In 1998, Ken Starr nearly toppled a president over a lie about sex with an intern. Ten years later, he was writing to the second most powerful official at the Justice Department to argue that Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls was merely a “local” matter, one that didn’t warrant a federal prosecution. Three letters, sent in the spring of 2008, show how hard Starr pushed to keep the FBI’s 60-count case against Epstein from ever seeing a courtroom.

The confidential letters reveal Kirkland & Ellis’ Ken Starr1 pressured the DOJ’s No. 2 Official to shut down the federal prosecution of the law firm most famous client: pedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Palm Beach Police Chief Turns Whistleblower: FBI Investigates

In 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department received a report that Epstein had raped a 14-year-old-girl. Over 13 months, detectives collected volumes of evidence against Epstein and interviewed more than a dozen alleged underage victims.

In 2006, Police Chief Mark Reiter became concerned about how Florida prosecutors were handling the case when they took the unprecedented step of empaneling a state grand jury, which ultimately determined that Epstein should be charged only with soliciting prostitution. (Florida Statute § 796.07.) Chief Reiter reported the issue to the FBI, which launched a broader investigation that eventually made it to the desk of then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta in Miami.

Federal prosecutors draft a 60-count indictment against Epstein

Federal prosecutors worked with two FBI agents who discovered additional victims. In May 2007, an AUSA under Acosta drafted a 60-count indictment against Epstein.

U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta enters a “sweetheart deal” with Epstein

In July 2007, federal prosecutors met with Epstein’s criminal defense team and offered to end their investigation in exchange for his pleading guilty to state charges and serving two years in prison.

In Sept. 2007, Acosta entered into the so-called “sweetheart deal” or non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) with Epstein.

The NPA is particularly bizarre because federal prosecutors backed off of what could have a 60-count indictment. Instead, they agreed not to prosecute any crimes Epstein committed between 2001 and 2007 so long as Epstein pleaded guilty in the State of Florida’s criminal case to one charge of soliciting prostitution.

The U.S. government expressly agreed not to prosecute Epstein for any offenses he may have committed between 2001 and 2007. All this was done in the dark, without any involvement of Epstein’s victims—in clear violation of their rights.

Epstein resists entering a plea agreement with Florida state prosecutors

Notwithstanding Epstein’s NPA with federal prosecutors, he did not immediately plead guilty in the Florida case as he was required to. Instead, over the next nine months, Epstein’s attorneys tried to change the terms of the NPA and invalidate it. Meanwhile, state prosecutors were rapidly approaching the 2008 trial date for its solicitation-of-prostitution case against Epstein.

Federal prosecutors empanel a new grand jury

Although Acosta had already entered into an NPA with Epstein in September 2007, Epstein failed to comply with its terms. In the meantime, FBI agents continued to investigate Epstein. And in 2008, a new federal grand jury was empaneled and began issuing subpoenas, including one to Epstein.

Ken Starr pressures No. 2 Official at the DOJ

After Epstein received a subpoena from the new grand jury, Ken Starr went to work and began pressuring the DOJ to end the investigation and new federal prosecution of Epstein in its entirety.

On May 19, 2008, Ken Starr and Joe D. Whitley sent their first letter to then-Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip.2 They pressured him to shut down the federal investigation of Epstein.

Starr argued that Epstein’s conduct was purely “local” to Florida and involved only solicitation.

Starr insinuated that officials from the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in Miami, while investigating the matter, had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct that gave rise to an appearance of impropriety.

Starr pointed out that Acosta had even requested that the DOJ investigate for prosecutorial misconduct surrounding the Epstein investigation.

Specifically, Acosta had requested that the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) determine whether it would be an abuse of his own discretion to proceed with a criminal case against Epstein.

Ultimately, CEOS determined it was not. CEOS effectively gave Acosta the green light to prosecute Epstein.

But Starr continued to pressure the DOJ into discontinuing all federal involvement. Starr insisted that the feds back off and let Florida’s prosecutors resolve the solicitation matter.

Ken Starr sends another letter to Deputy AG Filip

On May 27, 2008, Starr sent a follow-up letter to Deputy AG Filip, urging him to “conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution” of Epstein. At this point, Epstein remained in violation of the NPA, which required him to plead guilty in the Florida case for solicitation.

On June 19, 2008, Starr sent a third letter to the DOJ, this time to John Roth, Esq., then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. Starr thanked him for the opportunity to explain why the federal prosecution of Epstein was unwarranted. Starr’s letter reveals he was pressing the federal government in every direction. Starr had also pressured CEOS and the USAO for the Southern District of Florida to stop prosecuting Epstein.

“[W]e have drafted four supplemental submissions that will provide a roadmap for your investigation of this matter. Given the bulk of these documents and their appended supporting attachments, you will receive this packet by messenger tomorrow,” Starr wrote.

On June 23, 2008, then-Deputy AG Filip, who is now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, informed Starr he would not intervene in the matter. Thereafter, Epstein finally agreed to fulfill his end of the NPA and plead guilty to soliciting a prostitute.

Epstein pleads guilty and the NPA takes effect

As a result, on June 30, 2008, Epstein finally appeared in a state court to plead guilty to solicitation and began serving his sentence. Once the plea was entered in 2008, the NPA’s federal immunity took effect.

The Aftermath

On July 7, 2008, a victim of Epstein filed a federal case under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”), because Acosta failed to consult with the victims in reaching the NPA with Epstein. (Jane Doe v. United States (SDFL) Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA.) In fact, Acosta withheld the NPA from the victims until the federal judge in Jane Doe v. United States ordered the USAO to turn it over (subject to a protective order keeping it sealed from the public).3

After only three months in jail, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office permitted Epstein to leave on work release so that he could spend 12 hours a day working on his own company.

In 2009, Acosta resigned from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and became dean of Florida International University College of Law. In 2017, Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor.

The sweetheart deal held for more than a decade. Then, in November 2018, the Miami Herald’s “Perversion of Justice” series put Epstein’s victims and the NPA back in the headlines.

In February 2019, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in the CVRA case that federal prosecutors had broken the law by concealing the NPA from Epstein’s victims. The victims had waited more than ten years for that ruling.

On July 6, 2019, federal agents arrested Epstein at Teterboro Airport. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged him with sex trafficking of minors, the kind of case the Southern District of Florida had drafted and shelved in 2007. Six days later, Acosta resigned as Secretary of Labor. On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center before he could stand trial.

In November 2020, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility completed its review of the Epstein NPA. It concluded that Acosta had exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case through the NPA, although it stopped short of finding professional misconduct.

Ken Starr died in 2022. He never publicly addressed his letters urging the Justice Department to walk away from the Epstein case.

Mark Filip, the Deputy Attorney General who received Starr’s first two letters, is now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis. That is the same firm whose website advertises its commitment to “Supporting Children and Families.”

The victims never got a federal trial. What remains is the paper trail, including three letters from one of America’s most famous prosecutors arguing that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were a local matter.

Share

Leave a comment

Read more

News sources have been falsely reporting that if a victim is voluntarily intoxicated in New York, it is “nearly impossible” to prove rape due to a legal “loophole” in consent laws. This is wildly false information that could cause a victim to think that if she got drunk before being raped, her rapist gets a free pass. Nothing could be further from the truth.

THE FALSE CLAIM

CNN reported:

Resurfaced allegations of a gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house have renewed outrage over what experts call a legal “loophole” in New York’s – and other states’ – sexual assault laws that can make it nearly impossible for survivors to seek justice if they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs before an assault.1

This and similarly false statements were repeated by other news sources including Associated Press and NBC New York.

WHY IT’S FALSE

Under New York law, first degree rape requires proof of nonconsensual vaginal, oral, or anal sex. Lack of consent can be proven in any of the following ways, regardless of whether the victim is voluntarily intoxicated from drugs or alcohol:

• Rapist used physical force; or

• Rapist made certain express or implied threats that places the victim in fear of immediate death, physical harm, to herself or others, or of being kidnapped; or

• Victim was mentally disabled; or

• Victim was physically helpless; or

• Victim was under age; or

• Victim was committed to, under the control, or supervision of the state (e.g. guard has sex with an inmate, police officer has sex with someone in custody, a state psych nurse has sex with committed patient, and etc.)

The so-called legal “loophole” has to do with a different method called “mental incapacity” that allows prosecutors to prove lack of consent in situations where the victim was essentially poisoned by narcotics or intoxicating substances. The statute defines this term as follows:

"Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered
temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to
the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to
him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without
his consent. [ NY Penal Law, § 130.00(6) ]

Advocates falsely claim this language creates a legal “loophole” that makes it “nearly impossible” to prove rape when the victim is voluntarily intoxicated. To get there, they ignore all of the other ways (in the bulleted list above) to prove lack of consent whereby voluntary intoxication is irrelevant.

HYPOTHETICAL DRUNKEN 13 YEAR OLD

Image a situation in which a 13 year old child voluntarily gets drunk with her friends only to be molested by an adult.

Because she had been drinking, the child is afraid to tell her parents or report it to the police. She looks up the subject online only to come across a report from CNN that says rape will be “nearly impossible” to prove because she was voluntarily intoxicated.

So, the child decides not to tell her parents—let alone report it to the police. In this scenario, the “loophole” misinformation would have caused a serious injustice.

A prosecutor could prove lack of consent simply by showing the jury that the child was underage. And there are many other ways to prove lack of consent for which voluntary intoxication is irrelevant.

HYPOTHETICAL JANE DOE 20 YEAR OLD

For example, assume the victim is not a child but a 20-year-old college student. Jane Doe voluntarily consumes ten drinks over the course of three hours. Then she goes to a fraternity house where she continues drinking, smokes pot, and is given multiple rounds of ketamine over a six-hour period until she becomes unconscious.

Lack of consent can still be shown in a first degree rape case by proving that the rapists used physical force, threats, or that she became physically helpless as a result of the drugs and alcohol she consumed.

"Physically helpless" means that a person is unconscious or for any
other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an
act. [ NY Penal Law §130.00 (7) ]

This provision does not ask why she became unconscious or unable to communicate. Voluntary intoxication is irrelevant. All that matters is that she was either unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness. New York appellate courts have even held that a victim can be “physically helpless” as a result of alcohol she consumed voluntarily.

States such as California have a provision that lack of consent can be specifically proven if the victim was willingly intoxicated. Specifically:

If a person is prevented from resisting by an intoxicating or anesthetic substance or a controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. [ Cal. Penal Code §261 (a)(3) ]

The bottom line is that victim groups are pushing to expanding the ways that lack of consent can be proven in New York. They have their hearts in the right place. But they are dangerously misstating the current law by claiming it is nearly impossible to prove rape in New York if the victim was voluntarily intoxicated.

As demonstrated in this article, in New York, all but one of the methods of proving lack of consent are available to prove rape—regardless of voluntary intoxication.

Describing the New York statute that allows the prosecution to prove lack of consent when a victim is poisoned by narcotics or intoxicants a “loophole” is inept. This misinformation has serious consequences. It can prevent victims from coming forward.

It’s also important to know that in New York, certain sex crimes, other than first-degree rape, have additional methods to prove lack of consent that are not discussed in this article. And New York has other sex crimes, including sex trafficking, where consent is irrelevant.

I think it’s a good thing if New Yorkers want to create another method of proving lack of consent based on a victim being willfully intoxicated. But spreading falsehoods about existing law to get there is dangerous.

WARNING: I am a licensed attorney in California. I do not practice law in New York. This article is not intended to be legal advice. This is not an advertisement for my legal services. If someone has harmed you, contact your local authorities and find an attorney near you. The purpose of this article is to discuss New York’s laws regarding consent for certain sex offenses and the consequences of when advocacy groups and media sources spread misinformation.

Paid subscribers have access to the source materials below.

Read more

Cybercrime group BYOD breached the private user data of Trump Mobile customers and dumped it on the dark web. Trump Mobile is a mobile phone service founded by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump advertises as “bringing American values back to wireless with a service that is simple, honest, and built around what truly matters.”

Today the data also appeared on leak sites including Distributed Denial of Service via a spreadsheet (.csv file) that directly references the hacker group BYOD. Leaked data includes the customer’s first and last names, email addresses, phone number, address, date they ordered the service, and calling plan.

This is not the company’s first data security problem. In May, YouTubers Coffeezilla and penguinz0 reported that a researcher had found a flaw in Trump Mobile’s preorder site that exposed customers’ names, addresses, and email addresses. Trump Mobile later confirmed that customer data had been exposed, including names, emails, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and order identifiers. The company blamed a third-party platform provider and said its own systems weren’t breached. It also said it was still deciding whether to notify affected customers.

Dr. Theodor Herzl was a wealthy Hungarian Jewish lawyer and journalist, known as the “father of Zionism.” In 1896, his manifesto Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) set forth an argument, and a detailed business plan, for the creation of Israel. He claimed the way to end Jewish oppression and antisemitism was for Jews to have their own sovereign nation. He called on fellow Zionists to vote on whether to create Israel in Argentina or Palestine.

PALESTINE OR ARGENTINE?

Herzl explained that “important experiments in colonization” had already occurred in both countries, when Jews gradually, secretly, and illegally immigrated to both countries in the past.

In the early 1880s, Jews funded by Baron Edmond de Rothschild established agricultural settlements in Palestine. This became known as the beginning of the First Aliyah.

In 1891, Baron Maurice de Hirsch funded Jewish settlements in Argentina through the Jewish Colonization Association (JCA), scattered across the Pampas and central-eastern provinces, mostly in Entre Ríos, Santa Fe, and Buenos Aires.

Herzl argued that the prior methods of settling in Palestine and Argentina were flawed because locals felt threatened by the significant rise in Jewish immigrants. Ottoman authorities shut their doors and imposed restrictions on immigration.

Herzl believed that moving Jews in first and hoping for security later was the fatal flaw of previous attempts. He wrote:

An infiltration is bound to end in disaster. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop the further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy.

Herzl argued that an open, internationally chartered approach was better. His plan gave Zionists a choice between creating Israel in either Palestine or Argentina:

Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.

Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfilment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish Question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.

THE FIRST ZIONIST CONGRESS UNANIMOUSLY CHOSE PALESTINE

After writing Der Judenstaat, Herzl formed a grassroots movement across Eastern and Central Europe with the Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion). They made it clear to him that mass Jewish support could only be for Palestine. Moving to Argentina would have fractured the Zionist movement. Herzl adopted this view and set the agenda for the First Zionist Congress in Basel, to create the Jewish State in Palestine, and scraped Argentina.

In August 1897, the First Zionist Congress assembled in Basel, Switzerland. There was no need for them to vote on establishing the Jewish State in Palestine because by that time, the question was no longer on the table. The Zionists unanimously adopted the Basel Program, which defined the Zionist Organization’s goal as: “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.”

In 1903, during the Sixth Zionist Congress, Herzl presented the British Uganda Scheme, a proposal to consider territory (in modern-day Kenya) as a temporary safe haven for Jews. The Zionists voted 295 to 178 to send an investigative commission to Uganda. This triggered a revolt among Russian delegates that nearly destroyed the Zionist movement.

HOW THE ZIONISTS TOOK PALESTINE

Ultimately, it took the Zionists more than 50 years to establish Israel, and they did not acquire it through peaceful negotiated means.

From 1920 through 1948, “Mandatory Palestine” was officially a British administrative territory. Initially, British officials facilitated Jewish immigration under certain economic guidelines. But over the years, massive waves of Jewish immigration, including during World War II, caused serious conflicts with locals. So, Britain began curbing Jewish immigration with the hope of maintaining stability in the region. But violent Jewish insurgency ensued.

In 1946, the Irgun, a group of militant right-wing Zionists, waged a terrorist attack on British officials. The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem which served as the central office of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine and the headquarters of the British Armed Forces in the area. The Irgun planted 770 pounds of explosives in the hotel which ended up killing 91 people, including British officials and soldiers.

On May 14, 1948, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Palestine Act of 1948, for the termination of jurisdiction in Palestine, thereby ending the British Mandate. Later that day, Zionist leader and future Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel in Tel-Aviv.

Read more

I had the chance to interview Victoria Drake, who filed a lawsuit last week alleging that she had been raped by Paolo Zampolli in October 2023. (See video at end). Zampolli currently serves in President Donald Trump’s administration as the US Special Representative for Global Partnerships.

Drake has released several photos from that night, including a selfie taken inside an elevator at Zampolli’s New York residence.

Visible behind Drake, on the elevator wall elevator is a lithograph of several girls floating on black inner tubes in a pool.

“The inner tubes, [Zampolli] did have a residence in Milan, where they would make girls strip down nude or wearing bikini tops. Always black. And usually a thong bikini, sitting in a black inner tube. If you’re over the age of 20, then you’re not getting in the pool with an inner tube.” Drake said.

This detail immediately reminded me of a similar picture Jeffrey Epstein had displayed prominently in his Palm Beach Mansion in 2005, when it was raided by the Palm Beach Police Department in 2005.

Epstein later moved the piece to his private island, Little St. James, where it hung in a guest cabana.

In the 2000s, Epstein and Zampolli operated in overlapping social circles in New York, Palm Beach, and Miami. In 2004, Epstein and Zampolli partnered up in a failed bid to purchased Elite Model Management (NY Division) out of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Epstein pledged financial backing. But they were outbid by Eddie Trump (not related to Donald Trump).

On October 25, 2018, [Redacted name] wrote to Jeffrey Epstein:

Killers: Prokhorov and Baibakov (plus all his people), Zampolli Paolo, Anna Konchakovskaya and all people who work for them. Prokhorov has a lot to hide

Please make sure to subscribe for free by simply entering your email address below. For paid subscribers, I have included all of my source materials below.

Read more

A Reddit user and social media influencers, including Ellie Leonard and Bekah Day, have been posting the image, taken by photographer Sonia Moskowitz, claiming to have “proof” that Donald and Melania Trump met a year earlier than their official timeline suggests.

The GettyImages entry lists the photo’s date as September 1, 1997, at the premiere of LA Confidential. If that caption were accurate (it is not), it would indeed contradict the couple’s long stated claim that they met sometime in September 1998 at New York’s Kit Kat Club (during fall fashion week). Paolo Zampolli claims to have introduced them there.

A closer look at the background of the image reveals the poster for I Dreamed of Africa clearly visible right behind Melania.

The photo depicts the Trumps at a movie premiere taken by Sonia Moskowitz. GettyImages incorrectly states the photo was taken on September 1, 1997 at the premiere of LA Confidential.

The photo was actually taken on April 18, 2000 at the New York Premiere of I Dreamed of Africa.

The misinformation was posted on September 7, 2026, around 9:00 pm (PST) on the Subreddit r/Epstein by u/ReZeroForDays. Five hours later, around 2:00 am.

On another note, if you are looking for conclusive proof that Paolo Zampolli did not introduce Donald to Melania at the Kit Kat Club in New York, please check out my other article here.

Leon Black is refusing to comply with two subpoenas issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Instead, Black filed a lawsuit in federal court this week seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. It raises the question, why did Republican James Comer (R-KY) issue overly broad subpoenas in the first place? It’s a layup that has enabled Black to tie up the investigation. In the past, Comer has blocked investigations into Donald Trump while launching investigations into Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

SHOCK: Black is being represented by the law firm Hogan Lovels Cadwalader US, LLP. U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche used to be a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, which merged with Hogan Lovels in July 2026—the largest law firm merger in history. In 2023, Blanche left Cadwalader to represent Donald Trump in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, which resulted in 34 felony convictions.

Black’s lawsuit is asking federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton appointee) for declaratory and injunctive relief—essentially a restraining order to prevent the House Committee from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, or otherwise compelling compliance with the subpoenas.”

In March 2026, Chairman Comer asked Black to appear voluntarily for an in-person interview before the House Committee. Black cooperated and appeared a few months later. Black alleges the House Committee agreed to a certain scope of questioning but when he appeared, James Comer immediately began asking questions about NDAs to which Black objected and refused to answer. Black argues that line of questioning was not part of the agreed-upon topics. Thereafter, Comer issued multiple subpoenas requiring Black to produce NDAs and to testify at a deposition.

Black has since refused to comply with the subpoenas. In his lawsuit, Black argues:

The subpoenas are invalid to the extent they exceed [the Committee’s] delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to [the Committee’s] legislative purpose. Additionally, the subpoenas would also expose women who value their privacy, who have no known or public connection to Epstein, who bargained for confidentiality and have refused to release it, and who have no ability to protect themselves and their privacy before the Committee.

Black further argues that certain people whom “he has or may have” NDAs with, “have informed [him] through counsel that they want no part of this public fishing expedition.” I don’t believe his counsel is lying about that argument. If some of Black’s victims signed a confidential settlement agreement with him in the past, why should their names and NDAs be exposed to the public?

In no way am I defending Black, but his legal team has raised legitimate constitutional issues that will likely tie up the subpoenas for quite some time.

If Judge Kollar-Kotelly determines the Committee’s subpoenas are valid, it’s painfully obvious that Black will challenge the subpoenas in the Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you haven’t had a chance, please subscribe to my blog for free by simply entering your email below. For paid subscribers, I have posted my source documents below.

Subscribe now

Read more

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

The FBI deleted over 400 terabytes of files

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

The DOJ has only released 300 gigabytes of files

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

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

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

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

(2) Ghislaine Maxwell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Top 5 List of the Most Critical Missing Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. EMAILS: The missing e-mail boxes

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

• jeevacation@gmail.com

• jeeproject@yahoo.com

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

• jeffrey@jeffreyepstein.org

• jeffreyepstein@live.com

• littlestjeff@yahoo.com

• jeevacation1@me.com

• jeeitunes@gmail.com

• zorroranch@aol.com

• epsteinj@wanadoo.fr

• jeffreye@mindspring.com

• jeffrey6@bellsouth.net

• gmax1@mindspring.com

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

3. BLACKMAIL VIDEOS AND SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT

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

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

2. TAX RETURNS

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

1. ACCOUNTING

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J25 0219 Fauci Pardon

193KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Difficulty of obtaining antivirals

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

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

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

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

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

Bad timing for Senator Rand Paul’s witch hunt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

What caused Epstein to hate Zampolli?

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

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

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

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

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

Defamation about Melania ahead of the 2016 election

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

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

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

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

339KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

2026 - Melania’s bizarre press conference about Epstein

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

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

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

Zampolli shifts his story

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

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

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

[ Mark Stone: ]

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

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

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

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

[ Mark Stone: ]

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

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

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

[ Mark Stone: ]

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

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

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

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

[ Mark Stone: ]

And you knew him?

[ Paolo Zampolli: ]

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

[ Mark Stone: ]

Fascinating.

Zampolli’s claim contradicts Melania’s book

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melania wrote about her initial interaction with Donald:

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

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

“Hello,” I replied. “I’m Melania.”

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

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

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

Melania claims: NOBODY introduced her to Donald

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

[ Larry King: ]

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

[ Melania Trump: ]

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

[ Larry King: ]

The famous fashion week?

[ Melania Trump: ]

The famous fashion week in New York.

[ Larry King: ]

Were you introduced?

[ Melania Trump: ]

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli “Source” Claims Iran is Plotting the Assasination

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

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

Impeccable Timing

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

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

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

The Dangerous Incentive Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

The bill creates a grave risk for our military

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

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

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

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

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

What’s in it for Americans?

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

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

Who are Israel’s shills that introduced the bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated July 6, 7:03 PM Pacific

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

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

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

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

Balogun receives a red card

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

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

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

FIFA reverses Balogun’s suspension from the next game

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

The Royal Belgium FA made a statement on July 6:

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

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

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

Trump admits he asked FIFA to review the play

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIFA President Infantino tweets about the decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal law prohibits sports bribery

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

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

What is the bribe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer Pratt loses election

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

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

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

TikTok permanently bans L3G4L

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 0130 Spencer Pratt's Original Disclosure Form 700

543KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

466KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

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

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

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

587KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also have a companion article Spencer Pratt Loser.