Last Weekend,

After a road trip north to San Luis Obispo to spend an afternoon with Steve Hilton, I headed back toward more familiar territory: Riverside County, where I grew up, to sit with Sheriff Chad Bianco.

I found the Biancos on their 26th wedding anniversary. A bucket of champagne atop an office conference table before a string of podcast appearances would come to claim the rest of the day. His wife, Denise, chimed in to recount her first impression of him—what drew her to him then and what she still loves most about him today.

Like many Californians I first became aware of Bianco during COVID when I was desperate for sensible voices in authority. While much of the state fell into lock step pushing mandates, irrational restrictions and closures, Bianco emerged as one of the few officials that publicly rejected this approach.

Bianco is backed fiercely now by a loyal following that extends Riverside County lines. Hilton may be polling exceptionally high by traditional polling, but Bianco routinely pulls close to 70 percent support among my audience, which is always an interesting contrast to consider, reminiscent of RFK Jr. when he first emerged as a subject.

A thirty-two-year veteran of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Bianco was first elected Sheriff in 2018 and reelected in 2022. Today, he oversees one of the largest law enforcement operations in California, managing thousands of employees, multiple jail facilities, court security, patrol stations, contract cities, the Coroner’s Bureau, and a budget exceeding one billion dollars.

Face to face, he comes across as the real deal—passionate, but practical.

He does not present as a polished politician but a man invested in fixing California, which he views an easy and realistic feat.

Running one of California’s largest sheriff’s departments has given him something many of his competitors cannot claim: a record executing order and priorities, effectively translating ideas into action.

We met at his office in Riverside. Our conversation covered his path into law enforcement, the lessons he’s learned over three decades on the job, California’s political future, public safety, family, faith, and why he believes so many residents feel disconnected from the leaders making decisions on their behalf.

He does not believe California is broken. His plan centers largely on deregulating factions of the state so small businesses can thrive again.

This interview have been condensed for clarity — audio clips are included

JRK: HOW DID YOU AND YOUR WIFE MEET?

SHERIFF BIANCO: It’s our 26th anniversary. We met online. Before anyone was online. I didn’t even know how it worked.

We were both divorced, and I had two kids. My nine-year-old was just a genius. I took him to Best Buy because he wanted a computer. I knew nothing about computers. I was a cop. I wrote my reports by hand. I had a word processor—that’s all I knew. So I bought him whatever he wanted, and he set it all up. He had to show me how to turn it on.

At the time, I was working narcotics, and I’d get home between two and five in the morning. I couldn’t just fall asleep. The only thing the computer was good for was playing CDs. I’d come home and play music—Sheryl Crow was my favorite.

One night, an ad popped up that said, “Meet girls in your area.” So I clicked on it. I was scrolling through profiles and came across her picture. I read her profile and then went to bed.

The next day, all I could think about was her picture.

I went back online trying to find it again and couldn’t. For days I sat there waiting for that ad to come back.

Finally it did.

I spent hours finding her profile again and sent her a long email.

Several days later she responded.

DENISE BIANCO: Two of my best friends had put their ads up, and they convinced me to do it too. This was 1999. I probably got 150 emails in five days. I was 28 years old, and my dad heard I was on the internet and made me take the profile down. So by the time Chad emailed me, I was already off the site.

What stood out about him was that he talked about his kids first. His email was basically: “I have a five-year-old and a nine-year-old.” I thought, okay, I’m going to meet this guy.

Their Extended Meet

Q. HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE?

BIANCO: I had two, she had two. We’ve got four together. Most people don’t even know that. They think they’re all ours. Everybody gets along.

Her youngest daughter is my daughter. She’s my baby. Anybody who calls her my stepdaughter is going to hear from me. There’s no such thing.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR HOUSEHOLD LIKE GROWING UP?

BIANCO: I had an amazing household. My mom was 16 when she had me, my dad was 18. My dad was in the Air Force, he served in Vietnam. My parents had three kids before my mom was 21. There is nothing bad about my childhood. Nothing. My grandparents were amazing, both sets.

I grew up in a tiny town of about 1,000 people. Everybody knew everybody. I always say I had about 200 dads. The whole town raised us.

I remember getting lost as a little kid and somebody just bringing me home because they knew exactly where I belonged.

It was a different world. We were protected. We were surrounded by people who cared about us.

Q. WERE YOU ATHLETIC?

BIANCO: Very. I wrestled, I played golf, I played baseball. Baseball was my best sport. That’s what got me out of town. I earned a baseball scholarship and went to the University of Utah.

That eventually brought me to California.

Q. WAS THERE A MOMENT THAT CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF YOUR LIFE?

BIANCO: Yes. I was 16 years old. I got pulled over with some friends. We had alcohol in the car. We all got tickets. The officer pulled each of us out one at a time. I was last. He knew who I was. He knew my parents. He knew I played baseball. While he was writing the ticket, he gave me a lecture. He told me: “You are headed in the wrong direction.”

He said baseball could get me out of that town. He told me I had a choice. I could choose my future, or I could keep hanging around the people I was with and end up exactly where they were headed.

I got back in the car completely embarrassed. My friends were talking about the ticket. All I could think about was what he said. My dad had said similar things, but hearing it from another adult changed everything. That was a turning point.

Q. SO HOW DID YOU ACTUALLY END UP IN LAW ENFORCEMENT?

BIANCO: Completely by accident. When I got to California, I needed a job. I worked construction, then I worked at a Ford dealership.

One of the mechanics there was putting himself through the Sheriff’s Academy on weekends. Every morning we’d go to the gym together. He kept telling me how much I’d love it. Eventually he convinced me to look into it.

At first, honestly, it wasn’t about law enforcement, it was about the paycheck and the benefits. It paid more than what I was making, it had benefits I didn’t have. It seemed like a good opportunity. So I did it.

And once I got there, I realized this is exactly what I was meant to do.

Q. WHAT KEPT YOU IN THE PROFESSION?

BIANCO: Helping people. Being a cop itself never impressed me. The badge never impressed me. What impressed me was being able to help people every day. That’s what kept me going. That’s what I loved about it.

And that’s what I still love about it today.

Q. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE FIRST BECAME AWARE OF YOU DURING COVID. WHAT DO YOU THINK CHANGED IN CALIFORNIA DURING THAT PERIOD?

BIANCO: I think it started waking people up, including me. I was focused on my family, my wife, my kids, and my job. I had a very small bubble. We had our group of friends, our kids’ friends’ parents, and that’s who we spent time with.

I voted, but I never really cared about politics. I wasn’t paying attention.

That started changing around 2010 when I moved into administration in law enforcement.

Then in 2012 everything really started going sideways for law enforcement.

AB 109 with prison realignment was a disaster for us.

From that point forward, every year there were more and more bills that were anti-law enforcement. We could see it happening, but nobody else really could. The public didn’t know. And honestly, we weren’t helping because law enforcement never talked. We always said, “No comment.”

That ended up hurting us because we weren’t explaining what was happening. People started blaming us for things that Sacramento had actually caused.

They blamed us when people got released from jail. They blamed us when criminals weren’t prosecuted. They blamed us when crime increased.

But the laws had changed. Our ability to keep communities safe had changed. And nobody understood why.

Q. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THE VERY BEGINNING OF COVID?

BIANCO: The first acknowledged COVID flight from Wuhan, China landed at March Air Force Base in Riverside County. We knew it was coming. We were getting briefings. We were being shown videos from China. People dead in the streets. People collapsed in pools of blood.

The information we were getting was terrifying.

They were telling us that 40 percent of people were going to die. I had 4,500 employees. I’m doing the math in my head thinking a thousand of them are going to die.

Then I started thinking about my family. There’s six of us. Which two are going to die? I honestly had a panic attack. It was scary.

Extended thoughts on COVID

Q. WERE YOU INITIALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE TWO-WEEK SHUTDOWN?

BIANCO: Yes, absolutely. At the beginning I supported it. I thought, okay, two weeks. Let’s slow the spread, let’s be responsible, let’s take a vacation. I even recorded a video telling Riverside County to stay home for two weeks. I said we’d get through it together. That seemed reasonable. But then two weeks became three weeks. Then four weeks. Then mandatory closures. Then enforcement. Then arresting people. And that’s when I said absolutely not.

Q. WHAT WAS THE MOMENT YOU DECIDED YOU WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE LOCKDOWNS?

BIANCO: I knew the county board meeting was coming. I knew they were preparing to go along with the governor’s orders. I told my wife I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t have my deputies enforcing that. She told me not to do it. She said it would be political suicide. She was worried about what would happen. But I felt like I had to speak up. I believed people were being misled. I believed the information wasn’t matching reality. And I wasn’t going to make criminals out of ordinary people.

Q. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU SPOKE OUT PUBLICLY?

BIANCO: Immediately afterward, I started getting calls, emails, messages. Doctors reached out. Heart surgeons. Respiratory therapists. Medical professionals. They were telling me: “You’re right.” “Keep going.” “Thank you for saying what we can’t say.” People were scared to speak publicly. Once I heard from doctors and medical professionals, I felt at peace. I knew I was doing the right thing.

Q. YOU’VE SAID COVID PUT YOU IN THE PUBLIC EYE. THEN GEORGE FLOYD HAPPENED. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THAT PERIOD?

BIANCO: I was a brand-new sheriff. At the same time that COVID was happening, we had George Floyd and the riots that spread across the country and eventually came to Riverside.

That was another moment that changed everything. COVID made me a voice for people who felt they weren’t being heard. The riots made me a leader in the law enforcement world.

Q. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE WAY YOU HANDLED THE RIOTS?

BIANCO: We were the first law enforcement agency in the country to use overwhelming force and stop it immediately.

We cleared our city within an hour. We arrested the people who needed to be arrested. We forced the rest out, and they never came back.

I was very clear from the beginning: I support your First Amendment rights. I will defend your First Amendment rights.

But the moment your rights start violating someone else’s rights, it stops being a First Amendment issue.

At that point it’s criminal behavior, and I wasn’t going to allow it.

Q. WHAT MADE YOU TAKE THAT APPROACH?

BIANCO: A few nights earlier, my wife and I were watching television coverage from Los Angeles. We watched people coming out of broken store windows carrying merchandise. The camera panned down and there were police officers standing there watching it happen. I turned to my wife and said: “If that ever happens here, that will not be us.”

My deputies will not stand there and watch people destroy our communities. That was the moment. I knew exactly what I was going to do if it came to Riverside.

Q. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BIGGEST LESSON WAS FROM THAT PERIOD?

BIANCO: Leadership. People want leaders, they don’t want excuses. They don’t want politicians explaining why they can’t do something. They want somebody willing to make decisions.

Good leaders make decisions. Sometimes they’re difficult decisions. Sometimes people criticize them, but you still have to make them. That’s what leadership is.

COVID and the riots both reinforced the same lesson. People need honesty, they need leaders who will tell them the truth. Even if it’s unpopular, even if it’s difficult.

What frustrated me during those years was watching people refuse to tell the truth because they were afraid of criticism. That’s not leadership. Leadership is standing up and saying what you believe is right, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Q. SO WHY ARE YOU RUNNING?

BIANCO: Because I think California can be fixed. I don’t think it’s hopeless. I don’t think it’s beyond saving. And if I thought it couldn’t be fixed, I wouldn’t run. I wouldn’t put my family through this. I wouldn’t put myself through this. I wouldn’t waste anyone’s time. But I believe it can be fixed. And I believe I can help do it.

Q. SIX YEARS AFTER COVID, WHAT DOES CALIFORNIA NEED MOST?

BIANCO: It’s actually relatively easy. It’s about turning government back over to the people. That’s really what this comes down to. People think California is broken. I don’t. California isn’t broken. Our teachers aren’t broken. Our business owners aren’t broken. Our police officers aren’t broken. Our beaches aren’t broken. Our mountains aren’t broken. Our weather isn’t broken.

The only thing broken is Sacramento.

Forty million people are being controlled by about 130 people in Sacramento.

The real problem isn’t California.

The real problem is who we’re sending there.

California Isn’t Broken

Q. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN YOUR FIRST SIX MONTHS AS GOVERNOR?

BIANCO: The first six months would be transformative. I truly believe that. People would immediately see improvements. Gas prices, electricity costs, housing, business regulations, permitting. All of those things are regulatory. They can be changed. And once they’re changed, Californians are going to realize those improvements could have happened years ago.

That’s what will frustrate people. They’re going to realize how much of this was self-inflicted.

Q. LET’S TALK ABOUT HOUSING. WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE?

BIANCO: Because government won’t let people build. In California, it can take three to five years to build a house. In many other states it takes three to five months. Before you even begin, you’re writing checks. Environmental reviews. Permits. Impact fees. Consultants. Lawyers. All of those costs get added to the final price. A huge percentage of the cost of a new home is just recovering fees and regulatory costs. Remove those costs and housing becomes dramatically more affordable.

Q. WHAT ABOUT BUSINESSES LEAVING CALIFORNIA?

BIANCO: Nobody leaves California because they hate California. Nobody. They leave because they can’t afford it. They leave because of taxes. They leave because of regulations. They leave because they can’t operate here anymore. Every business owner I talk to says the same thing: California is a wonderful place to live. The government is what drives them away.

Q. WHAT DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE STARVING FOR IN POLITICS?

BIANCO: Honesty. Integrity. Leadership. People are tired of politicians. They’re tired of scripted answers. They’re tired of being told one thing while seeing another. People want somebody who will tell them the truth, even when it’s unpopular.

Q. WHY DO YOU THINK YOU CAN WIN?

BIANCO: Because I think I appeal beyond party labels. I have Democrats telling me they’re going to vote for me. Not because they agree with everything I say, but because they want change. They want honesty. They want somebody who will run government competently. We’ve seen that happen before. A sheriff won statewide office in Nevada using a very similar message: Public safety, accountability, leadership.

That’s the path.

Q. WHAT’S YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST STEVE HILTON?

BIANCO: Nothing personal. I think he loves California. I think he wants what’s best for California. But I don’t think he can win. He’s tied too closely to Fox News. He’s tied too closely to Donald Trump. And I think those things make winning a general election in California extremely difficult.

My argument has always been simple: The goal isn’t getting through the primary. The goal is winning in November.

Q. WHY ARE YOU ULTIMATELY DOING THIS?

BIANCO: Because I love California. I don’t want to leave. I don’t want my children to leave. I don’t want future generations to lose the opportunities that brought me here. I believe government should work for people.

I believe California can be fixed, and I believe somebody has to step up and do it.

That’s why I’m running.

Last Weekend,

Last weekend, we took a road trip and drove the coast to San Luis Obispo to sit at a table in the sun with Steve Hilton, who is currently running for governor of California, ahead of his town hall at Cal Poly University. He is as energetic and charming as I’d been warned, candid, tan, steel-eyed, and according to him—a few pounds heavier than he prefers due to a hectic campaign schedule interrupting his more rigid exercise and dietary regimens.

AHEAD: FACE TO FACE WITH SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO

Over the course of an hour, we sat and talked through his background—growing up with Hungarian immigrant parents, his Oxford stint, and his almost accidental path from London advertising and political consulting to a new life in California, where family and politics converged.

We also dug into where he sees California heading: homelessness, affordability, and the daily pressure points weighing on people across the state.

Included are a handful of hot takes on Trump and Elon Musk, Princess Kate, Nigel Farage, and Charlie Kirk.

Donald Trump recently said that energy is what drives success. People have big ideas all the time, but not the energy required to execute them.

The California Post offered this assessment of Hilton: “He has the ideas, the energy, and the optimism to turn California around. That is why The California Post is endorsing him for governor. Hilton has spent years analyzing California’s challenges and coming up with solutions.”

The question now is whether the President’s endorsement helps or hurts in a blue state—and whether Californians are ready to hand the keys to Sacramento to a governor who still carries an English accent.

This interview have been condensed for clarity — audio clips are included

JRK: DO YOU HAVE A MORNING ROUTINE?

HILTON: Well, it’s much too… okay, I’m going to give you the ideal, and then I’m going to give you reality.

The ideal used to be before I became a candidate. So ideal is not early— but not too early. I want to say no earlier than six. I really don’t like getting up early. I felt quite embarrassed saying that once—we were talking about it in the Central Valley with farmers, and I said, “Not too early,” and these people get up at like… very early, you know what I mean. So, not too early.

And ideal is a stretching routine. That’s what I’m trying to implement. I’ve got it down to about 20 minutes for the full thing—so not long, not some massive yoga commitment. But I can do an express version in five minutes, just very basic. That’s a big deal, right?

So that would be ideal. Then a cup of tea—hot tea, black tea with milk. And then get on with the day. That’s it, really.

Ideal breakfast—if we’re doing perfect: two boiled eggs from our chickens.

Q. HOW DO YOU KEEP YOUR ENERGY UP ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?

HILTON: I actually don’t know. It’s very… I think I just really enjoy it. And I’m not just saying that as a cliché—it’s genuinely fun for me.

My wife is the one who’s really doing the work at home. She’s very involved and enthusiastic about that. She’s also got a full-time job, and she’s at home with two teenage sons.

We used to split things—well, I don’t want to say equally, she’d probably laugh at that—but I did my bit around the house. For example, I typically did the cooking. So I’m not there now most of the time. And I really do enjoy what I’m doing, but

I’m very aware it’s her incredible commitment to keeping the show on the road at home that enables me to do it.

AUDIO: HIS WIFE RACHEL

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN MARRIED?

HILTON: Just over 18 years.

Q. WHAT DO YOU LOVE ABOUT HER?

HILTON: She’s just really… she’s incredibly cool. She’s a badass. I think that’s the right word.

Q. I’D LOVE TO KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD GROWING UP—SPECIFICALLY YOUR MOTHER.

HILTON: I’m Hungarian. My parents are Hungarian. My stepfather too. Immigrants, exactly. My parents split up when I was young. And then my mother remarried… well, they never got married, but they’ve basically been together ever since.

So there was a stepfather in your life from?

Yes, from early on. My dad left when I don’t actually remember him being there. I only really remember him as someone I’d visit on holidays because he went back to Hungary.

And so where were you living with your mum?

In a town in England called Brighton, on the south coast.

AUDIO: HILTON’S MOTHER | THE QUEEN

How many siblings?

I didn’t have any full siblings. I had three stepbrothers from my stepfather, and one half sister. So four in total, but she wasn’t really there in that day-to-day sense. It was a very regular working-class, aspirational immigrant setup.

Was your mother supportive of your interests growing up?

She was pretty cool. Very hands off. Very warm and loving. But she wasn’t the kind of person saying, “You’ve got to do your homework,” because I just did it anyway.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

WHO Will Advance From the California Governor Primary

Polymarket Has Hilton’s at 83%

Track The Odds Here:

In Partnership with Polymarket

Q. WHAT DID SHE THINK OF THE QUEEN? WHAT DID YOUR FAMILY THINK OF THE MONARCHY GROWING UP?

HILTON: So it’s very interesting. What an amazing question. These are literally the only questions no one’s ever asked me. I’m a big fan. I became that, but I didn’t start out that way.

I’ll tell you a very specific story. At school there was a debate—I don’t think it was even a debating club, just a debate—about whether the monarchy should be abolished. This would have been in the early 80s. I don’t actually remember the debate itself, but I do remember what happened after. It was written up in the school magazine that gets sent home, and I was described as an “ardent republican,” in the sense of wanting to abolish the monarchy. I remember my mum saying, “You can’t say that. That’s terrible. You’ll get in trouble.” And it was really interesting because she wasn’t angry. She just genuinely thought it was dangerous. I think it came from her upbringing in a communist country—you just don’t speak out like that. You don’t say certain things. She really believed it could get me in trouble just for having said it.

But over the years, I’ve come to absolutely love the Queen. I was devastated when she died. I remember it very clearly. Every second of it.

I don’t support the system in a formal sense. I think the system here in the US is better. I’m an American, and I guess I have the zeal of the convert. I’ve actually renounced my UK citizenship.

Q. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF AT 25?

HILTON: So at that point I was working in London for an ad agency—Saatchi & Saatchi—just before moving to Hong Kong for a year. I was very fast-paced, running around London, having fun, working, enjoying it. It was exciting. A really cool job.

And what do you think 25 has changed about you?

I mean a lot… none of us have, I’m sure that’s right—but this is where you have to ask my wife, because we’ve known each other a long time. We met in 1990. We were friends before we got married. My answer is I don’t feel that different. I’m pretty much the same. Well, politically completely different. But same passion for what you live in. High energy.

Q. WERE YOU POLITICALLY MINDED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER?

HILTON: When I was I was at Oxford, and I started obviously because I studied philosophy, politics and economics. It’s a classic degree in England. It’s a bit of a cliche, you know, most of the prime ministers have studied.

It’s call it PPE, and it’s a classic, slightly mocked kind of PPE, you know. So obviously, I chose that as my degree, and even before then, yeah, so in fact, during that time, in the third, so the second, in between my second and third year in the summer, I got a job at a conservative party, in England, in London, because I’d done all these shitty jobs in the vacations to earn a bit of money, like, you know, washing up and all that kind of stuff. Just earn some money.

There was one job that was so boring I thought, I can’t do this again.

It was 1987. I remember there was a hurricane in England—very unusual, in the south—and I got a temporary job at Eagle Star Insurance. They were overwhelmed with claims, so they were sending paperwork to different offices around the country. My job for weeks was just stamping files, sorting them, and labeling where they went. If it was Edinburgh, you wrote “E” and put it in a box. That kind of thing. It was so mind-numbing.

Then I did another job at American Express in Brighton, their European headquarters. I was in the microfiche department—pre-internet. You’d manually scroll through records looking for account numbers. I’d get up at 6 a.m., work until 2 p.m., and I’d just fall asleep at the machine sometimes. I thought, I need something more interesting for vacation work.

So I wrote to the Conservative Party—literally a letter saying I was at Oxford and looking for work.

And they gave me a job. And that really changed things.

Q. THAT WAS A TURNING POINT?

HILTON: Yeah, I think so. It was quite transformational. A real game changer.

Q. ARE YOU STILL IN CONTACT WITH PEOPLE FROM THAT TIME?

HILTON: Yeah, a few of us are still in touch. My oldest friend I’m still very close to—we’ve known each other since primary school. We actually just went to Glastonbury together. We suddenly realised we’ve been friends for something like 45 years. You kind of stop and think… how long have we actually been alive?

Q. SO YOU END UP IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF YOUR WIFE’S JOB OFFERS AT GOOGLE. WHAT IS IT LIKE WHEN YOU GET OVER HERE?

HILTON: Oh, it’s amazing. The sun, the light…

But the thing is, I had… I was running a business in London at the time, it was doing pretty well. And then David Cameron—who I’d worked with after Oxford—asked me to come back and help with his leadership campaign for the Conservative Party. So I did that. And he won. So it was all quite intense and political.

And then things shifted again. We had our first son at the end of 2007, just before Christmas. And at the same time, Rachel—my wife—was at Google. She was head of communications for Europe. Her boss left for Facebook, and she got promoted to global head of communications. So suddenly we’ve got a new baby, she’s in this major role, and I’m working in the UK for the leader of the opposition. The Google team were very understanding. They said, “We get your situation—come out, meet the team, spend some time here.” It was meant to be six months.

We came in 2008 and ended up staying a year in Palo Alto.

It was actually a really lovely time. Our son was very little, it was his first year, and I got to spend a lot of time with him.

We were just able to be a family. I was working remotely, which at the time felt quite unusual—flying back to London every few weeks. But it worked, because of the time difference.

After a certain point in the afternoon in California, the UK is asleep. So I remember those early mornings were for work, then later in the day I could be with my son.

I look back on that time very fondly.

Q. AND THEN YOU MOVED PERMANENTLY?

HILTON: Later, yes. When our second son was born in 2011, we were back in government—Downing Street, much more intensity. Rachel’s job had grown even more as Google scaled globally. She was managing California time from London, working late into the night. It was just a lot.

In 2012 we made the move. But by then we’d already spent time here, so it didn’t feel like a shock. It felt familiar. And in a deep way—not just the weather or lifestyle—I felt like this was where we were supposed to be. That’s how it still feels.

Q. WHERE DO YOU LIVE?

HILTON: We live in the Bay Area.

Q. WHERE DO YOU GUYS LIKE TO GO OUT?

HILTON: We don’t go out much, honestly. We just don’t really. We walk the dogs—that’s probably our thing. We’ve got two little dogs, which are very sweet. And we cook at home a lot. So it’s pretty quiet, actually.

Q. COVID WAS A PIVOTAL MOMENT FOR EVERYONE. YOU’VE BEEN AN EARLY CRITIC OF MANDATES AND RESTRICTIONS. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THAT TIME?

HILTON: I think it woke up a lot of people. It could be the seeds of me winning this year, actually—I really feel that. It was a critical moment. There was a lot of rage and skepticism, like “this is crazy,” and I don’t think that’s really been reflected in an election yet in California.

You had the recall, but that was very last minute. Larry Elder did his best, but it was scrappy and not well timed. Then the 2022 race—again, the Republican candidate didn’t really have the profile or the resources. So this is the first time there’s a serious challenge. And I think since then you’ve got a whole shift in sentiment. There’s a kind of rebel energy out there. I really believe that.

AUDIO: CALIFORNIA’S RAGE AND REBEL SPIRIT | SPENCER PRATT

Q. WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER PERSONALLY FROM THAT TIME?

HILTON: I really remember it. I can still picture exactly where I was sitting. It was the second week of the “15 days to slow the spread.” I was sitting on the back porch. I knew it was going to be a long conversation. It was Charlie Kirk. We were talking and it just felt like—this is insane.

He was on it early too. Very much. And we said, we’ve got to do something about this. At that point I was hosting my show on Fox, and I remember thinking: okay, let’s actually try to influence this. I remember saying on air, “the cure is worse than the disease.”

And then that night the president tweets it. And everything escalated from there. The pushback was enormous. But we believed what we were saying was right.

AUDIO: COVID CORRUPTION | SANTA CLARA | STANDFORD | BIO WEAPONS | CHARLIE KIRK | A PRESIDENTAL TWEET

WERE YOU AWARE OF RFK JR?

HILTON: No, not at all, then. So neither was I, but. I mean, because he was suffering the same censorship and punishment.

Q. WHAT DID YOU THIINK ABOUT THE CENSORSHIP?

HILTON: That became very real. We had guests on the podcast talking about vaccine mandates, and it seemed like a legitimate scientific discussion.

Then the episode was taken down by YouTube.

We went through the appeals process, and it was rejected. At the same time, I went on air and did the same conversation on television. And almost simultaneously, we got two responses: One from YouTube saying it violated guidelines and wouldn’t be restored. And one from Fox saying it had been a mistake and should never have been taken down.

It was all happening in real time.

Q. AND THE RESTRICTIONS?

HILTON: Yes. It got very granular. Rules about parks, benches, time limits outside. It started to feel extremely controlled. And I remember thinking at the time—this doesn’t feel proportionate anymore.

Q. ABOUT MAHA?

HILTON: So I wrote a book in 2015 called More Human. It was really my reflection on working in government by then. We’d moved here, I’d been teaching at Stanford. It wasn’t a political memo—it was more of an ideas book. The theme was More Human: Designing a World Where People Come First. It’s divided into chapters—health, food, education, schools, family, poverty, economics, business.

I remember giving the book to Nicole Shanahan. I met her at Turning Point when we were both speaking there. That was the first time I met her. She lives near us, and she was on stage there. And I knew I was going to see her, so I gave her the book and said, “Just read the food and health chapters. It’s basically MAHA.”

That was 2015. So I feel very deeply connected to the movement in that way.

Q. THIS EXPLAINS THE OVERLAP IN SUPPORT YOU’RE SEEING NOW, RIGHT?

HILTON: Yeah, I think it can do it. People say it’s liberal, Republican, Trump, this, that—but I understand all that. And I don’t think it’s going to be easy to win.

Q. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO WIN MATHEMATICALLY?

HILTON: The first thing is a big Republican turnout. I mean I’m Republican. It’s going to be very… look, the election is just over a week away, the primary. It looks like I’m going to be in the top two. That’s good. I don’t take it for granted, but it’s looking promising.

So then it’s me against another Democrat—either the vice or Tom Steyer. And then it becomes very clear: do we want change, or more of the same? I understand it’s a Democratic-dominated state. It’s going to be hard. The unions, the machine. But a majority of Californians want change—that’s what the polling says.

The best indicator is whether people think the state is going in the right direction or wrong direction. And “wrong direction” is now well over 50 percent. So there is a majority for change. But to get there, you need a big Republican turnout. That’s going to be helped by voter ID on the ballot in November. That helps Republicans a lot. It’s going to be hard, but I think it can be done. Because to me it’s obvious we need change.

Q. WHAT ARE THE TOP ISSUES VOTERS ARE CONCERNED WITH?

HILTON: So statewide it’s more economic issues. Because government is… if you look at it, I’ve got a plan on homelessness. And it’s actually very similar to what Spencer is saying in LA.

Q. SO YOU THINK HE’S GETTING THAT RIGHT?

HILTON: 100%. And he’s being very strong on the first point of it.. Which is you’ve got to take people off the streets.

No one’s gonna get better on the street. No one’s over whatever number you want to pick, most of the people on the streets are either addicted to drugs or have severe mental health problems or some combination. And nobody’s going to get better if they’re on the street.

So it starts with taking you off the street, and we can’t be pathetic about that. I mean, that’s against the law. All these homesless and cameras, they’re against the law, but for years, they haven’t been enforcing the law ‘cause they got this idea of compassion, and you can’t force people to get off and all this.

So Spencer’s completely right about that, and that’s basically broadly what he’s laid out for L.A is what I would want to do to statewide, except that. So your two are aligned on the messaging of, on scale. We’ not working.

You know, like, he’s got a very different thing. He’s a nonpartisan, I’m Republican. It’s not the same at all.

I mean, broadly speaking, I would say, for me, statewide, it’s more the economic issues that are the focus. So definitely everything being so expensive, home, has in costs, taxes, gas prices, electric bills. You know, my whole plan, we were going to town hall here at Cal, where we’re talking, it’s called the Californordable Tour.

Like that’s my brand. Calordable, and it’s $3 gas. Cut your electric bills in half.

First 100 grand tax free, a home you can afford to buy. Very practical things. I mean, underlying that, I’ve got a lot of kind of policy reform plans, and there’s a really deeper point, which is we’ve got to make the business climate more attractive in California because if we don’t do that, it’s all going to fall apart.

Right now we’ve got the highest poverty rate in the country, tied with Louisiana, and the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states, because so many businesses that you can’t do business here. Of course, you can, but it’s so difficult. I was just with the local business guy a beautiful business just here in the central coast, he makes gin distillery.

It’s exactly the kind of business we should love. Yes. Local, artisans fantastic.

Every single thing that he tries to do there.’re blocking, it’s, you have permits, he wants to expand. It’s a nightmare. The permits are out of control.

HILTON HOT TAKES

GAVIN NEWSOM?

HILTON: Okay, so I’ll do my… okay, it’s time for a governor with less hair.

DONALD TRUMP?

HILTON: I’m proud to be endorsed by the President. I’m looking forward to working with the President and his team to make California golden again.

PETER THIEL?

HILTON: Oh, that’s interesting. I’ve never met Peter. I’d love to meet him. He’s a great original thinker, great entrepreneur.

ELON MUSK?

HILTON: Oh, amazing. I mean, this is America at its best. He’s an incredible entrepreneur.

JRK: PRINCESS KATE?

HILTON: Oh yeah, I mean, the way she handled the cancer thing, she’s so great. I love her. She’s great.

NIGEL FARAGE?

HILTON: He’s fun. He’s great. I’ll tell you a very funny story. We were at the Republican Convention in Milwaukee, just walking around one evening, and there was the former prime minister Liz Truss. Someone with me said, “Isn’t that the former prime minister?”

And I said yes—there she was on her own, walking around.

So I went over, said hi, had a nice chat.

The next evening we’re up in the donor area, and I’m there and people are coming up for selfies, a bit of a crowd. I look over and there’s another crowd and I wonder who it is—maybe a senator, maybe Ted Cruz. So I walk over… it’s Nigel Farage.

He’s such a character. People love Nigel.

CHAD BIANCO?

HILTON: So look, it’s nothing personal, but I think he just loves this state of California and wants the best for California. So do I. That’s why we both did this.

But it’s obvious now that Chad is not going to be able to make it into the top two.

So I would love nothing more than to have me and Chad work together to make sure we get a strong Republican vote in the primary, and then we can really work together to turn California around.

YOU WERE CLOSE TO CHARLIE KIRK. WHAT DO YOU MISS MOST ABOUT HIM—WHAT WAS HE LIKE AS A FRIEND?

HILTON: Unbelievably loyal, and always so… I don’t know, just the strength of his friendship. I love Charlie. The twinkle in his eye, you know? He was always a little bit mischievous. I love that. I miss that.

And, you know, it’s funny. In a way I miss him, but I always feel… I’ve said this often at my events. He endorsed me on day one. One of the first people I spoke to about running for governor. For the first few months—I started my campaign in April, and he was murdered in September—so during that time I would go to events and say I’ve got all these different people behind me, and I always end with: I’ve got Charlie Kirk behind me. And I really feel incredibly strong. And I still say it now at events every day. I really feel it.

He loved California, actually. He really did. And he didn’t have that attitude a lot of conservative commentators have—“forget California, it’s a lost cause.”

Charlie was never like that. He was like, “We can’t let California go.” And I just feel he’s with me on this every step of the way.

I’ve now gotten to the point where I can barely talk about him without cracking up sometimes… but I want to say he’s still with me, actually.

If you’re familiar with even a fraction of the disclosure script, you know David Grusch is a pivotal figure in what’s currently unfolding.

Back in July 2023, he testified under oath before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, stating that while he had not personally seen alleged craft, he had sensitive information gleaned from extensive interviews with roughly 40 intelligence officials and insiders with direct knowledge of what the government had in its possession.

His testimony alone shifted the whole credibility of the conversation, pulling UAPs out of the margins of fringe conspiracy fodder into the center of serious congressional scrutiny.

By all accounts, the kind of whistleblower desperately needed to expand transparency around the topic. He’s regarded as a hero in this strange plight.

Now, he’s personally urging the president to release “everything the government knows about UFOs and non-human intelligence.”

His concerns are linked in part to General Neil McCasland’s disappearance. I’ll have more on that for you when I return.

A UAP Site on X Announced:

“David Grusch will make a historic direct plea to President Trump in a call for the truth about UFOs and non-human intelligence.

Grusch will appear on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 9, at 1:00 p.m. to issue a call to action on behalf of the American people.

Amid surging global interest, an unprecedented gathering of senior government officials and civilians will make a direct plea to the President to declassify specific files and for Congress to pass disclosure-related legislation.”

The statement further notes that Grusch, the former intelligence officer who testified before Congress, plans to discuss specific UAP and non-human intelligence-related evidence he encountered through highly classified channels and explain why those records should now be reviewed and released, consistent with legitimate national security protections.”

Probed Posted:

“Several signals are active around David Grusch and upcoming congressional momentum.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, working with James Fox, announced a rally and call to action on the U.S. Capitol steps on Tuesday, June 9, at 1:00 p.m.

Grusch, the highly credentialed former intelligence officer who testified under oath, is expected to speak publicly again on specific UAP and non-human intelligence-related evidence.

We maintain structured profiles and mapping on Grusch, his claims, and connected entities.”

James Fox says congressional representatives are expected to rally behind passage of the UAP Disclosure Act as a formal path toward full transparency, stronger whistleblower protections, and international cooperation on disclosure efforts.

“The public deserves real answers. Congress deserves access. Reality should not be classified,” Fox said. “If our requests are fulfilled, this could change the course of history.”

InterstellarUAP Posted:

“Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day will show an archive of UFO cases that could possibly be released to the world.

There will be Roswell footage with technology authentic to the 1940s.”

The account noted Spielberg’s decision to shoot the film on traditional film stock, arguing that the format captures both the wonder and terror of first contact in a way digital technology cannot.

The film reportedly centers on buried secrets that fundamentally alter humanity’s understanding of reality, featuring dialogue such as: “What did you steal?” “Secrets. The data they paid me to protect.” “Are they people?” “No.”

Whether coincidence, marketing, or something more, the timing is difficult to ignore. As congressional momentum builds, whistleblowers re-emerge, calls for declassification intensify, and one of Hollywood’s most influential directors prepares to release a film centered on disclosure, the subject appears to be moving back toward the center of public attention.”

Ahead: New audio from detectives interviewing a woman who reportedly dined with missing General Neil McCasland + tracking his signals + recently uncovered police interview / audio.

Out of everything unveiled in these files so far the orbs, in my opinion, are of highest interest. This series centers around what I’ve come to learn about them through research and my own encounters. One in particular, spotted near my office at the end of January, triggered a series of peculiar incidents I’m still struggling to understand and interpret.

In Pt. 2, I’ll share what I learned from Dr. Steven Greer’s conference. He has fascinating theories on how to engage them.

Whatever they are, they are real, spotted along the coast quite frequently, seemingly interested in areas where nuclear plants are located, capable of emerging from the ocean, and no one— even at the highest level of government— is able to explain what they are or what they want.

We’ll start with the document below, included in the second batch of files released this week. What I see is similar to this description, but so high above me. This perspective offers insight to an aerial encounter at close range.

* Joint Operations Center = (JOC)

Titled “ODNI-UAP-D001_USPER_Narrative_Senior_USIC.pdf:

The report is presented as a legitimate declassified account authored by a senior U.S. intelligence official. The incident involves a 2025 helicopter mission over a Western U.S. test range, where military personnel encountered a glowing orb-like craft capable of splitting apart midair and accelerating at extraordinary speed. The incident was corroborated through radar and FLIR systems, with multiple witnesses present, including pilots and a senior intelligence official.

---

“In Late 2025, during early evening daylight hours, I — a senior U.S. intelligence officer - along with a colleague and two pilots, departed our Joint Operations Center (JOC) in a helicopter.

Our mission was to investigate loud thuds heard in the mountains on the test range, which coincided with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) sightings reported over the previous several nights. We aimed to search remote mountain areas for possible debris or objects that might explain the orb-like sightings.

After leaving the JOC, we flew a low-altitude “map of the earth” route through the mountain range for several hours. Multiple times, we spotted debris on the ground and descended for closer inspection. Each time, we determined it was remnants from rockets and other projectiles that had crashed during years of weapons testing on the range. As we continued searching near areas of reported orb activity, we discovered a large cave entrance with no visible end in sight. The terrain around the entrance offered no safe landing spot, so l instructed the pilot to orbit it several times for observation. We noted the location and then pressed on.

Running low on fuel, we headed to a prearranged rendezvous point to meet a ground team and let my colleague disembark. The two pilots and I then proceeded to a prepositioned tanker on the range for refueling. Our plan was to return to base afterward, but the JOC radioed with a request to search a nearby mountain for debris spotted by one of the ground teams. By this time, the sun had set, and the pilots switched to Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and Night Vision Goggles (NVG), while I continued using the unaided naked eye.

After a brief search of the mountain yielded no findings, the pilots began navigating back to the JOC to end the mission. I then received a message from the JOC: radar had detected hits several miles up range from our position - the same area where UAP activity had been observed on prior nights. I relayed this to the pilots, and we altered course to intercept.

What followed was a series of close UAP encounters lasting over an hour.

En route, ground teams reported spotting a UAP on FLIR, describing it as “super-hot,” low to the ground, and moving east then south at high speed. The object then split into two and changed direction. Upon arrival, we scanned the area using NVG, FLIR, and the naked eye.

The ground team suddenly radioed that the object had risen from the ground, approached within ten feet of the helicopter, dropped below us, and then sped away. The pilots observed it through NVGs and saw it split into two as a smaller object emerged before it accelerated out of sight. We briefly pursued but broke off, unable to match its speed. At one point, the JOC informed us that several fighter jets had launched on a training mission in our operating area and requested their assistance in identifying the UAP.

Minutes later, the JOC directed us to nearby radar detections. We took up a hovering position at approximately 700 feet above ground level (AGL). In the distance, we saw countless orange orbs swarming in all directions against the backdrop of the mountain.

The display lasted several minutes before fading. The JOC then redirected us to our previous position based on fresh radar hits. I provided coordinates to the pilots, and we moved to intercept, hovering again at 700 feet AGL. Through NVGx, the pilots and I (using the naked eye) observed two large orbs flare up side by side, close to the helicopter — stationary and just above the rotor disk to our right. They were oval-shaped, orange with a white or yellow center, and emitted light in all directions.

After a few seconds, a third orb flared up below the pair, followed by a fourth below that, forming a total of four or five in a “T” formation under the original two. Moments later, they dimmed in reverse order, remaining stationary until they vanished from view. The entire event lasted 10-15 seconds. I didn’t take photos, as I was focused on assessing what it was and whether it posed a threat.

After this encounter, the pilots briefly considered landing due to the objects’ proximity but opted to remain hovering at 700 feet AGL for further observation. We then spotted the fighter jets entering visual range at about 23,00 feet AGL, identifiable by their blinking navigation lights. As watched from afar, the same type of orbs appeared directly above the fighters. They flared up one at a time in a horizontal formation, matching the jets’ speed and flight path. After 10-15 seconds, they dimmed sequentially and disappeared. This repeated several times as the jets transited the airspace and eventually landed. I remarked to the pilots that it seemed the same orbs we had encountered were now “chasing” the fighters. We also observed orange orbs flaring up and down around us for several minutes, forming a distinct triangle before vanishing.

Low on fuel, the pilots decided to return to the JOC. After landing, I briefly spoke with the nostly to express thanks. We were virtually speechless after these observations. I the entered the JOC for a quick debrief before driving home.”

“The Day Science Begins To Study Non-Physical Phenomena, It Will Make More Progress In One Decade Than In All The Previous Centuries Of Its Existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

I realize we’re on the verge of another strike on Iran and there’s a lot brewing tied to that, but I’m here to inform you that along with everything else I’m tracking I’ll be publishing regular updates as part of a dual series on the disclosure files. Most will be brief. Majority will expand behind a paywall.

If you’re wanting a steady stream of unique insight on the matter, I’d encourage an upgrade to PAID.

Chats to discuss all topics are available as a paid perk as well.

TWO SERIES

Divided State of Disclosure will track and examine what is unfolding from an official stance: declassified UAP files, CIA documents, military anomalies, whistleblower testimony, intelligence leaks, and the accelerating collision between a factional war inside government, artificial intelligence, quantum theory, and public consciousness.

Close Encounters of Divine Kind is its philosophical companion framed as an autobiographical testament that mingles the mysteries of my own life with revelations surfacing in parallel alignment. Existential crisis is as vulnerable as I get.

Trust me when I say this is bigger than politics. We’re potentially entering a mass cultural unmooring driven by mounting awareness of anomalies, synchronicities, and technological acceleration that will disrupt what we have come to agree on.

Epstein. Iran. UAPs. CERN. AI. It’s all connected.

Human consciousness is shifting and evolving rapidly to accommodate accelerated rules of design. I’m sure some of you sense it, too.

Nikola Tesla warned us decades ago about the power of energy and higher frequencies— why then have they worked so hard to suppress it?

What’s emerging amid a dystopian AI infiltration is a fractured timeline elevating human awareness. It echoes the Jungian notion that the human psyche—our sense of reality—is tied to an all-encompassing cosmic architecture. It doesn't undermine faith. Quite the contrary, actually. From a biblical perspective faith-based parallels are undeniably at play.

Like the Epstein files before them, UAP disclosures are arriving in rolling drops. It’s messy online. Frantic interpretations are trying to make sense of what's being revealed yet key threads are overlooked. I’ve been pulling from multiple angles to map competing interpretations. Some of what I’ve uncovered is concerning. An update on the “missing” General, for instance, is sure to rattle trust in the official narrative.

For months now, I have been sifting through documents, interviews, archival footage, research threads, personal experiences, and historical parallels, collecting what feels most relevant as information continues to arrive.

I’m looking forward to sharing these findings with you—the weird, wild scope of what I’ve come to contemplate and connect.

It is true, as Sartre once wrote, referring to French Army atrocities in Algeria, that the real tragedy in our time is that any of us can be, interchangeably, victim or torturer.

— Gore Vidal

What Defines Victim?

The word itself is a source of debate among those in the business of studying words. It stems from the Latin victima, which referred to a living being sacrificed in a religious rite, but whether this was meant to imply the life lost transcended divine and noble off the earth or suffered senselessly remains in dispute. I think of a victim as someone who cannot speak for themselves due to unjust action taken against them. Or someone who can speak about the experience of enduring unjust action taken against them and applies that term themselves. The term grows more complicated when seized by opportunistic interests, people who seem less like they have endured unjust treatment and more like they have mutated from lioness to lamb in order to survive legally or socially.

As Washington prepares for another round of testimony tied to the sprawling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, his former associates are set to appear before Congress, recast as victims. These women you’ve likely never heard of worked for him, traveled with him, lived inside his homes, and remained loyal to him for over a decade. A handful were named in the 2007 to 2008 non-prosecution agreement as co-conspirators, shielded from reputational harm. Others surface in redacted court filings, flight logs, depositions, and trial testimony, appearing in roles identical to what Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for.

My newsletter emerged on the heels of Maxwell’s conviction, initially as a space air skepticism without fear of cancellation. What I witnessed was strategically constructed to narrow the case in order to pin the scandal on a single villain.

Four years later, my stance hasn’t changed. New evidence implicates a wide network of powerful men, as well as devoted women who enabled Epstein’s depravities long after Maxwell had moved on.

Ghislaine’s family remain steadfast in their support—arguing biased media is largely to blame for tainting public perception and any chance of a fair trial.

When Jay Beecher was in town last month promoting his book Naked Lies, we sat down with Ian Maxwell to discuss his family’s take on the files release, Donald Trump, a family legacy tainted by scandal, Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent legal filings, disputed victim narratives, and first impressions of Jeffrey Epstein.

IAN MAXWELL

“Somebody had to pay the price for what Epstein did, and so the government and the media chose her. I genuinely believe that if Epstein were alive, he would be incarcerated and she would be free.”

NAKED LIES by JAY BEECHER

The House Oversight Committee is scheduled today to hear first from Sarah Kellen as part of the panel’s ongoing inquiry into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein files investigations. Kellen served as Jeffrey Epstein’s personal assistant for nearly a decade. Her name appears throughout investigative scheduling appointments and coordinating financial payments to women.

According to Kellen, she understood there was an investigation underway in the mid-2000s, but claimed that Epstein told her it stemmed from extortion attempts by girls who had misrepresented their ages and were “in cahoots” with plaintiffs’ lawyer Brad Edwards, who is now representing Sarah Kellen.

In his latest article, The Secret Plot Underway as Epstein’s ‘Assistant’ Sarah Kellen Finally Breaks Her Silence, Ian Maxwell Slams ‘Fake News’ About his Sister, and the Truth Revealed About Nadia Marcinko, Jay Beecher writes:

“Lawyers who are fully aware that some of their clients are not really victims, will be able to buy more summer houses and fancy cars at the expense of the lives of innocent men and women.

Epstein’s former yacht girls, sugar babies and, in some cases, self-confessed ex-escorts, will get paid yet again (though this time from Epstein-related compensation payouts rather than directly from Epstein’s wallet).

The real victims in the scandal, i.e. the school girls groomed and recruited by women such as Virginia Giuffreand Haley Robson, will continue to be ignored:

The lawyers need more sensational, insinuatory Epstein-related headlines to pile up pressure onto their wealthy targets, essentially extorting them into settlements. They turn to associates in the press, who rely on those same lawyers to feed them clickable stories — factual or not, and more often than not, not — to keep the tabloids alive and drive advertising revenue.

Suddenly, our newsfeeds are once again set to be flooded with unsubstantiated allegations and horror stories woven from tall tales heavily reliant on guilt by association.

We saw it at the beginning of this scandal: leaked messages showing attorney David Boies, alongside numerous other controversial lawyers representing Epstein accusers — some of whom have since been thoroughly discredited — discussing ways to squeeze enormous sums from wealthy men in exchange for keeping their names out of the spotlight.”

Jay Predicts:

“As part of the next phase of what could perhaps be described as the biggest fraud in history, new multi-million-dollar lawsuits will soon join those that are still ongoing. This time (so two prominent Epstein accusers have told me), the targets will be Harvard University and American Express.

The former will be extorted for simply accepting donations from Epstein. The latter, one of the world’s biggest bank holding companies, will be accused of ‘helping to facilitate Epstein’s crimes’ (for simply allowing him to use their services like anyone else).”

Adding:

“Politicians, working with Boies and his lawyer associates, began to realise that the public were beginning to see that the Epstein Files were a big nothing burger. Thus the likes of (now former) congressman Thomas Massie resorted to blaming the American government (and, of course, President Donald Trump) of orchestrating a cover-up.

To keep the public pitchforks waving, Massie and Ro Khanna stood up on the House floor and read out the names of four men whom they claimed to be co-conspirators. When that didn’t work, however (after it was swiftly revealed that the four men were in fact completely innocent and had never even met Jeffrey Epstein, they joined forces with their agenda-addled counterparts in calling for the ‘real’ co-conspirators to be forced to testify.

The two women whom they honed in on were Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova.

Facing mounting pressure from politicians and the press, both, it seems are now coming out of hibernation to ‘clear their names’.

Have they been manipulated by the likes of Boies to do so? Are they now cooperating with the lawyers and the lawyers’ pals in the media? Are they suddenly changing their stories to corroborate a crumbling mainstream narrative and help Boies bag more bucks, in exchange for the media (and subsequently media-influenced legal system) now presenting them as victims rather than the villains that the same media has been telling us they are for the past decade?”

Read more

Drama started before sunrise.

My phone pinged at 3:45 a.m.

A message appeared, then swiftly disappeared.

I replied immediately to acknowledge I had seen it.

The message returned.

A whistleblower was being threatened. No specifics were provided. It was offered more as a heads-up to monitor the situation should things continue to escalate.

It’s been an eventful few months. A disorienting vortex of information tossed at us all at once.

Is it accidental?

Between ongoing discussions about classified material and renewed calls for declassification, the volume of claims and counterclaims has made it incredibly hard to keep track of what’s verified and what’s speculation. Public discourse has become increasingly saturated by mangled narratives rapidly spreading conspiracies, tracking conspiracies, about all of these ancient high-profile scandals.

Epstein, Aliens, COVID, Mind Control. I’d argue most in media aren’t experts on all of it.

Renewed interest in highly shielded programs like MKUltra has resurfaced because of these hearings. Congressional efforts on declassification led by Anna Paulina Luna, has appointed a designated task force to each topic of declassification, aiming to examine Cold War-era intelligence activities, including the unsealing of documents pertaining to how and why the CIA conducted behavioral experiments on unwitting participants.

Was the operation ever really ended?

Read more

I hate to be the middle-woman here, but this is where the saga currently resides, and I happen to have insight into both parties and their theories. Nick Tartaglione you know as a frequent subject, given the hours of airtime he’s received in audio clips published as exclusives. I don’t typically pursue true crime as an extended series, but in this case I realized his value in this whole sordid tale immediately.

The rest of the media is just catching on.

That doesn’t mean I closed the books on other possibilities.

Back in December, I sat down with Mark Epstein to hear his side. In the middle of holiday chaos and work events I was juggling at the time, I took a train from DC one evening to meet him and spent a little over 90 minutes in a dimly lit private members’ club—an old-school New York artist haunt—listening to his account without a recording device to rely on afterward. Somewhere, I still have a stash of napkins covered in scribbled notes from that conversation.

In person, Mark was guarded, precise, and adamant in refusing to answer questions about his upbringing, which I of course pressed him on, or about his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell—aside from a couple of off-the-record anecdotes and an acknowledgment that he wouldn’t speak ill of her because she had been “very good” to his mother and always been pleasant in his presence. He had “nothing against” her he told me. His sole purpose for meeting me was to raise suspicions about his brother’s death.

Mark Epstein is convinced someone arranged to take Jeffrey Epstein out based on evidence gathered through an independent investigation and autopsy he commissioned alongside the official examination conducted after Epstein’s death.

You might remember parts of his story being told at length by Tucker Carlson a few years ago.

Up Ahead: Dr. Steven Greer’s UFO Conference!

There are certainly aspects of the Epstein files I hold strong — yes, controversial — opinions about. The portrayal of legal aged escorts as false victims, for one. Corrupt lawyers invested in defaming Trump, and unverified accusations repeated as fact by misinformed sleuths, another. But when it comes to how and why Jeffrey Epstein died, I’ve always maintained a neutral position and that remains true today. I’ve always been open to hearing every angle. I’ve never conclusively said: this is what I believe to be true.

NICK ON AUDIO

May 10, 7:10 pm: “The truth is the truth.”

“It’s a shame that everyone else can’t hear how emphatic Nick is when he describes all this stuff. You know, His authenticity and genuineness and truthfulness bleeds through, you know, and you and I hear it.” — Jonah, inmate on call

The Suicide Note

Mark Vs. Nick

Mark Epstein is highly skeptical of the newly released suicide note purportedly written in prison by his late brother Jeffrey.

Mark disputes the authenticity of a jailhouse note unsealed this week, calling it “the work of a professional forger.”

The Note: “They investigated me for month — FOUND NOTHING!!!” the note reads. “So 15 year old charges resulted. It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye.. Watcha want me to do — Bust out cryin!! NO FUN – NOT WORTH IT!!”

Mark claims the note is forgery but does not dispute that it bears striking resemblance to his brother’s penmanship. “It wouldn’t be hard to get some pro forger to forge a note,” he told Business Insider. “That’s the easiest f***ing thing in the world to do.”

He had also acknowledged that the “bust out cryin” line is a reference to the “Little Rascals” TV show that they grew up watching in the 1960s. The same phrase appears in multiple emails from Jeffrey to his brother and friends. “It’s public knowledge, it’s in the emails” he told the outlet. “So they stole it from me to make it sound like it was him.”

However, that timing doesn’t add up. The emails Mark is referencing were only revealed by the Justice Department in the past year, as part of a larger release of files related to him, while the suicide note has been under seal by a judge this whole time, as Nick has stated several times before.

The judge unsealed the note after the NYT’s petitioned for its release. This month is the first time it was revealed to the pubic, so it’s highly implausible Nick could have known Epstein was fond of this particular phrase.

“Jeffrey Epstein wanted to be put back in the cell with me. I didn’t even know this existed until recently. I mean, that should show you right there. Epstein offered me money to not return to general population and stay in the box with him because he felt safe with me.” — Nick Tartaglione

“You saw pictures of me. Jeffrey Epstein had marks around his neck because he tried to hang himself. At the time, I was, you know, 240, 250 pounds, and had a bench press over 500 pounds. If I wanted to hurt Jeffrey Epstein, I could have heard Jeffrey Epstein. I didn’t hurt Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.”

How Epstein Died Matters.

This conclusion—should we ever arrive there— will determine how this scandal-marred chapter of American history is ultimately regarded. An orchestrated hit suggests powerful people colluded to silence him.

Death by his own hand would deflate that theory and knock the wind out of a growing belief that a shadowy cabal controls the country and was responsible not only for his murder, but for the elaborate cover-up that followed.

Mark Epstein made it clear that evening that he has no interest in defending anything his brother was accused or convicted of. He doesn’t deny Jeffrey Epstein was guilty. What he wants is media attention on his findings, particularly the independent autopsy report.

Until there’s concrete evidence confirming either theory, I view both men as equally critical sources with compelling personal insight into this whole mess.

I’ll be back to expand on what I gleaned from my conversation with Mark.

What I have now is Nick’s response captured in a hectic soundbite. Because he is out of minutes until the 13th, he was forced to relay his thoughts on another inmate’s allotted call time.

Thank you, Jonah, for the facilitating it.

Statement From Nick’s Attorney, Inga Parsons:

“Comey was Epstein”s prosecutor as well as Nicks and PDiddy.”s. In my 35 years of federal criminal practice I have never seen such perjury, misrepresentations and obvious evidence tampering as in this case. You don’t need 90 meetings with federal prosecutors and agents if you are telling the truth but apparently you do when the three key witnesses started out exonerating Nick as not involved and admitting their own involvement in the killings. Nick is retired law enforcement - he rescues animals. He is not a killer. Nor is he a member of the Mexican cartel as the main cooperator and the men who were killed by the cartel were Cartel members. Nick Tartaglione is innocent and is unjustly serving life sentences for crimes he did not commit.”

I spoke to Nick this evening. He recorded a message to Mark Epstein I’ll share with you tomorrow.

Editor’s Note: Thank you Jay Beecher for compiling this entire case into one condensed article. You can read the narrative from Nick’s perspective, examine evidence from his hard drive, and click on the audio clips embedded throughout to hear Nick explain key aspects in his own words.

Refresher on the Cast of Characters Involved

AUDIO 1: “THIS ISN’T ABOUT TRUMP”

AUDIO 2: THE VICTIMS

On Paper,

The case against Nicholas (“Nick”) Tartaglione looks like the kind federal prosecutors love to present at trial: cartel money, a vanished crew, a former cop turned sanctuary boss, and violence so blunt it demands a villain. Four men disappear in Orange County, New York. Months later, four bodies are found buried on a property tied — however loosely — to Tartaglione. The story hardens when the government’s theory lands squarely on inevitability: Nick did it.

The trouble, as Nick’s petition for a pardon and the surrounding reporting insist, is that the case only looks inevitable once you accept a series of early decisions defended late — decisions he argues were shaped by grand jury perjury, witness coercion, and tampered evidence that turned an investigation into a conviction machine.

The four men were Martin Luna, Miguel Luna, Hector Gutierrez, and Urbano Santiago. In Nick’s account, repeated throughout his plea for clemency, they were not innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. He describes them as violent undocumented immigrants and members of a Mexican drug cartel. He also claims the government knew this — and that key aspects of the case only make sense if the murders are viewed not as Nick’s crime, but as cartel business handled by cartel-connected individuals, with Nick as the convenient fall guy.

The story begins with a relationship that, in Nick’s telling, was unremarkable. Marcos Cruz worked for him at his animal sanctuary and lived on the property. Tartaglione, a former K-9 officer on disability after an on-the-job injury, had poured his life into animal rescue. Over the years he had saved thousands of animals from abandonment, abuse, slaughter auctions, and neglect—dogs, horses, deer, cats—the endless stream of injured creatures he rehabilitated and tried to place.

AUDIO 3: MEDICAL LEAVE

Cruz, Tartaglione claims, was working with the cartel and trafficking drugs alongside Martin Luna. According to Nick’s account, Luna had made a dangerous mistake: he stole cartel money, then disappeared with it. His family, gripped by fear, told local police that Luna had previously been kidnapped over stolen drug money and had managed to escape. This time, they warned, he might not survive.

Tartaglione says this is how his name entered the picture — not as an enforcer, but as a former cop Cruz approached for help recovering money he claimed he was owed. Nick says he assumed Cruz meant unpaid wages from another local farm. At trial, however, Cruz testified that he had been tasked with retrieving stolen drug money from Luna by any means necessary. Tartaglione insists he refused any involvement in that kind of work. What he says he did do was refer Cruz to Gerard Benderoth, a former law enforcement officer he had previously recommended for outside security jobs, a history he says is reflected in their text messages.

In his petition, Nick identifies Benderoth and Joseph Biggs as two of the men Cruz allegedly recruited. At trial, Cruz testified that he arranged Martin Luna’s killing with help from Benderoth, Biggs, and a third man, Jason Sullivan, a drug dealer who had moved from New York to Florida. Cruz claimed Luna was targeted over the stolen cartel money and that three of Luna’s relatives — Miguel Luna, Urbano Santiago, and Hector Gutierrez — were with him when the plot unfolded. According to Cruz’s testimony, he also knew Nick had vacated the rental property once used for his animal sanctuary and selected it as the burial site. Cruz said the men were shot, apparently by Benderoth, and that he buried the bodies there afterward.

In later filings, Tartaglione argues Cruz’s story only took its final shape after repeated sessions with investigator William Young. Nick’s petition claims Cruz initially confessed to carrying out the murders himself, then gradually shifted into a cooperation narrative that implicated others. Tartaglione argues that change was not organic but coerced, alleging investigators pressured Cruz by threatening that his children could be placed in foster care and his wife deported if he failed to cooperate.

One of the men Cruz implicated, Gerard Benderoth, never testified. When FBI agents later attempted to arrest him in broad daylight, Benderoth grabbed a gun and shot himself inside his car before he could be taken into custody.

This detail, Tartaglione says, is central to his argument because it involves one of the few elements of the case that cannot be dismissed as courtroom rhetoric. In audio transcripts he returns to it repeatedly: Benderoth was his age, roughly his height, bald, a former cop, someone he knew from gyms and law enforcement circles and had referred for work. In recorded conversations with Jessica Reed Kraus, Nick recounts being told that federal agents had pulled over Benderoth — his physical double — and that he shot himself before agents could approach the vehicle. Nick says his reaction was not shock but recognition. In his telling, one of the men he believes responsible for the killings was now dead, and the case against him would not change course.

The government’s timeline begins on April 11, 2016, at a bar in Chester, New York, called the Likquid Lounge. Prosecutors presented it as the place where the plot unfolded. Video footage shown at trial captures the entrance area of the bar, though Nick’s defense has long argued the footage cuts or freezes precisely when the doors open and the identities of those entering or exiting would be visible. According to prosecutors, Martin Luna was strangled there that night before his relatives were later transported to Tartaglione’s property.

Nick disputes the reliability of the footage entirely. In filings and recorded conversations, he alleges the video contains freezing frames, skipped segments, reversed timestamps, muted audio, and missing minutes — discrepancies he says become visible only when compared against a wall clock in the frame. According to his account, the moments that might show who entered or exited vehicles outside the bar are obscured by these glitches.

The footage also includes the repeated appearance of a white van parked near the bar.

In Nick’s account, that vehicle becomes a lingering anomaly in the case — present in the video but largely ignored in the government’s narrative.

AUDIO 4: VIDEO SKIPS AT 1:57

We Never See Who Exits The Vehicle.

A 911 caller who lived next door to Martin Luna’s residence reported seeing two threatening men at the house: a heavyset Black man and an overweight bald white man arriving in a white van. In his petition, Nick argues that those descriptions align with Joseph Biggs and Gerard Benderoth. He further alleges that Investigator William Young later presented the account differently in grand jury testimony, describing the white man as a “bodybuilder” — a characterization Nick says was intended to resemble him — while also changing the vehicle from a white van to an SUV and omitting the van from the account altogether.

Despite the prosecution’s confident façade, Nick argues the case against him rested on unstable foundations.

No murder weapon was ever recovered.

Searches of Nick’s home and vehicles uncovered no drug money or trafficking paraphernalia.

His DNA was not found on the zip tie prosecutors claimed had been used to strangle Martin Luna.

And, Nick contends, a trained K-9 officer familiar with cadaver detection would never bury bodies on property connected to him — particularly at a location he had already vacated.

Nick also disputes one of the prosecution’s central claims: that Luna was strangled inside the bar. At trial, Joseph Biggs testified that Tartaglione used a zip tie to strangle Luna and that the men were beaten and tortured. But the medical examiner, Dr. Roman, testified that Luna’s cause of death could not be determined and said strangulation was unlikely. He also confirmed that none of the bodies showed injuries consistent with Biggs’s account — no cuts, abrasions, bruises, or broken bones. Toxicology reports did detect alcohol and drugs in the victims’ systems, but Nick argues the findings do not support the prosecution’s version of a violent beating followed by a zip-tie killing.

One of Nick’s most pointed claims concerns a zip tie visible in crime scene photographs. According to his petition, the earliest timestamped images show no zip tie. Photographs taken three minutes later show what he describes as a “clean zip tie” resting on top of the bodies.

Nick believes investigators planted it at the scene.

AUDIO 4: PHOTOS IN EVIDENCE

Taken Three Minutes Apart —Show a Zip Tie Mysteriously Appear in the Second Frame.

The Issue of DNA

The kind of evidence juries are trained to treat as holy. Nick says Luna’s DNA was “discovered” on a piece of molding or floorboard in a bar bathroom eight months after the disappearances, after the bathroom had allegedly been cleaned with bleach for months. He claims he may know how it truly got there.

Investigator Young was at the burial site, left without signing out, went to the bar without signing in, and was later the person who took custody of the floorboard.

Nick says he learned after trial, through an FBI agent, that the case agent picked up the molding himself. He argues this points to either planting or cross-contamination between the burial site and the bar. He also notes that proper protective gear was not worn at either location.

AUDIO 5: Phone Forensics

Shows Date of Tampering.

If Tartaglione is right about that, then the murder story is not simply about what happened to four cartel men. It is also about what happened to the evidence inside a system with a target already chosen. The human engine of the prosecution, in his account, is not video or DNA but the three alleged cooperators: Marcos Cruz, Joseph Biggs, and Jason Sullivan. Tartaglione claims they initially denied his involvement and that Cruz repeatedly confessed to Investigator Young that he himself committed the murders. He says Cruz told Young, “I killed them alright,” and told his own brother, Miguel Cruz, that he hired Biggs and Benderoth to do it.

He further alleges that an officer interviewing Miguel Cruz can be heard suggesting there “might be a U-Visa” if Miguel cooperated, and that when Miguel refused to implicate Tartaglione, he was deported.

AUDIO 6: THE AUTOPSY REPORT

Nick claims the revisionism of the key narrative took place over time. His petition repeats a number like a hammer: over ninety meetings. Over ninety sessions with Young and prosecutors, including Maurene Comey, to “get their stories straight.”

“You don’t need ninety meetings to tell the truth, but you might need ninety meetings to align three men’s lies into a single prosecutorial narrative,” Nick stated in email correspondence and audio obtained by Jessica Reed Kraus.

Nick says Cruz’s inducements were enormous. Cruz — a man Nick portrays as a self-confessed murderer — received time served, citizenship, and permission for his family to remain in the United States. Biggs, he says, will be out in under six years. Sullivan has already been released.

There are additional contradictions he points to — the kind that don’t require a forensic lab to understand. Contradictions that may, in fact, provide him with an alibi. Prosecutors told jurors that Nick’s phone records show no usage while he and the alleged killers were supposedly together at the bar killing Luna and kidnapping his relatives to be killed elsewhere. But that is not strictly true. Rather than showing no phone activity, Nick’s records indicate that he called Benderoth’s home phone at 4:00 p.m., during the window prosecutors claim he was with Benderoth inside the bar. The records also show calls to businesses, family members, and friends during the period he was allegedly committing murder.

Nick also claims there is evidence suggesting the victims were alive long after the prosecution’s timeline says they were dead.

He states records show Luna called Florida, California, and Puerto Rico after the time that prosecutors claim he was supposedly killed. He cites shocking police notes: a former state trooper reporting seeing the four victims eating breakfast eleven days after they were supposed to have been killed, and a diner waitress who confirmed that she served them.

Law enforcement and Nick’s own trial attorneys curiously never followed up on those leads.

Nick’s petition goes further, toward details that sound small until you try to dismiss them. Family members of Michael Luna said that Luna had been wearing white pants on the day in question, a claim echoed by Young. Yet Luna’s body was found wearing blue jeans. Prosecutors, and even the judge, suggested that dye may have leached from other clothing and turned the white pants blue - a physical impossibility, particularly because Luna’s body was discovered on top of the others, not beneath it.

AUDIO 7: WHITE PANTS TURN BLUE

A photo of the pants is included because, on the day Martin supposedly died (by zip-tie strangulation), his family identified him on a video wearing white pants. Yet, when they pulled him out of the grave as Body #1, he was wearing blue jeans. Nick’s defense believes this proves he was not murdered on the date listed.

Furthermore, Biggs’s shifting account is a central example of why guilt ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ should perhaps never have been applied to the allegations aimed at Nick. When Biggs was first arrested, he told his lawyer that Gerard Benderoth shot all three men. This is allegedly evidenced in an email from Comey herself, where she wrote that Biggs stated Benderoth shot all three victims. At trial, however, Biggs testified to a different version: that he shot one man, Tartaglione shot one man, and Benderoth shot one man. Nick argues this version is not only inconsistent with Biggs’s earlier statement but physically implausible. All three victims were allegedly shot with the same pistol, with consistent bullet trajectories.

Nick also alleges that his team later learned, based on post trial discovery, that prosecutors engaged in their own form of editing, not only in video but in transcripts.

Sullivan’s interview transcript provided to the judge was missing thirty-three minutes. That missing segment, Nick claims, reveals investigators feeding Sullivan information and that Sullivan and his wife were interviewed together, contradicting what Comey later told the court. He also claims thatprosecutors gave a non-prosecution agreement to Sullivan’s wife, that was never disclosed to the jury, as an incentive to make false statements against Nick.

Evidence was also allegedly withheld and destroyed, including a “lot front camera” video referenced in police notes and by an officer speaking to families, later claimed not to even exist.

AUDIO 8: NICKS’ RECEIPTS

In a recorded conversation with Jessica Kraus, Nick described a moment that reveals, at least emotionally, why he believes the system will not reverse itself even when confronted with its own contradictions. He said that, after learning about Benderoth’s suicide, he told his lawyer, in effect, “I’m out.” Not because he thought the government would do the right thing, but because he thought the facts were too obvious to ignore, that one of the true killers had died, and that there was simply no evidence to keep himself behind bars. But then he said the lawyer replied, “No, they won’t admit it”.

Tartaglione realized at that moment a stark reality: once the machine is in motion, its job becomes not to find the truth but to protect the story already told.

AUDIO 9: WHO IS BRUCE BARKET?

Nick was arrested on December 19, 2016.

In his telling, the arrest did not follow a completed investigation pointing cleanly toward him, but instead preceded one that was still groping for a coherent theory. He argues that law enforcement did not arrive at him because evidence led them there, but because once his name entered the frame, it became easier to bend the evidence than to abandon the narrative and pursue members of the cartel.

By the summer of 2019, according to Nick, his case was compromised by a federal prosecution framing him as a violent former police officer turned criminal mastermind. But it was his transfer to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan that, he says, irreversibly altered both the public narrative around him and the internal dynamics of his case.

He was placed in the Special Housing Unit. It was there that he was assigned to share a cell with the prison’s most notorious inmate:

JEFFREY EPSTEIN.

At the time, Nick says he had only a vague idea of who Epstein was. Access to newspapers and television in segregation was limited, delayed, or nonexistent.

What he knew initially came largely from Epstein himself. They were housed together on J-tier, 9 South.

Early one morning, around 5:30 a.m., guards banged on the cell door and told Epstein to get dressed for court. Nick says he immediately understood what was actually happening. In his experience as a former police officer and long-term pretrial detainee, guards often told inmates they had “court” when, in fact, they were being taken to meet prosecutors for a proffer session, so other inmates would not overhear that someone was cooperating.

Nick says he explained this to Epstein before Epstein left the cell, and that Epstein was gone most of the day. When he returned late that evening, Nick describes him as visibly shaken, anxious, and withdrawn.

After some time, Epstein initiated a conversation. He asked Nick, explicitly referencing his law enforcement background, for his opinion on cooperating with prosecutors.

Nick told him what he considered the reality of cooperation: prosecutors do not release a valuable defendant unless that person can deliver someone more important to prosecute. Epstein, he says, then explained why he was asking. He told Nick that prosecutors had offered him the possibility of pleading to lesser charges and serving only a few years in a minimum-security camp, rather than dying in prison, if he could provide information that could be used to impeach Donald Trump.

Epstein was explicit about the pressure being applied. He told Nick that prosecutors had made clear the sooner he agreed to cooperate, the sooner he would be moved out of MCC. If he chose to go to trial, he would remain where he was. Epstein also allegedly told him that prosecutors said he did not need to prove the allegations against Trump — only to supply information or allegations that Trump’s people would be unable to disprove.

Nick challenged that logic. He reminded Epstein that, at the time, the FBI answered to the Trump administration. Epstein responded, according to Tartaglione, that prosecutors told him the FBI were “their people,” not Trump’s. Epstein also said prosecutors suggested his former girlfriend might corroborate his claims.

AUDIO 10: What Epstein Told Nick About Trump, Maxwell, The FBI

At that point, Nick says he reacted angrily and confronted Epstein directly — telling him he had already been incarcerated for years and was facing life sentences because of cooperators lying to protect themselves. He told Epstein that fabricated cooperation destroys innocent lives. Nick says this confrontation escalated into a serious problem almost immediately.

Shortly afterward, he learned that Epstein had accused him of assault.

Epstein had been found unresponsive in his cell, apparently strangled but still breathing. When he came around, he uttered five words: “Nick tried to kill me.”

AUDIO 11: EPSTEIN’S SUICIDE NOTE

“(Redacted) kept me in a locked shower stall for 1 hr. Noel sent me burnt food. Giant bugs crawling over my hands. No fun!!” the note reads.”

Media reports quickly followed, describing Tartaglione as a “killer cop” who attacked Epstein. But Nick insists this never happened. He says Epstein made the allegation to ensure placement on suicide watch, which would remove him from the cell and potentially shield him from further pressure or danger.

Nick recounts that Epstein later retracted the allegation, claiming he had merely passed out. He says Epstein apologized to him directly, including an exchange in which Epstein acknowledged that Nick had seen a suicide note Epstein had hidden inside one of Nick’s books. Nick describes the note as brief and bleak, referencing that the “feds looked everywhere, found nothing,” and ending with, “time to say goodbye.”

Nick states that on the night in question, Epstein appeared to be sleeping, snoring loudly. Nick put in headphones and went to sleep. At some point, he felt something hit his leg. When his eyes adjusted to the dark, he saw Epstein hanging, his eyes partly open. Using a small razor blade inmates were allowed for grooming, Nick says he cut Epstein down and began chest compressions while calling for guards. He says Epstein regained breathing before officers arrived.

Nick says that this episode permanently recast him in the public imagination. Regardless of the evidence in his own case, he became linked in headlines to Epstein, framed as violent, unstable, and dangerous. The image that circulated secured the visual needed — Nick as a hulking figure in a white tank top glaring into the camera. He believes this association bled into judicial attitudes as well, reinforcing a narrative that he says prosecutors had already constructed.

He also describes conversations with Epstein that extended beyond Trump. Epstein, he says, talked about Ghislaine Maxwell, referring to her dismissively as a “cold fish,” and expressing fear that prosecutors would go after her if he did not “pack it in.” Epstein allegedly insisted that some high-profile accusations were false, including claims involving Alan Dershowitz, telling Nick that Dershowitz had never been near certain accusers.

Looking back, Nick now views the cell placement itself as deeply suspect. He questions why a man charged with quadruple homicide would be placed in a cell with one of the most high-profile detainees in the country, unless officials were confident he would not harm him. He also questions why, after Epstein’s death, no serious scrutiny was applied to the decision to house them together.

After Epstein’s death, Nick was transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn due to deteriorating prison conditions. While there, he was on the phone with a friend; when the call ended and he began walking back to his cell, other inmates attacked him with a plumber’s wrench because he was a former police officer. The assault left him with a serious head injury that required a metal plate.

He now believes the Epstein episode had another consequence: it distracted from, and even insulated, the prosecution in his own case. Media focus shifted almost entirely to Epstein’s death. His own claims of prosecutorial misconduct, evidence tampering, and coerced testimony received little attention by comparison. His name became shorthand for menace rather than that of a defendant asserting innocence.

By the time his trial resumed, Nick says the damage was already irreversible. Jurors, judges, and the public had absorbed a simplified story. He was no longer just a former officer accused of murder; he was “the killer cop who attacked Epstein.” He argues that this framing made it easier for contradictions in the government’s case to be overlooked and harder for his defense to be heard on its own merits.

When his case finally went to trial in the Southern District of New York, nearly seven years after his arrest, the prosecution presented what appeared, on the surface, to be a tightly woven narrative. Beneath that surface, he argues, the case was defined by contradictions, shifting theories, missing evidence, and testimony that changed repeatedly to fit whatever version of events prosecutors needed at a given moment.

By the time post-trial motions were filed, Tartaglione argues the case against him depended almost entirely on cooperators who admitted their own involvement, whose stories changed repeatedly, and who received extraordinary benefits in exchange for implicating him. Physical evidence was either absent, inconsistent, or tainted, while exculpatory material was ignored, minimized, or never shown to the jury. As his post-trial filings expanded, his claims moved beyond individual evidentiary failures into a broader allegation: that his prosecution was shaped by institutional protection, prosecutorial misconduct, and a culture within the Southern District of New York that rewarded convictions over truth.

Central to this claim is the role of Maurene Comey, the lead prosecutor in his case, who also served as a prosecutor in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Comey’s influence, he argues, extended far beyond the presentation of evidence at trial. From the earliest stages of the case, Nick says, the prosecution relied on perjury before the grand jury. Investigator William Young’s testimony included demonstrably false descriptions of witnesses, vehicles, and weapons. The 911 caller’s description of two men who came looking for Martin Luna as “a heavyset Black man” and “a heavyset white man driving a white van” was altered. Young recharacterized the white man as a “bodybuilder.” Nick maintains this was done deliberately to shift suspicion away from Gerard Benderoth and toward himself.

Comey presented this testimony without correction.

AUDIO 12: NICK ON WILLIAM YOUNG

Nick alleges DNA tampering.

Read recent accusations on Young here.

Judge Kenneth Karas accepted prosecutorial representations even when contradicted by records. Nick points to instances where demonstrably false statements were allowed to stand, including claims about phone silence, timelines, and cooperator conduct. He notes that Comey’s visible presence in the courtroom, standing behind the prosecution, underscored what he perceived as an imbalance of power no defense attorney could realistically counter.

Following sentencing, the pattern continued. Despite a judicial order that he be housed near his family and afforded protection as a former law enforcement officer, he was sent to Atwater Federal Penitentiary in California, one of the most violent facilities in the federal system. There, he was placed in general population. Staff and inmates were informed of his background.

His cell door was left open. He was attacked, strangled, stabbed, and left bleeding until he collapsed in the hallway. He required a blood transfusion and sustained permanent injuries, including partial vision loss.

Nick argues this was not negligence but indifference — bordering on intent. He notes that Epstein, too, was not protected despite obvious risks. In his view, both men were placed in environments where serious harm was foreseeable, and where the consequences of that harm would conveniently eliminate complications for the government.

Jessica Reed Kraus has played a singular role in bringing these details back into public view. Through repeated interviews with Nick from inside prison, she has documented his claims, examined trial records, reviewed exhibits, and highlighted inconsistencies that were ignored or minimized in mainstream coverage. Tartaglione argues that without this scrutiny, his case would remain frozen in its trial posture, never re-examined despite the volume of exculpatory material.

In his petition, Tartaglione does not ask to be viewed as sympathetic. He asks to be examined carefully. He emphasizes that he has already served nearly a decade in prison — longer than several admitted participants in the crimes. Cruz, who confessed repeatedly, is free. Sullivan is free. Biggs will be released in a few years.

While Nick remains in federal prison serving consecutive life sentences.

He frames his request for clemency as a question not just of individual injustice, but of institutional failure.

A case built on coerced testimony, manipulated evidence, shifting theories, and suppressed contradictions, he argues, is not a victory for justice. It is a warning that America’s justice system is not merely on the brink of failure.

In his view, it has already failed.

“If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans.” — Stephen Hawking

Good morning from Georgetown. We’re less than an hour from disclosure. I flew in specifically for this drop, phase one, and a briefing later today led by David Grusch. I’ll have notes on that afterward.

I’m excited for more blurry images and distorted, grainy video.

What To Know:

The release will reportedly follow the same model as the Epstein files: a slow, steady drip of information released over several weeks so the public is not overwhelmed. I’m hearing the reports that pastors were briefed by the government on how to handle this may actually be true. According to sources, a select group was included to help prepare scriptural and spiritual messaging surrounding what some are calling a new era.

How will faith-based Americans respond to what may be revealed? Many in Congress believe these are spiritual entities. Some think angels and demons. Others insist they are only demons. The majority view seems to be that, whatever they are, they’ve “always been here.”

Requested videos, according to Anna Paulina Luna, will be included in the second drop.

I asked last night, “Where do I need to be tomorrow?” The source answered: “At your computer :)”

Obviously, I’ll have a hundred different things I want to discuss, so sign up for the chat if you’re as invested in this as I am. We’ll break down whatever gets released, and I’ll also post live updates from the Grusch briefing later today.

In this first drop, we’ll likely learn about specific topics: past crash events, Roswell incident, Area 51, recovered craft materials, and potentially even alleged non-human remains in government possession.

I’ve also included a few questions and theories from X that I found especially interesting and insightful. When I’m back, I’ll share more about what Eric Weinstein theorized while sitting in my office last month searching for orbs.

“The aliens on this planet are also attempting to clone or replicate the human form artificially. Their original form, being humanoid, cannot pass the field that was established around the Earth. But if they can clone or cybernetically change their forms, it may help their designs. This is why virtual reality, cybernetics, cloning, and nanotechnology are in vogue today.” — Michael Tsarion

The Government Launched Alien.gov.

Rafael @@uncannysignals : “Tonight is the last night before everything changes forever. Disclosure is imminent. What that looks like...I guess we’ll find out in a few hours. Throughout my life, l’ve carried this nagging feeling. A premonition, I suppose, something that always told me I would live to see the last era where humanity knew the world as it was. Like many of you, I’ve experienced things I can’t explain. I’ve known, in some quiet and certain way, that there is something beyond the edges of our reality. We’re about to open that door for everyone else. Sleep well.”

“The evidence points to the fact that Roswell was a real incident and that indeed an alien craft did crash, and that material was recovered from that site. We all know that UFOs are real.All we need to ask is where do they come from, and what do they want?”

— Edgar Mitchell

Tim & @MrOcelot1976: “They can time travel. They can go from 37000 bc to modern times like walking into another room. These objects have been dated pre flood by Alien carvings on Facebook. My theory is that they exist in all times simultaneously and are connectednwith helping create humanity. Not all are good. “Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES. Much PAIN but still time. BELIEVE. There is GOOD out there. We OPpose DECEPTION. Conduit CLOSING.”

@frayingreality: “Trump’s own spiritual adviser Paula White says what she heard inside the White House left her trembling in fear. She sat in rooms with Trump, Marco Rubio, and Susie Wiles. And whatever was discussed there, she says it will impact not just Americans but entire nations.

Paula White heads the White House Faith Office and has Trump’s ear in ways almost no outsider does. If she’s shaken, that’s not nothing.

In a sermon clip that’s now gone viral, White described the weight of what she witnessed in those meetings. “There are decisions being made that I literally tremble in fear over,” she said, “because I recognise what will be said in the meetings will not just impact 5-10 people, but millions and nations.” She called daily life inside the White House “absolutely hell, hounding you in every way you can imagine and not imagine.”

Here’s where it gets strange. Marco Rubio, one of the three officials White named in her discussions, has been one of the most aggressive voices in Congress pushing for UAP transparency. Rubio co-authored key UAP disclosure legislation and has made no secret of his belief that the public deserves answers. The fact that his name appears in White’s account, alongside language about decisions that will shake the world, hasn’t gone unnoticed.

Commentator Walter Kirn and others watching the intersection of faith and government disclosure have raised the question openly: is White bracing evangelical America for something specific? Is the “spiritual warfare” she describes a response to information about non-human intelligence that the White House is sitting on? Her language about millions of people and entire nations lines up uncomfortably well with what a UAP disclosure briefing might produce.

White has not clarified what the decisions were. No official statement has been issued. The White House Faith Office has remained silent on the specifics of what she witnessed.

If Trump’s closest spiritual confidant is trembling over what.”

According to Congressman Tim Burchett— the Trump Administration will start releasing classified UFO files in different batches of UFO files released on a weekly basis after today’s release.

Eric Weinstein • @ericweinstein : “It’s extremely hard to “do a little disclosure” and avoid the tight scientific/societal questions. The only way this has worked has been starving smart technical people for any detail at all.

What I will be watching:

Everyone: “Did the government psy-op us all with

BS? If so: Why????”

Biologists: “You said the government has alien biologics? Do they have eukaryotic cells? If so what do we know about their histones, matrilineal mitochondrial dna, hemoglobin atp synthase???

What is their placement on the phylogenetic tree?

Tetrapods??? Isolates?? If not eucaryotic, how are their cells/tissues organized? Do they use proteins?? What are their body plans??”

Linguists: “What is the structure of their communication schemes? Can it be mapped onto a generalized human grammar? Or are our languages not expressive enough to cover their languages?

Do they use sound or light or some other wave to transmit/receive? Do they have an analog of music??”

Physicists: “How do the standard model and general relativity appear as effective theories/ lagrangians of the alien understanding of the cosmic waves, media and fabric for lack of better terms? How many dimensions are there, are they engineering accessible and how many new ones are temporal? Are there new forms of energy corresponding to these new degrees of freedom? |s the speed of light gameable?”

Civil Libertarians: “How many innocent lives were ruined keeping this secret? Did we fake a lot of this?? Who authorized the lying, discrediting and possible wet work?”

NatSec: “Are we owned by an unknown force? Will it now be trivial easy for everyone to make WMD from new discoveries?”

Etc.

This is not going to stay controlled if it is at all specific. As soon as there are any specifics I guess that the game changes character instantly and goes into high gear with totally different players.”

“I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on Earth.”

— Harry S. Truman

“We are dealing with a yet unrecognized level of consciousness, independent of man but closely linked to the earth.... I do not believe anymore that UFOs are simply the spacecraft of some race of extraterrestrial visitors. This notion is too simplistic to explain their appearance, the frequency of their manifestations through recorded history, and the structure of the information exchanged with them during contact.”

— Jacques Vallee

Air Force News Special Report: “In July 1994, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force concluded an exhaustive search for records in response to a General Accounting Office (GAO) inquiry of an event popularly known as the "Roswell Incident." The focus of the GAO probe, initiated at the request of a member of Congress, was to determine if the U.S. Air Force, or any other U.S. government agency, possessed information on the alleged crash and recovery of an extraterrestrial vehicle and its alien occupants near Roswell, N.M. in July 1947.

The 1994 Air Force report concluded that the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, recovered debris from an Army Air Forces balloon-borne research project code named MOGUL. Records located describing research carried out under the MOGUL project, most of which were never classified (and publicly available) were collected, provided to GAO, and published in one volume for ease of access for the general public.

This report discusses the results of this exhaustive research and identifies the likely sources of the claims of "alien bodies" at Roswell. Contrary to allegations, many of the accounts appear to be descriptions of unclassified and widely publicized Air Force scientific achievements. Other descriptions of "bodies" appear to be actual incidents in which Air Force members were killed or injured in the line of duty.

The conclusions are: Air Force activities which occurred over a period of many years have been consolidated and are now represented to have occurred in two or three days in July 1947.

“Aliens” observed in the New Mexico desert were actually anthropomorphic test dummies that were carried aloft by U.S. Air Force high altitude balloons for scientific research.

The “unusual” military activities in the New Mexico desert were high altitude research balloon launch and recovery operations. Reports of military units that always seemed to arrive shortly after the crash of a flying saucer to retrieve the saucer and “crew,” were actually accurate descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in anthropomorphic dummy recovery operations.

Claims of “alien bodies” at the Roswell Army Air Field hospital were most likely a combination of two separate incidents:

Executive Summary

1. ) a 1956 KC-97 aircraft accident in which 11 Air Force members lost their lives; and,

2. ) a 1959 manned balloon mishap in which two Air Force pilots were injured.”

“Do stuff. Be clenched, curious. Not waiting for inspiration's shove or society's kiss on your forehead. Pay attention. It's all about paying attention. Attention is vitality. It connects you with others. It makes you eager. Stay eager.”

― Susan Sontag

This Week’s HK is Free to All Subscribers!

Before we get to UFO files sent for release—did you know that a growing number of people suspect time is bending? I’ve been tracking theories about a possible quantum jump during the pandemic. Scrolling fringe forums I discovered an onslaught of people convinced the planet is moving faster. Hayes, of course, was the first to tell me about this. I’m trying to book him for an interview next week on his twelfth birthday, but he’s cagey and yet to confirm. I need him to explain, scientifically, why our days feel shorter.

On Reddit a user opened a thread asking, “Does anyone feel like they’re living a different life since Covid?” This woman said she noticed culture had succumbed to a duller gradient. “I graduated high school during the pandemic, so that may amplify this, but I’ve asked people of different ages and they agree. It feels like I’ve been living in a different timeline since the pandemic. Time is warped. Before, things seemed to be changing for the better: new stuff, more social energy, people excited about day to day life. Since the pandemic, every year feels the same, but somehow goes by faster. I’m happy, but I still do a lot, and everything feels a little off. For the past few years, things have felt turned down a notch. There is less going out, less hype for music and games, quieter theaters, and even sneaker drops that used to feel electric. Everything’s gotten grayer since then.”

Another user chimed in: “I notice it even just going to the grocery store. Everyone is on edge. Almost no one speaks, no ‘excuse me’ or small courtesies. Kids and adults stare at their phones, oblivious. People seem tense. Shit’s dark.”

When teenage girls in prom dresses post videos dancing to a soundtrack lifted from Charlie Kirk’s talking points, shit is dark. When Hitler is revered openly and comfortably on popular podcast platforms, you know the devil’s gaining new ground. A quantum anomaly is not solely to blame. Let’s not ignore CERN as a possible factor that very likely may have opened portals by which nonhuman entities can now enter, and what we’re experiencing now could partly be linked to that. They also never explained their reasons for drilling into the center of the planet to extract the God Particle. What’s weirder, no one’s really even bothered to ask…

AHEAD:

A 2 part interview with Christopher Witcomb about his new book Broken Plea, regarding bombshell claims about the Idaho murders and why Bryan Kohberger might not be the one. A sample from the audio version is included here.

AUDIO:

Broken Plea: The Explosive Search for Truth Behind the Idaho Murders

“The Explosive Search for Truth Behind the Idaho Murders is a 2026 true-crime book by Christopher Whitcomb that questions the official narrative of the 2022 Idaho murders, suggesting a rush to judgment may have overlooked critical evidence and alternative theories despite a suspect’s plea bargain. The book uses court records, timelines, and witness statements to explore inconsistencies and unanswered questions, inviting readers to re-examine the case.”

The more I read, the more convinced I am that biblical forecasts seem plausible: false prophets, phony martyrs, political betrayals, fractured morale among Christian mothers who take perverse pleasure in trashing a widow weekly, and now Tucker Carlson adopting the role of Judas. Sitting smug across from the New York Times, he denied ever calling Donald Trump the antichrist. Confronted by his own lies, his brow furrows, he shakes his head like a bothered dog and squints into the camera, settling into some kind of rebellious intellectual reduced to immature antics in competition with Nick Fuentes, antics people (like me) see through. Islamic infatuation over allegiance to this country at the crux of it. When a man confesses being under attack by bed demons, let’s believe him.

Trump as the antichrist is comical. Imagine humanity’s demise hinging on a New York real estate mogul with a penchant for drugstore tanner, Pavarotti, and ostentatious gold embroidery. He’s too stubborn to serve anyone more powerful than himself. Also, the Antichrist won’t be a Gemini; it’s too obvious. The devil is far too cunning. When it comes to end-times trends, Sweden is ahead of the curve. They rolled out a “mark of the beast” this week: thousands voluntarily implanted rice-sized microchips in their hands for convenience, unlocking doors, making payments, and storing data.

Which brings me to what I promised, a HIH-themed Bible study to discuss all of this. We’re going to need it. I’ll have details soon.

Confirmation of interdimensional nonhuman intelligence is what we’re currently facing. Word is that disclosure could fundamentally rewire our understanding of reality if we are forced to accept what’s rumored, that we are being surveilled by a higher consciousness.

I return to DC this week for an alien briefing covering an array of topics. I’ll be taking lots of notes.

A number of outlets credited me last week with being first to draw a connection to the two scientists murdered at their residence. On the phone they seemed genuinely interested in my findings; in print they’re overly cautious and slightly mocking, framing it as a harebrained conspiracy concocted by wacky MAGA radicals.

Off the record, they’re equally interested.

On a brighter note: Year of the Horse gave us Golden Tempo as a symbolic mascot for a new era—the horse era. Who can resist the long-shot racehorse with a white cross on his muzzle, ridden by a Puerto Rican jockey who beat his brother, honored a long lineage of jockey DNA, surged from the back to win the derby, and made his owner the first woman to take the prize. It had everyone I know crying on a Sunday. People love inspiring tales: a racehorse as the underdog. Imagine if we applied that same approach to stories about humans overcoming hardship and being miraculously rewarded for tireless perseverance. Cut to Trump courting a king with a bee in his palm a day after a third bullet failed to find him.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANNA PAULINA LUNA— WHOM I CONSIDER ONE OF THE HARDEST WORKING WOMEN IN DC

Flashback: In Office with Anna Paulina Luna

Nine days after the Hilton shooting my nerves have settled and my exhaustion is easing, but my anger is sharp. I envy how easily my peers bounced back. I watched them on TV documenting the king and queen’s visit—the same faces who ducked for cover on Saturday resurfaced, composed by Tuesday. Dutiful spectators to the president coaxing a King Charles, showcasing a beehive fashioned after the White House, Michelle Obama’s contribution, in one perfectly staged scene. Trump opened his doughy hand to reveal a honeybee, which seemed to delight the king. Melania stood there loooking slightly unnerved, dressed to perfection. Camilla awkwardly looming, as she does. Sun shining. Grass clipped. Flowers in bloom. Kaitlan Collins even broke character, clealry enamored by the queen’s son, whom I’ve always insisted is underrated. He’s handsome and charming—a poet at heart and a painter by passion.

I’m glad America is catching on.

In Other News:

I have updates on Ghislaine Maxwell’s potential pardon

Instagram will stop recommending accounts that don’t post original content.

I have serious regrets about not heading up north to cover Elon’s trial.

Ted Wait was deposed by Congress but “didn’t say much.”

The Olsen twins spotted together brought momentary unity online.

Courtney Love scored a sentimental gem at the Sylvia Plath auction.

Bottles of urine were found scattered around the MET hours before the ball.

Kim Kardashian showed up naked in what looked to me like an uncanny homage to Bianca Censori.

Anna Wintour might be an elitist snob, but she’s perfect as host for this event. Notably absent? Meghan Markle.

UFO files release coming ‘very soon,’ Kash Patel says – as pastors warned Americans may ‘abandon faith over revelations’

MAIN SUBJECT

Pastors briefed on “non-human intelligence.” Impending disclosure is not just scientific but psychological and spiritual.

In a recent discussion Perry Stone claimed a group of pastors were invited to a government-led briefing focused on preparing for potential revelations about extraterrestrial life and advanced technology. According to the account, officials allegedly discussed recovered off-world materials and reports of non-human entities, and emphasized that religious leaders must be ready for the questions that follow. If true, this suggests preparation for how humanity will process it. Government agencies are rumored to be quietly preparing religious leaders for potential disclosure of extraterrestrial or non-human intelligence.

Perry Stone described a reported meeting where pastors were briefed on:
• Alleged recovered off-world materials
• Reports of non-human entities
• The need to guide congregations through paradigm-shifting revelations

Tom Thompson, American novelist and literary critic, responded on X to Walter Kirn, pointing out his theory that something larger than a messaging debate is stalling disclosure. Basically, he’s suggesting what I’ve come to hear and believe — that the real fight in Washington is not just over whether disclosure happens but over who gets to control the way it unfolds.

Tom states, “If his read is accurate, and I believe it is, the delay may not be caused by secrecy alone. It may be the result of competing factions trying to shape the release, manage the framing, protect themselves, and decide which version of the story reaches the public first.

That would help explain why the entire process feels so unstable.

Hearings take place. Whistleblowers come forward.

Legislation appears, then gets stripped down.

Officials hint at extraordinary information, then retreat into careful ambiguity.

This does not look like a clean, orderly march toward transparency.

It looks more like an internal power struggle occasionally breaking through the surface.”

IMAGE OF THE WEEK

A President a King and a bee.

BEST DRESSED

Kate Moss and Gigi Hadid.

BLIND ITEM

SNAPPED

“In an (even more rare) joint sighting in New York on Thursday, the Olsen twins were photographed taking the concept of “twinning” to new heights. Both forwent their beloved Margaux bags in favor of other iconic The Row pieces: Mary-Kate opted for the Lady bag, while Ashley toted the Agnes—in matching alligator. They were each in swaddling coats, dark sunglasses, and their signature, casually draped scarves. (It’s spring, guys.) — VOGUE

WATCH

Chloe Sevigny talk vintage fashion with Bazaar. One of the last remaining celebrities I find intriguing enough to watch a full length interview with.

HER FIRST BUY: “I was very into shopping from age 5. My mom was a thrifter, so we would go to all the local church-run, community-based thrift stores. I would buy Laura Ashley and Ralph Lauren and Asprey. I then slowly became more alternative and would scour those for interesting things, but then, in the ’90s I became obsessed with Margiela. I turned 18 and I wanted my first pair of Tabis and that was my first big, high-fashion purchase. My parents went halvsies with me and I bought them at If in Soho which is still there. That was a really defining, changing moment.”

RFK catches starling at airport / posts young photo of himself mounting a wild rhino / a user on X added AI image of him on giraffe after comments wondered what that might look like

STAR REPORT

Scorpio moon was not kidding when she arrived and delivered what was promised. My soul might be bruised and battered, but as timely gesture JK Ultra came to the rescue by completing my human design chart. I hope to go LIVE with her soon to discuss these findings.

See you soon!

JRK

It’s been awhile. Welcome back, Aaron.

Aaron Everitt:

I’ve been on an Orthodox Christianity kick again. Every so often, there’s a compulsion inside my soul to dive into what the Orthodox call the “Great Mystery.” In our world of solve-it-all-now enlightenment-obsessed approach to everything from geopolitics to religion, to Truth Social posts bordering between trolling and blasphemy, the Orthodox sensibilities about faith permit me, in my own mind, to leave things unsolved. I have been silent, almost evaporated from the discussion these last few months because of the war. I hate it. I am disappointed with the current choices in American global rulership. If I am critical of Trump, I am a traitor to the country. If I am critical of Israel, an anti-semite. Critical of the podcast gang, a sell out. It is exhausting and demoralizing how American politics makes people such tribal monsters. It has become the fundamental flaw in our system. The government requires watchdoggery; all governments who aren’t subjected to it have overrun their people. So I remain insistent that no politician is infallible. They all live within a system of tradeoffs and dubiously ethical boundaries, in order to make marginal headway within the exuviae of the good ‘ol Constitution. I have written it too many times to count, but this thing we insist on describing as a democracy is not one, and it particularly isn’t a constitutional republic as the term-nazis insist. This is a strange oligarchy, mixed with the state-run and managed economy. The traditional Kings and Dictators of the past have been replaced by an indescribable web of unaccountability, manifested as a theater of placeholders in Congress, and a vascular-type system of bureaucrats. I find myself more and more resolved that what we have will not hold together, or it will simply because the future citizens will refuse to take the mantle of a fake “democracy” on. Either way, it’s station as an enviable system is changing. It will not remain as a something that can solve the grievances and troubles of three hundred and fifty million people. It’s not that it’s a bad framework, or that the constitution is bad, it’s that the whole thing was never designed for the scale and weight it bears. When Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory, he thought it would become its own republic, autonomous from the colonial one on the east coast. Neighbors of convenience and with similar interests, but one unbound to one another in a suicide compact that future American generations would insist on and eventual go to war over in the 1860s. What we are in now is the only thing that could have plausibly come from requiring all states and people to mutually live together in such a diverse and radically unique geography.

So, when I lose my patience with the political class or their commentators in my moments of frustration, I have learned to lean more deeply on the mystery of the spiritual world that surrounds all of this. It’s my own kind of “leaning” center, and in the hardest moments of watching problems in our world that seem unsolvable, it has served me well.

This moment in American history is an odd one. The world is realigning, and I think Trump realizes what is under the hood and is doing what he can to manage the coming discombobulation. I don’t want to give him a pass for his unforced errors of stupid tweets, starting wars, and dictator kidnappings, but I also have a fraction of the information that his team does. The reality that I think is setting in on him and others is that the American moment is actually over. That’s not the crisis that it might appear to be. Certainly, there will be Boomers that melt like a water-soaked Elphaba Thropp in her Flying Monkey castle, but the charade has concluded, and I think the people in Washington know it.

I’m probably being overly generous here in this assessment, but the longer this goes on, the more I think Trump realizes that he only has one option from this American collision course with geopolitical forces that have finally come to bear their ultimate burden on the brokest empire of all time. Trump, hopefully, is trying to leave the American people in the best possible position given the massive shift coming. His push at Greenland and Venezuala seem to be about consolidating the Western hemisphere into the last, consolidated, place of influence America can have, and his dealings in the Middle East and with Israel seem to be about damaging China and Russia, in an attempt to set them back economically for the longest time possible, rather than the podcaster speculations of Epstein blackmail or demon possessed control. Trump’s choices seem irrational and foolish, but only from the typical 21st century construct, where America has to win everything all the time to make sure the world remains dominated by the American empire. I feel like Trump has looked under the hood of this once-humming machine and realized almost all of the structure inside is broken and irreparable. America first, given his options, means that you manage the unpreventable decline to leave the people in the best position available, and that isn’t one where the status quo continues.

The dollar is dying, if it isn’t already dead. Its tie to the global oil market is failing. Russia and China are calling the debt bluff of the American experiment, and while the entire global system is based on a mutual hot potato of overwhelming debt, China and Russia seem to be saying that the United States has clearly lost its moral authority in managing that debt-based system. In a sane, free market, free of the collusion of governments and corporations, and one that isn’t subsidized to hide the real costs, gas should be closer to $8 a gallon. Gas has been a false marker of the health of the dollar since the oil crisis in the 70s. Politicians know that groceries and gas are the only things they have to keep insulated from inflation. There are simply not enough people willing to raise enough frustrations about other price increases to ever threaten their ability to show up to the theater every day. But the BRICS system threatens all of that. So we see Trump positioning himself to try to realign the West to minimize the impacts of what has become inevitable. This isn’t a “hate America” discussion, but a realization that America has to deal with its past sins of debt and global hegemony. If the Boomer generation could turn off their televisions long enough, they might remember that there was a time when being a conservative meant that the ideology wanted fiscal responsibility in the government. 9/11 obviously changed that opinion for many, but there are still realities that confront the hope-ium that everyone has been indulging in for the last twenty-five years. Systems fail when they go broke, and when they go broke, the realigning happens quickly. It doesn’t mean that America is going to disappear, but it does mean that the rest of the world has had enough of our style of leadership. They want the options to escape our way of doing business and government, and there are simple, pragmatic realities that are facing the United States.

Our military, filled with the most amazing men and women, is strangely on the confusing side of the conflict because our weapons, while impressive and technologically superior, struggle to deal with the new kind of warfare that we are seeing in this conflict. We also have to be honest about our own bureaucratic aspects of the military. Just because our men in uniform are amazing doesn’t mean the brass above them necessarily are in touch with the new version of war that the troops have to encounter.

It’s also easy to blame Israel for all of this, and to be sure, they have played a part in it by demanding that their interests are inextricably linked to ours. But to concoct a scenario where they are the dominating government of the entire globe is a bit far-fetched to me. Governments are notoriously bunglers. Their ineptitude typically knows no bounds. So, to insist that the Israeli government is somehow now a mastermind of world domination is giving all of those in government too much credit. I don’t think any of this is a grand game of chess. I think there are realities that are inescapable for all players involved, and what we are seeing is the managed outcomes that are based on that harsh reality. Israel wants land, and wants to protect itself from neighbors that they see as hostile to their existence. America doesn’t have the capabilities or tangible tools to remain as the only global superpower. So, Trump is going to do what he can to set up the new order of the world, the best he can, for the coming version of a non-empire style America. I don’t like it — particularly the style and subversive nature of it— and I have no interest in perpetuating a war on behalf of that realignment, but if it plays out as I suspect it might, what he will have done is cause enough disruption in the Middle East, and consolidate enough of American interests to the western hemisphere, to make the global landscape impossible for any one power to dominate the globe for the foreseeable future.

My detractors will say that building a world of exits like this gives Trump too much benefit of the doubt, and it might. But if anyone is honest about the moment, they have to admit that the government is a long series of clandestine batches of dishonesty, and so we have almost zero information other than what they allow us to see through their own propaganda and puppet mouthpieces on television. So any podcaster or sideline commentator, including myself, is simply too uninformed to do anything but prognosticate. I think Israel has definitely used its “greatest ally” card too much and has put the United States in a difficult position, but it was inevitable, given the world atmosphere. We are at the end of the British/American version of everything, so the maps will be redrawn and shuffled. I don’t see any other way around it. Interests will be realigned with people groups who are more closely assimilated with one another’s religions, global interests and money purchasing power. Nothing lasts forever, and the world is realizing that its insistence on everything being managed by one, singular, controlling, centralized force is not the way of the future.

Which brings me back to the bishop of Constantinople and the Orthodox. In 1054, the church went through its first major split. There wasn’t a moment of singular defection that created the schism. Instead, it was caused by centuries of accumulating theological, political, and cultural differences. The core flashpoint was authority and ecclesiology (how the Church should be governed). The West, led by Rome, insisted upon papal supremacy—that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all bishops and patriarchs. The Eastern Church, however, viewed the Bishop of Rome as “first among equals” among the five ancient patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), with no one having absolute power over the others. In the end, both the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople sent letters of excommunication to one another, and what had been a 600-year domination by the church of the Roman world had come to an end.

The church would still have influence in Western civilization, but both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox would be different forever. Their influences would be diminished, their voices upon governments and culture would never look the same again. Of course, the church survived, as will some remnant of Western civilization and the United States after this coming realignment, but it will look different. I think perhaps the US has been confronted with its excommunication letters and is going to figure out its future in a new role. Maybe Trump understands that and is doing what he can for the benefit of the people. Or perhaps he does really see himself as a different kind of figure that has come to usher in the end of the world. We won’t know until the dust settles on everything, but it’s the only reasonable explanation I can muster for strange tweets and erratic behaviors around the war. What I am confident in, is that what has been is changing. As has been described before, in a canoe headed towards a waterfall, an end is inevitable, but it makes a great deal of difference where the stopping happens.

HIH Archive Dedicated to His Case

This audio was recorded yesterday afternoon; I wanted his reaction to hearing his name again in the news again because of the NYT article about the suicide note— a year after I wrote about it. The note has been mentioned by Nick several times before in exclusive audio clips shared over the past two years. It goes to show how slow mainstream outlets are to pursue critical angles sourced and pre-packaged by independent efforts, and how much the public still relies on them to shape their perception on most things.

The NYT is now pushing to unseal the Epstein note; I expect they may have more success than I did.

Stay tuned.

“I still can’t believe we almost denied entrance to Melania’s makeup artist.

Can you imagine her returning to the White House to relay news of this rejection while applying perfected strokes of smoky eye to the First Lady’s eyelids?”

After-party texts recounted what went swimmingly and what went awry during our debut launch last weekend. Mistaking Melania’s makeup artist for a violent, deranged stalker was easily the evening’s most memorable mishap. The entry oversight came from well-meaning staff who were hypervigilant about matching guest-list names to IDs. Somehow the mix-up pinned Nicole Bryl, the first lady’s trusted makeup artist for more than two decades, as another woman on our red-flag list.

“I think we both know you’re not supposed to be here,” our staffer, clipboard pressed to her chest, told Nicole, repeatedly.

Thankfully Nicole has a great sense of humor. We all laughed about it once she made it upstairs to the party.

If you know me, you know I jump at any excuse to toast life in the company of good people, especially in this town where everyone at any hour could always use a drink. In light of everything that transpired at the official correspondent dinner on Saturday night, coverage of the parties has been regrettably sparse. Spotlighting wardrobes and society scenes feels too trite after a third assassination attempt on the president, I suppose. It is a shame seeing that the weekend revolves around parties and the gossip they generate. Three days of stacked cocktail receptions and full-blown galas hosted by a range of media organizations make party recaps what everyone expects from “nerd prom,” or, as I prefer, the White House Oscars. It is the closest political folk get to glam, a way to navigate invitations that exercise soft power, networking, and influence amid competing peers.

I have to wonder if the current administration has anything to do with the spike in excitement surrounding the event. As a semi-biased spectator, it certainly seems that MAGA has breathed new life into what had been viewed as a stuffy tradition. Veteran sources say the dinner has not seen this much momentum since the Obama years.

A historical note: the dinner was effectively male-only for decades. Not until 1962, when President John F. Kennedy reportedly threatened to skip it and Jacqueline Kennedy pushed for the organization to include women, did that change.

Thank you, Jackie.

Attendees Included:

Cheryl Hines, Sage Steele, Lynne Patton, Landon Clements, Yemisi Egbewole, Leah McSweeney, Dakota Meyer, Scott Jennings, Bobby Kennedy III, Harris Faulkner, Ben Domenech, Eliza Collins, Natalie Andrews, Mary Katherine Ham, Taylor Hathorn, Larry O’Connor, Meredith O’Connor, Ryan Colby, Kevin Walling Alex Stroman, Theresa Payton, Lydia Moynihan, Billy Binion, Emily Domenech, Nomiki Konst, Brent Scher, John Levine, Gloria Taylor, Jasmine Wright, Tim Rice, Georgia Cohen, Lady Victoria Hervey, Jen Sey, Sarah Mills, Hogan Gidley, Paula Dhier, Ryan Manion, Nicole Bryl, Alex Swoyer, Farahn Morgan, Caroline McKee, CJ Pearson, Hanne Winarsky, Sophia Efthimatou, Zack Peter, Robby Soave, AJ Edelman, Martin Marks, Jacqui Heinrich, Jamie Kirchick, Josef Palermo, Adam Coleman, Sean Spicer, Erik Rosales, Kara Voght, Beatrice Peterson.

Many thanks to our lovely sponsors: 2WAY and XX-XY Athletics.

I will share recaps of the events I attended in Housekeeping later this weekend, but for now I am happy to report that our first official kickoff, hosted as a trio, was a hit despite security concerns in the days leading up to it.

Cheryl Hines arrived in Dolce & Gabbana with a tiny purse embellished with gems to match. Lady Victoria in signature sequins and studs. Women from mainstream outlets in patterned dresses and bare shoulders, while Josef Palermo turned heads in an oversized black satin necktie.

Renegade Women’s Cocktail Hour was a vision hatched by Meghan McCain, Vanessa Santos, and me. We played the setting and the timing smart. A sweeping rooftop happy hour on the Friday before the main parties, with a 360-degree view of Georgetown, meant minimal competition and the perfect kickoff to mingle with an eclectically curated mix of guests, from mainstream outlets to Bravo personalities and a fabulous flush of right-leaning gays, convening before the evening’s deluge of events complicated everyone’s schedules.

An hour before the event a wardrobe crisis ensued when I realized the cream suit I packed was a size too big and would photograph as a rumpled mess. Alicia, my niece and assistant, came to the rescue with a white satin gown as a last-minute replacement. Zara, naturally. In a rush I created another catastrophe when I dragged a dull razor over dry legs and then had to wrap my shins in washcloths bound by rubber bands to stop the bleeding. I am still nursing those wounds and a lingering rash from an allergic reaction to dime-store tanning lotion.

Security, was a primary concern. The level of protection required to safeguard what was meant to be a casual event is a sobering reality of the times. As the Daily Mail reported— somewhat dramatically—framing it like an active terrorist threat.

Between us we have an impressive collective of passionate haters. Mine would nudge me off a steep cliff if they could get away with it, and one of Meghan’s is dedicated enough to have legally changed his last name to McCain.

The week before our party, credible threats forced us to double down on security. Anyone who works in conservative circles knows this is commonplace when hosting an event. As dystopian as it is, even casual cocktail parties in DC now require armed guards in plain clothes. We relied on private security coordinated through the hotel and they handled everything professionally. Because the situation was a bit more unusual than what they typically face, undercover police were brought in as an extra precaution.

All that said, the party delivered on what we set out to accomplish: bipartisan camaraderie forged by unlikely connections as ode to patrons of the free press. For one night we could raise a glass, set aside bias, muster mutual respect, and toast each other amid a rooftop at sunset, shoulder to shoulder, with uniquely branded visionaries.

The MAGA Whisperer: Publicist Vanessa Santos Reps a Who’s Who of Conservative Voices Others Won’t Touch

“Santos is a Michigan native and proud Republican who remembers watching “Hannity & Colmes” as a child and marveling as Ann Coulter gave the late Alan Colmes a tongue-lashing. She insists that conservative voices can only elevate programming that has become stale in siloed times.

“I am obsessed with Scott Jennings,” she says of the CNN pundit. “What he has done on Abby Phillip’s show is what our evening discourse should be like. I am so sick and tired of everybody just existing in their own echo chambers. And the fact that Abby Phillip is opening up her show to this is really smart.”

After all, Santos believes right-leaning voices shouldn’t cower just because their positions deviate from the Hollywood norm.” — Variety.com

The next night at the Hilton for the WHCD, a reporter who had attended our event stopped to compliment our turnout, noting an impressive number of gays in attendance— the chicest sector of conservatism. She saw it as a sign that we are attracting a different kind of crowd, one that rivaled diversity typically associated with liberal festivities.

Surely, I thought, “MAGA’s Carrie Bradshaw,” would approve.

Daily Mail:

“The Renegade Women’s Cocktail Party, a buzzy rooftop event in Georgetown co-hosted by Renegade DC CEO Vanessa Santos, Meghan McCain and Substack writer Jessica Reed Kraus, had been flooded with hate messages after its location leaked online.

What began as the usual online vitriol quickly escalated into something far more sinister.

The venue was hit with death threats serious enough that organizers alerted police, doubled security, and deployed undercover personnel inside the venue.

Cheryl Hines, the wife of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr attended the event.

The next night, she was rushed to safety by Secret Service agents after shots rang out just outside the Hilton ballroom.

‘That we must worry for our safety at a cocktail reception celebrating free speech is a grim symptom of the times,’ Kraus told the Daily Mail after the shooting.

Guests arriving at the Grand Hotel rooftop on Friday, sipped cocktails and took in Georgetown views as Washington’s political class gathered for one of the most anticipated weekends of the year.

The guest list spanned media heavyweights, political insiders and high-profile personalities, including actress Hines, broadcaster Clay Travis, commentator Scott Jennings and former White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

But behind the scenes, organizers were on edge.

Kraus was even asked to provide a list of known stalkers ahead of the event so security could block them from entering - an extraordinary step for what was billed as a celebration of free speech.

Despite the heightened precautions, the party went ahead without incident.

‘At every step of the way we were taken care of,’ Santos said. ‘At no point was I scared because event organizers took every threat seriously.’

The guest list spanned media heavyweights, political insiders and high-profile personalities, including actress Hines, broadcaster Clay Travis, commentator Scott Jennings and former White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Santos, who had skipped the dinner and was heading to another after-party, said events across DC were suddenly thrown into lockdown.

‘Everybody was scared and stunned,’ she said. ‘Nobody really knew what the streets of DC were bringing that night.’

The Substack party she had planned to attend was locked down as a precaution. Instead, she went home.

Others made similar decisions. Kraus cut her weekend short and flew out of Washington early, abandoning plans to attend further events.

For many attendees, the threats of the previous evening now felt like a blaring warning.

The weekend’s events - from online threats to real-world violence - have left political insiders shaken, with many warning that security concerns are now impossible to ignore.

‘I think everyone feels really uneasy right now,’ Santos said. ‘Nobody is doing anything without taking security extremely seriously.’”

Read more

About three hours ago my phone started pinging. I answered one of the calls—an unknown LA number—and was greeted by a reporter from a network news station who informed me that an article had just published in the New York Times detailing Epstein’s suicide note, with my name credited.

I rushed to read it and found my interview with Nick linked near the bottom. I knew the NYT was interested in Nick’s insight on Epstein. I wasn’t sure what stage the piece was in the last time I spoke with Nick. On that call we weighed the pros and cons of speaking on the record, aware they could likely adopt a negative angle and kill interest in his appeal. Ultimately, I told him I thought it was a good idea to increase awareness of his case. When we hung up, he seemed excited.

That was three days ago.

AUDIO FROM THE ARCHIVES: “The Guy Who Shared a Cell With Jeffrey Epstein”

Normally I hear from Nick daily, sometimes several times a day—especially when something like this is looming. When Comey’s indictment was announced, for example, I expected Nick to call immediately; he listens to the news on a radio in prison. If the administration is chasing a cryptic seashell threat, imagine what they might find valuable on Nick’s hard drive.

As of now, no one has heard from Nick since Monday at 10:36 a.m. I’m noting this because I’ve come to see how critical timestamps are when tracking these cases.

I’ll update as soon as I hear anything. In the meantime, you can read about the suicide note HERE.

Written account to follow.

Officially, we are back on the Kohberger beat.

Ful…

Read more

I’m back from DC, still trying to recover from one of the strangest weekends of my adult life, and I pulled a transcribed recap of a no‑holds‑barred feud between two of the internet’s fiercest provocateurs out of drafts.

“I thought you hated Laura Loomer?”

No. I don’t, and never have. We had a falling out last year that prompted her to text-call me a cunt more than a dozen times, but I’m not vindictive and I don’t hold grudges. Plus, I can respect a mad woman’s tenacity when it comes to fighting deranged pundits promoting an upside-down world.

Only crazy can match crazy. No one besides Loomer is equipped for this battle.

She also brings receipts. So I don’t care who is funding whom. If forced to choose, I’ll always side with Laura over Candace.

Right now she appears to be juggling multiple investigations into Candace’s “secrets,” but primarily focused on digging up material that will aid the Macron’s in their defamation lawsuit, along with explicit mudslinging about Candace’s spouse and secret trust funds allegedly hiding millions in real estate assets.

The confrontation ignited last week and lasted three solid days. While the initial dust temporarily settled, Loomer is intent now on pursuing theories about why Candace and several like-minded podcasters suddenly dropped offline and reportedly fled the country amid news of the SPLC lawsuit.

I’m hearing Candace canceled her show again today without any explanation; Loomer insists the suspicious behavior is related to what might come exposed in this litigation.

“The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public,” Kash Patel said in an official statement. “They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups, even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes. That is illegal, and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.”

It’s 6 p.m. and I’m headed to bed, but stay tuned for WHCD party reviews and photos, an exclusive interview with Substack’s CEO, a deep dive into plasma in relation to a stacking scientist body count, and a startling account of what it was like at the Hilton when a gunman interrupted Saturday night’s dinner.

Laura Loomer, April 17th, 9:16am

“You know who has the worst destiny? Candace Owens’ children. @RealCandaceO Imagine having that evil bitch as your mom. Poor kids. They will probably need serious therapy to deal with the long term social ramifications of having Candace as a mother. I wonder if she’s as cruel to her children as she is to Erika and her kids.”

The next day, Candace quotes the post

Candace Ownes, April 18th, 2:55pm

“How many children have you fathered, Larry?” (This is a reference to an internet conspiracy theory that Laura Loomer is a trans man named Larry.)

A swift reply comes in from Loomer

LL 3:02pm

“Zero, because I’m a woman. But my husband will likely father more children than your allegedly homosexual husband.

Did you use a turkey baster?

Who squeezed it?”

Candace doesn’t wait this time to respond

LL April 18th, 3:11pm

“A turkey baster? Larry, I really think your dad should put you on one more psych5150 hold. You just seem like you’re on the edge again lately. Maybe once more before the nuptials.

How’s the wedding planning going w. Andrew Simpson, btw?

Does he know you’re not actually Jewish?

Loomer comments back a video making her ring glitter in the light and correcting Candace’s assumption that they were still in the wedding planning phase by calling him her husband.

Loomer has the last word in that match. A new thread begins

LL 6:01pm

“Did you know that @RealCandaceO Candace Owens is allegedly a dual citizen?

Lots of hypocrisy from a woman who goes around calling people foreign agents…”

She attaches a page from the Macron v. Owens lawsuit as evidence.

Candace snaps back:

CO 6:43pm

Before she replies to anything else, she quotes a tweet from the day before with simple but poignant commentary.

But Loomer has other matters to attend to

LL 6:31pm

“Candace Why do you have two multi-million dollar homes in the same town?

Are you and George living separately?

Did you disclose these assets in your lawsuit with the Macrons?

Are you hiding assets to avoid being held accountable for your alleged defamation of France’s First Lady?

Should I keep going?

@EmmanuelMacron”

Candace turns to mockery.

The comment section appears to notice

Read more