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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also have a companion article Spencer Pratt Loser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of this Episode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit us on:

L3G4L.COM - CONFIDENTIAL

Independent investigative journalism, legal analysis, and opinion.

By Edward M. Lyman, Esq.

@L3G4L.US on Instagram

@L3G4L.com on TikTok

@l3g4l_com on X

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

Spencer Pratt announces his candidacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speidi appear on Alex Jones InfoWars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer sells healing crystals

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

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

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

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

Questionable PPP Loans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A verbally abusive bigot, xenophobe, racist, misogynist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer’s conspiracy theories about the Palisades Fires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UCLA debunks misconceptions about the Palisades Fire

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

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

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

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

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

166KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reached out to Meidas Touch Network and asked:

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

No response yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer Pratt es un perdedor.

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

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

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

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

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

Robins mischaracterized the image in her Daily Express article:

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

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

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

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

No Evidence of a nuclear missile

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon

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

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

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

How the misinformation spread

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

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

About the reporter and lack of response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and Netanyahu announce the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

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

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

Israeli video depicts the bombing of Khamenei’s home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. was not facing an armed attack

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

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

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

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

Lack of imminence

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

Lack of proportionality

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

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

Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 prohibits assassinations

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

“Assassination” as defined by Oxford English Dictionary:

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

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

Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12333

131KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

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

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

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

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

. . .

And

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

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

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

Article II section 2, clause 1 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War Powers Resolution 1973

1.06MB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

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

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

Dangerous territory

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

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

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

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

2025: Ghislaine Maxwell’s Revelation from Prison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epstein likened sexual abuse victims to “unpunished accusers.”

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

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

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

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

Lawson falsely wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EFTA01648962

112KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meidas+

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

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  tests at the time were inconclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTC Names List Deleted from DOJ Server EFTA01660651.pdf

464KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

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

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

Leaked Ice Memo

5.91MB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

The Origins of the Prohibition on Unreasonable Searches

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Application and the Secret Lyons ICE Memo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Day Application of the Fourth Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Sample I-205 Administrative Warrant to Remove/Deport

454KB ∙ PDF file

Download

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

Download

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

1. Knock and announce;

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

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

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

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

Federal Application for Judicial Search Warrant

532KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Jonas:

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

Thank you!

President DJT

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

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

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

Danger of Causing Serious Harm to Sexual Abuse Victims

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

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

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

Danger of Contaminating Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Recordings Expose Riley to Defamation Claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

Secondary Victimization

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

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

Ethical Risks

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

Voldeng’s Lack of Credentials and Monetization

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dangers of Blindly Accepting Riley’s Allegations as Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

Anachronisms and Logical Inconsistencies

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

Critically, the claims include several historical improbabilities:

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

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

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

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

• Trump’s relationship with Epstein

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

Kicking a Wooden Stake in Donald Trump

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

The Danger of Unvetted and Unverified Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sascha Riley’s Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAA Special Agents Email Correspondence

497KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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

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

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