing in a foreign state when those actions would be contrary to customary international law.”

Immediately following the Barr Memo’s internal release, the U.S. invaded Panama in Operation Just Cause. Noriega, the de facto ruler, was captured and brought to the U.S. to face drug trafficking and racketeering charges.

In 1999, Slobodan Milošević, U.S. and NATO forces targed the Serbian leaders residence with laser bombs. In 2003, during the Iraq War, U.S. special forces relied on the Barr Memo to capture Sadam Hussein. In 2011, under the Obama administration, Osama bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda, was killed during a Navy Seal raid in Abbottabad. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by U.S. backed rebel forces. In 2020, under the first Trump administration, Qasem Soleimani, a high-ranking Iranian general was skilled by a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad International Airport under the Trump administration.

The Barr Memo remains the primary legal justification for these "extraterritorial law enforcement" actions, asserting that the President’s domestic authority to enforce U.S. law outweighs the constraints of the UN Charter or foreign sovereignty.

Trump’s Violations International Law

The Barr Memo ignored customary international and treaties ratified by the United States, including the UN Charter.

Violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

This article prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. Multiple nations, including France and Mexico, have explicitly cited this as a violation.

The UN “is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”1

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter 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.

The UN Charter was signed on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization. The charter became binding on October 24, 1945.

Violations of Non-Intervention

Customary international law prohibits states from intervening in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Heads of state typically enjoy personal immunity (ratione personae) from the criminal jurisdiction of other states.

Violations of Inviolability

This immunity is intended to ensure that leaders can perform their duties without fear of arrest or detention by foreign powers.

The Noriega Precedent

U.S. Courts have historically ruled that the executive branch’s refusal to recognize a leader’s legitimacy (as the U.S. has done with Maduro) allows them to bypass these immunity claims in domestic courts, though this remains highly controversial under international law. The Noreiga precedent is often rationalized by the 1989 Barr Memo.

Forced Abduction is a Dangerous Precedent

The capture and removal of Maduro sets a dangerous precedent for other global powers to ignore international law and intervene in neighboring states. UN experts consider it an “illegal aggression.” International law generally requires an extradition treaty and a formal legal process to move a suspect from one country to another. While U.S. domestic law (under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine) often allows courts to try a defendant regardless of how they were brought to the country, international law often views such “irregular renditions” as a breach of the territorial integrity of the home state. International critics, including France’s foreign minister, have stated that the capture violates the right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination. They argue that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside and that only the sovereign people of a nation should decide their future.

This evening, U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell was asked by CNN whether the DOJ lawfully captured Maduro. “Absolutely Not,” Eric Swalwell said. He questioned why Benjamin Netanyahu has not been arrested for war crimes.

On November 21, 2024, the International Crimes Court issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu. Prior to the U.S.’s strike on Caracas, Netanyahu met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where they celebrated the New Year.

#20 Picture of the Tillie “Steeplechase Face”

The original version of Tillie was created in 1897 by George C. Tilyou as the Coney Island “funny face.” In 1955, Leslie Thomas created a new version of Tillie for Ashbury Park in New Jersey. His version is the one hanging on Epstein’s wall. Thomas’ mural of Tillie looks similar to Mad magazine’s mascot Alfred E. Neuman, who was created a year prior by Harvey Kurtzman. In the photo below, Epstein is playing with three girls while Tillie lurks behind.

#19 Framed article about Princess Di’s divorce with famous photo of her wearing the “Revenge Dress”

This framed article from The Times discusses then-Prince Charles’ position that divorce would not bar him from eventually becoming the King. That same night, Charles publicly admitted to cheating on her. The article has a photo of Diana wearing what became known as her “revenge dress” to a high-profile dinner at the Serpentine Gallery in Kensington Gardens.

Subscribe now

#18 Epson large format printer for creating posters of child pornography.

Epstein’s 9 East 71st Street residence in New York had a room dedicated to printing images of his victims. Epstein had an expensive Epson Surecolor P8000 44” Wide-Format Printer. Epson markets this model specifically for “photo and fine art media.” Epstein used it to print large posters of his victims, which he framed and hung throughout his residences.

#17 organized collection of victim photos

One commonality among many pedophiles is their ritual of cataloging illicit images. Epstein’s stored images of his victims in binders, on cd-roms, and hard drives. He stored these items throughout his homes in closets, desks, shelves, and safes.

#16 CCTV control room

Epstein’s New York residence had a surveillance hub with high-tech fiber optic closed circuit television system, enabling him to blackmail high profile government officials and businessmen.

Subscribe now

#15 police uniforms

Epstein’s closet had real police uniforms. Epstein’s co-conspirators probably used the uniforms to impersonate peace officers. Some say when someone of Epstein’s victims stood up against his abuse, Ghislaine Maxwell would step in and purport to call the police. Instead of calling police, Maxwell could have easily had Epstein’s security personnel dress in uniforms to meet with victims and take fake police reports.

#14 ambulance on the island

At first glance, it is particularly creepy that Epstein owned an ambulance that was kept at his residence on Little St. James island. However, the island maintaining a large island required significant manpower including omnipresent security, maintenance, landscaping, and construction teams. Although the ambulance could have been used to fulfill bizarre fantasies, it most logically was kept in the case of an emergency on the island.

#13 Victim scrap books

Epstein kept a large number of scrap books about his victims. Crime experts say that scrapbooks are kept as “totems” and “masturbatory aids” that enabled Epstein to relive his twisted crimes.

#12 Girl falling backwards

This painting appears to be of a young woman plunging backwards to her death. This is particularly scary given that Ruslana Korshunova—one of Epstein’s victims—died after falling from a ninth-floor balcony of her Wall Street apartment. Korshunova was a top model from Russia and 20 years old when she died in June 2008. Flight logs reveal she had traveled on Lolita Express two years prior. The painting was made by Marie Farmer more than a decade earlier. Regardless, the prophetic nature of the painting is disturbing.

Subscribe now

#11 Yoga Horse

Epstein had a lot of gym equipment in his residences. This high-end yoga trestle was likely used by his victims. Epstein’s gym rooms appear to have been wired with surveillance cameras, including the gym at Little St. James. This photo is from the gym in his New York residence.

#10 Face mask and selfie with Woody Allen

In this room there was a strange mask art piece and a framed image of Epstein next to Wood Allen. Epstein appears to be superimposed. However, Epstein was friends with the disgraced director. Wood Allen was frequently seen entering and leaving the New York residence. There are also photos recovered by the FBI of Woody Allen, Epstein, and a young lady talking at a table in the New York residence.

#9 Ballerina leg porcelain sculpture

This one is a porcelain sculpture of a ballerina lacing her flats. The sculpture hung over the a bathrub.

#8 UTI medication

This one is interesting. The bottle is addressed to high-rise condominium complex at 301 E 66th Street, where Epstein housed many of his victims. Former prime-minister Ehud Barak was also known to say there. The condominiums were owned by Epstein’s brother Mark.

#7 Baby statues

No description is necessary. Two sculptures of a baby in the fetal position.

#6 Victim chessboard

Epstein commissioned a custom chessboard. The pieces were sculptures of his victims.

Subscribe now

#5 Baby photo hanging above breakfast nook

This redacted photo was recently released by the DOJ. It depicts a naked baby bathing in a sink. The photo was framed and hung in the main kitchen of Epstein’s Little St. James island. The DOJ released other photos of the kitchen that show the baby’s face without redactions.

#4 Dental chair surrounded by porcelain sculptures

Oversight democrats first released images of the dental chair and porcelain sculptures. Trump’s DOJ subsequently released additional photos. Online experts speculated the image shows creepy masks that Epstein and his accomplices likely used to hide their identities while raping victims. And that rapes occurred in what appears to be a child-size dental chair.

However, the sculptures on the wall are porcelain and clearly creepy antiques of silent film stars, including Laurel and Hardy. It does not seem probably that someone would use these sculptures as a mask, or that the sculptures could even fit over someone’s face.

Epstein’s last known girlfriend Karyna Shuliak was a dentist. Epstein had reportedly paid her way through dental school. She was with him for nearly a decade. I was able to locate her professional records in the State of Florida, which issued her a dentistry license on November 5, 2015 (License No. DN21635). Her license remains active. She had listed her address as Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. But this information was recently changed in Florida’s Department of Health Database, which now reflects that she does not have an address of record on file.

Subscribe now

#3 Glove

The big question about this image is who is wearing the glove and who is receiving the glove? This image was originally released by Oversight Democrats along with other photos of other disturbing BDSM sex toys. This is just one of 95,000 images the Oversight Democrats received from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. To date, Oversight Democrats have released less than 1,000 images and documents out of 95,000 in their possession. Oversight Democrats are in the process of redacting the remaining images for future release. Another question remains: why did Oversight Democrats release these specific photos? Were they showing their hand to Trump? Does Trump know something about these photos? If so, what?

#2 Taxidermy Dog

Epstein had multiple taxidermy animals throughout his New York residence. This one is particularly disturbing because it is a pet. In 2003, Vanity Fair asked Epstein about the dog, to which he responded: "No decorator would ever tell you to do that. But I want people to think what it means to stuff a dog." Epstein also had a taxidermy tiger and giraffe. Some reports indicated that there was also fake dog feces near the dog. Interestingly, the FBI confiscated the dog when they raided his home in 2019. Perhaps the dog was rigged with surveillance equipment.

#1 Swath of blonde girl’s hair

This photo was taken by the FBI at Little St. James Island. On the shelf is what appears to a large swath of an unknown blonde girl’s hair. Surprisingly nobody is talking about this on social media. Next to the swath, in a green frame, is a redacted image of one of Epstein’s victims in the cockpit of plane. The hair is presumably hers. This is by far the most unusual item.

Which images do you think are the creepiest? Are there any that you think we missed? Drop us a comment.

Leave a comment

While President Donald Trump was serving his first term, the FBI deleted about 400 terabytes of files from its network server relating to Jeffrey Epstein. A newly uncovered email sent by an FBI Senior Forensic Examiner working as the NY CART Coordinator reveals that their office was mandated to “delete old stuff (about 400 TB worth).”

The email was sent to the US Attorney’s office on February 24, 2020, during Trump’s first administration.