Julie Domanico @msmelankoly

Chris Hansen, famously known for catching pedophiles, is being depicted as the villain in the new movie “primetime”. Could it have anything to do with who he recently captured? Spoiler: it was Benjamin Netanyahu‘s ex chief of security.

youtube.com/shorts/5_ZZn0G… The world needs more people like these. God protect them and provide for them and the abnimals

These are some of the final recorded FDNY radio communications from inside the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In the final minutes before the tower collapsed, firefighters were still climbing toward the impact zone, searching for survivors and calling for more men to come up. Battalion Chief Orio Palmer had reached the 78th floor. Lt. Joseph Leavey of Ladder 15 was climbing toward him. With barely two minutes remaining, Palmer called Battalion 9 Chief Edward Geraghty and told him they had access to the floors above. Geraghty's response: “All right, I'm on my way up, Orio.” Seconds later, a Ladder 15 firefighter radioed that he was trapped in an elevator shaft: “We're chopping through the wall to get out.” The radio signal disappeared shortly afterward. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. Orio Palmer, Joseph Leavey and Edward Geraghty were killed that morning. They were still going up while others were trying to get out. Note: Some images used in this clip are unverified. For the sake of accuracy, I have not attempted to identify those individuals.

@RealAlexJones CK is alive. This was a psyop.

A woman who was raped as a preschooler sued Elon Musk’s xAI. According to the lawsuit, the abuse was filmed, the files were fed to Grok, and Grok has since generated new images of her. #OpDeathEaters ----------------------------------------------------- A woman who was raped as a preschool-aged child by an adult man who filmed it sued Elon Musk's xAI on 26 August 2026, alleging the company pulled that same material into the dataset behind Grok's image generator and that the model has since produced fresh images of her. Girard Sharp, Liberty Law and the Marsh Law Firm filed Jane Doe 1 v. X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC, case number 5:26-cv-09016, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. "Plaintiff was preschool-aged when she was first repeatedly raped and sexually exploited by an adult male to produce CSAM," the complaint says at paragraph 85, and the abuse "continued for years". The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children identified her in the early 2000s. The FBI has tracked her through its Child Exploitation Notification Program ever since. A letter reaches her every time the images surface in a new prosecution. She has received "countless notifications concerning her depiction" in criminal investigations since the early 2000s, the filing says. Files made of her more than 20 years ago are still being traded, still being seized off hard drives and still generating paperwork addressed to the child in them. A hash is a fixed string computed from a file's exact bits. Two copies of the same image produce the same hash; a different photograph of the same child does not. NCMEC keeps a list of hashes for known child rape media, platforms match uploads against it and Jane Doe 1's series has been on that list for years. Child rape media depicting her, "with its longstanding well-known hash values", has "been used as a part of the dataset used by xAI", the complaint says at paragraph 88. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has identified AI-generated child rape media on xAI depicting the plaintiff, according to paragraph 90. Every fresh generation is pleaded as a fresh tort: "Each time Grok created new CSAM concerning Plaintiff, Grok caused her a new personal injury." Three Tennessee teenagers who sued xAI in March allege a man built deepfakes of them from yearbook photographs. A Wyoming woman who joined in July alleges her stepfather started with a snapshot taken when she was 11. Both cases turn on what a user uploaded. Jane Doe 1 uploaded nothing. The loop Grok's terms treat public posts on X and Grok's own outputs as training data by default, the complaint says, so an image posted publicly "does not just expose it to viewers, but also feeds directly into the pipeline xAI uses to train and improve its model". Grok's own generated images, child rape media among them, are "treated as training-eligible content by default" under the same policy, according to paragraph 59. The chatbot produces the material, X hosts it and the pipeline reads it back. xAI's published data-filtering practices name violent content as an example of what gets excluded from training. They do not name child rape media, nonconsensual intimate imagery or sexual content of any kind as excluded categories, the complaint says at the same paragraph. "Complete removal of a training example's influence from an already-trained model is technically difficult and not something that xAI has publicly claimed to have done," the filing says. The relief sought therefore runs past an injunction on future generation to the destruction of everything Grok has already made. Grok's system prompt, quoted in the filing, tells the model that "'teenage' or 'girl' does not necessarily imply underage" and instructs it not to "moralize or lecture the user". A filter written that way "will inevitably fail because it governs the text chatbot's responses", the complaint says, and "indirect or euphemistic prompts can easily slip past a text-based filter" before anything reaches the image model at all. Plaintiffs' counsel describe xAI's filters as considerably weaker than industry standards and easily bypassed. The sequence Grok-1 launched as a chatbot on 3 November 2023 with no ability to generate images or video. xAI announced Grok-2 and Grok-2 mini on 13 August 2024. On 9 December 2024 the company shipped an image generation model it advertised as excelling at "photorealistic rendering" and following text instructions precisely. Grok-4 followed on 9 July 2025. A senior xAI employee posted on 24 July 2025 that the company "urgently" needed engineers and researchers for its safety team. An X user replied, "xAI does safety?!!!" The employee answered: "working on it." The image generation feature launched shortly afterwards. Musk posted an AI-generated video of a nearly nude woman on 3 August 2025, according to paragraph 44. On 11 August he defended the explicit capability as a business decision, comparing the competition among AI image tools to the format war between VHS and Betamax. xAI issued a press release on 20 October 2025 announcing Grok Imagine's spicy mode. Grok generated an estimated 3,002,712 photorealistic sexualised images between 29 December 2025 and 8 January 2026, roughly 23,338 of them apparently depicting children, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate analysis cited at paragraph 54. Researchers drew a random sample of 20,000 posts from 4,621,335 Grok image posts over those 11 days, classified them with an AI model calibrated against 800 human-labelled posts and counted an average of 190 sexualised images a minute. xAI limited image and video generation to paying subscribers over the same 11 days rather than disable the feature, the complaint says. Plaintiffs' counsel characterise that as monetising continued misuse. Musk said on 14 January 2026 that he was "not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok. Literally zero." OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta "largely block sexual requests", the complaint says at paragraphs 42 and 61, and almost every major publicly available image model was built without the ability to generate sexually explicit content at all. What the lawyers said Margaret E. Mabie of the Marsh Law Firm, one of the lawyers acting for the plaintiff, said possessing, producing and distributing child rape media are each crimes, and that "xAI did all three". Sarah London of Girard Sharp said xAI "must be held responsible for knowingly training its models on images of the horrific abuse she suffered, and on the abuse images of every other survivor in this class". xAI and its founder "chose to capitalize and profit from predators' appetite for non-consensual sexual images", the complaint says at paragraph 7. xAI's press office did not respond to requests for comment from CyberScoop or IBTimes UK. The company has said it uses input and output filters, including keyword classifiers and matching against the NCMEC hash list. xAI did not update the privacy impact assessment covering Grok's image tools until March 2026, months after the first wave of complaints, according to findings by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The case so far Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Baehr-Jones Law filed the first class action, case number 5:26-cv-02246, on 16 March 2026 for three Tennessee teenagers who allege a man used Grok and a licensed third-party app to make explicit deepfakes of them from yearbook and social media photographs. That complaint runs to 13 counts, among them beneficiary liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, design defect, negligence per se, public nuisance and California's unfair competition law. A July amendment added Stability AI as a second defendant and brought in Jane Doe 4, a Wyoming woman whose stepfather allegedly uploaded a photograph of her taken when she was 11 and generated roughly 7,000 child rape images from it. He traded the images online and was found dead by suicide two days after officers executed a search warrant. David Thiel of the Stanford Internet Observatory reported on 20 December 2023 that LAION-5B, the scraped dataset behind Stable Diffusion, contained 3,226 suspected instances of child rape media, 1,008 of them externally validated. LAION pulled the dataset and Thiel wrote that possessing a copy populated in late 2023 "implies the possession of thousands of illegal images". Stability AI said in response to the July filing that "any suggestion that safety is not a top priority for us is categorically wrong". The proposed class in the August case covers every person in the United States whose images or videos, taken when they were minors, Grok altered to produce material meeting the statutory definition at 18 U.S.C. 2256(8), a group the filing puts at "at least thousands of minors". Damages sought include liquidated damages of $150,000 per victim, punitive damages and a jury trial. xAI as plaintiff xAI sued one of its own users on 15 July 2026, days after the victims' suit expanded, filing in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas before Judge Reed O'Connor. The company accused the man of breaching its terms of service and acceptable use policy by generating child rape media with Grok, and invoked an indemnification clause requiring him to cover xAI's legal costs from the suits his conduct produced. xAI told the Texas court it had made 73,604 reports to NCMEC in 2026, that at least 244 arrests followed and that it had suspended 52,222 accounts. Jane Doe 4's July filing alleges that 90 per cent of xAI's CyberTipline reports were not actionable by law enforcement by early 2026 because user information had been withheld. Baltimore sued xAI on 24 March 2026 over Grok-generated sexual deepfakes, the first US city to do so. Ashley St. Clair, who has a child with Musk, sued the company on 16 January 2026 over sexualised images of herself. Labour MP Jess Asato filed a claim in the UK High Court on 3 June 2026 under data protection law and misuse of private information. Parents identified as John and Jane Roe sued in federal court in Little Rock on 23 July 2026 over child rape media generated from photographs of their 10-year-old daughter. Statutes and regulators Masha's Law, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2255, lets a person depicted in child rape media sue anyone who produced, possessed or distributed it, with liquidated damages of at least $150,000 and no requirement to prove actual loss. The August complaint pairs it with 18 U.S.C. 2252A(f), which lets a person aggrieved by such an offence seek an injunction. Section 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, pleaded in the March case, extends civil liability to any entity that knowingly benefits from a venture it knew or should have known was engaged in sex trafficking. A developer, on that reading, is liable for what the product earns. Reporting to NCMEC is mandatory for a US electronic service provider under 18 U.S.C. 2258A, which obliges the provider to preserve the reported content for 90 days and permits it to include the subscriber and payment information and the IP address behind the account. California Attorney General Rob Bonta opened a formal investigation into xAI on 14 January 2026 over nonconsensual sexual imagery of women and children. Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings and 35 other attorneys general wrote to the company on 23 January 2026 demanding it stop Grok producing such material, remove what it had already made, penalise the users who made it and let people on X control whether Grok can edit their images. The European Commission opened formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act on 26 January 2026 over the spread of AI-generated child rape media. The Take It Down Act, which obliges platforms to honour removal requests for nonconsensual intimate images, became enforceable in May 2026. Minnesota's nudification ban, HF 1606, was signed by Governor Tim Walz on 6 May 2026 after passing 132 to 1 in the House and 65 to nil in the Senate, and took effect on 1 August 2026 with a minimum civil penalty of $500,000 per incident. Judge Donovan W. Frank denied xAI's request for a temporary restraining order on 31 July 2026, noting the company had waited nearly three months after the signing to file, and set a preliminary injunction hearing for 19 August. California Assembly Bill 2013 took effect on 1 January 2026 and requires developers of publicly available generative systems to publish a summary of their training data: sources and owners, whether it includes copyrighted or personal information, its approximate size, whether it was bought or licensed and when it was collected. Model weights, architecture and the corpus itself stay private under the statute. xAI sued to block it, arguing compelled speech, unconstitutional vagueness and an uncompensated taking of trade secrets. Judge Jesus G. Bernal denied the preliminary injunction on 4 March 2026, holding the disclosures were likely commercial speech. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard argument in xAI LLC v. Bonta, No. 26-1591, on 16 July 2026, the first time a federal appeals court has taken up a state AI transparency law.

A US court ruled the First Amendment protects possession of AI-generated child rape media, “no real child appears in them.” This makes it harder for investigators who are already struggling with child rapists distorting real images to look like AI. #OpDeathEaters -------------------------------------------------------- A federal appeals court struck down the US ban on possessing AI-generated child rape media inside the home on 25 August, holding that the First Amendment protects such material where it depicts no real child. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of one count against Steven Anderegg, 42, of Holmen, Wisconsin, whose prosecution the Justice Department brought in May 2024 as its first federal case over child rape media generated entirely by artificial intelligence. Judge John Lee, writing for a panel that also included Doris Pryor and Joshua Kolar, held the possession provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A unconstitutional as applied to Anderegg across 27 pages. Lee, joined by Kolar, filed a separate concurrence asking the Supreme Court to revisit the 2002 decision that controls the question. Section 1466A(b)(1) is the provision that reaches a person who obtains obscene synthetic child rape media without producing it or passing it on. Prosecutors in the circuit covering Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana no longer have that count available where the images depict no identifiable child and stay inside the defendant's home. How the case began Meta reported an Instagram direct message to the CyberTipline run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in October 2023, after Anderegg sent sexually explicit AI-generated images to an account belonging to a 15-year-old boy and told the boy in the same exchange how he had produced it. Investigators executing a search warrant found Stable Diffusion installed on Anderegg's laptop, modified with add-on components that gave the model the ability to render human genitalia. The Justice Department put the total haul at roughly 13,000 images. Hundreds of them showed nude or semi-clothed prepubescent minors displaying or touching their genitals, alongside the curated text prompts and the negative prompts Anderegg used to keep adult bodies out of the output. A grand jury indicted him on 15 May 2024 on four counts under § 1466A: production, distribution, transfer of obscene material to a minor under 16 and possession. Prosecutors put his maximum exposure at 70 years with a five-year mandatory minimum, and he was detained pending a hearing on 22 May 2024. "CSAM generated by AI is still CSAM, and we will hold accountable those who exploit AI to create obscene, abusive, and increasingly photorealistic images of children," then-Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said when the charges were announced. The government conceded during the litigation that the images depicted no actual child and could not be traced to one. The concession took Ferber and Osborne out of the case and left Stanley and Free Speech Coalition to decide it. Chief Judge James Peterson of the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the possession count on 13 February 2025 and left the other three standing. Prosecutors took an interlocutory appeal. William Clayman and Ross Goldman of the Justice Department's criminal division argued it on 30 October 2025 against Joseph Bugni of Hurley Burish, who represents Anderegg. The panel took just under 10 months to rule. A statute written for the last technology Congress passed § 1466A in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, drafted in direct response to the Supreme Court striking down the Child Pornography Prevention Act the year before. Subsection (c) states that it is not a required element that the minor depicted actually exist. Subsection (f)(1) reaches any "digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image". Obscenity is the ingredient Congress added to keep the statute inside the constitutional line, and § 1466A(b)(1) bites only where the material meets that standard. Lee assumed for the sake of argument that Anderegg's images did, then held the statute still could not reach them in his house. Two precedents, four rejected arguments Stanley v. Georgia, decided in 1969, bars prosecution for private possession of obscene material at home, on the reasoning that government has "no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house" what books he may read or what films he may watch. Lee wrote that the holding "was predicated on the location, the home", rather than on the character of what was found there. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, decided in 2002, struck down federal bans on computer-generated abuse imagery involving no real child. New York v. Ferber and Osborne v. Ohio, which place abuse imagery of real children outside First Amendment protection altogether, rest on the permanent record of an actual child's abuse and the economic motive that distribution supplies to producers. No real child appears in Anderegg's files, so the panel held that neither case reaches his conduct. Prosecutors offered four reasons to override Stanley, and Lee traced each one to a passage in Free Speech Coalition rejecting it. On the government's case that offenders use such imagery to groom children, Lee quoted the Supreme Court's answer that government "may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed at some indefinite future time". On the case that synthetic material normalises abuse, the Supreme Court had demanded a significantly stronger and more direct connection to actual harm. On the case that virtual images substitute for the real market, the Supreme Court had called the theory implausible, since producers would switch to fictional images and escape prosecution altogether. On the case that AI output has become impossible to tell from photographs of real abuse, straining investigators, the Supreme Court had written that government "may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech". Prosecutors also told the court that § 1466A(b)(1) survives because it reaches only material shipped or transported in interstate commerce, an element Stanley's statute lacked. Lee rejected the distinction on the ground that the eight-millimetre reels seized from Stanley's desk drawer had almost certainly crossed state lines as well, and treated the commerce element as jurisdictional rather than a description of anything wrongful. A footnote set out federal sentencing data showing that nearly 44 per cent of possession offenders had engaged in aggravating conduct, alongside a caveat that the social science on whether viewing such imagery causes contact offending remains inconclusive. Another footnote flagged morphed images, which paste a real child's face onto another body, as sitting closer to Ferber. The panel did not decide that question. Counts one through three remain live, and the opinion leaves untouched any prosecution for producing or sharing the same files. The concurrence Lee wrote separately, joined by Kolar, that the court would "benefit from additional guidance from the Supreme Court regarding the intersection between the First Amendment and virtual CSAM", and that in the years since Free Speech Coalition the technology has reached a point where AI output is virtually indistinguishable from images of physical abuse. Only in recent months, the concurrence said, have the tools become good enough to fool the human eye. Justice Clarence Thomas anticipated the problem in 2002. Concurring in the judgment in Free Speech Coalition, he wrote that "if technological advances thwart prosecution of 'unlawful speech,' the Government may well have a compelling interest in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of 'lawful speech'". Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would have upheld the ban on virtual imagery indistinguishable from the real thing. Lee cited testimony that the influx of synthetic material imposes growing burdens on investigators and lets offenders disguise pictures of real children by making the images look computer-generated, which slows the identification of actual victims among the files police recover. Researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory, led by chief technologist David Thiel, reported on 20 December 2023 that LAION-5B, the open dataset behind Stable Diffusion, contained 3,226 suspected instances of child sexual abuse material, of which 1,008 were externally validated. LAION withdrew the dataset and published a cleaned version, Re-LAION-5B, in August 2024. Demand for AI-generated material can therefore raise demand for the real abuse imagery the models train on, Lee wrote, which is the harm Osborne was decided to prevent. 21 million reports NCMEC received 21.3 million CyberTipline reports in 2025. More than 400,000 of them carried what the organisation calls a generative AI nexus, and more than 182,000 involved offenders possessing, generating or attempting to generate AI abuse material. NCMEC has categorised 158,000 images and videos as AI-generated abuse material since 2023 and identified more than 275 victims of it. Riana Pfefferkorn of Stanford, who predicted before the indictment that prosecutors would fall back on obscenity statutes for AI cases, wrote to NCMEC on 29 January 2026 to flag what those totals conceal. A Bloomberg investigation had found Amazon's 380,000 reports flagged as AI-related contained no AI-generated material at all, but known abuse imagery surfaced while scanning training data. Nearly 80 per cent of all generative AI CyberTipline reports in the first half of 2025 involved no AI-generated abuse material, Pfefferkorn wrote, and the single checkbox that produced the figure had misled lawmakers and researchers for six months. NCMEC itself notes that more than 10 per cent of industry reports arrive with inadequate information. The Internet Watch Foundation logged 3,443 AI-generated abuse videos in 2025, against 13 the year before, a count drawn from material its analysts assessed directly rather than from industry self-reporting. The law elsewhere State legislatures moved faster than the federal courts. As of August 2026, 46 US states criminalise AI-generated or computer-edited abuse material, more than half of those laws passed in 2024 and 2025, according to the tracker maintained by Enough Abuse. Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont and the District of Columbia have no such statute. Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas and Florida reach wholly fictional depictions; most of the rest require an identifiable minor or the manipulation of a real image, which leaves them closer to the morphed-image question the Seventh Circuit declined to answer. Section 163.1 of Canada's Criminal Code reaches depictions of imaginary children. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v Sharpe in 2001 that "person" in the definition covers both actual and imaginary human beings, and upheld the possession offence subject to narrow carve-outs for private material a person creates and keeps for himself alone. England and Wales criminalise pseudo-photographs under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and non-photographic prohibited images under section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Crime and Policing Act 2026, which received royal assent on 29 April 2026, created an offence of adapting, possessing, supplying or offering to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, carrying five years. The same Act extended section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, on paedophile manuals, to cover pseudo-photographs and prohibited images. How the ruling was reported The Federalist ran the headline "Judge: Child Sex Abuse Images Are OK If They're Made With AI" on 28 August, one of several treatments casting the ruling as a judge legalising synthetic child rape media. The decision reaches in-home possession alone, leaves production, distribution and transfer to a minor fully prosecutable and rests on Supreme Court precedent the panel said it had no authority to set aside. "We are not free to redraw them ourselves", Lee wrote of the lines the Supreme Court has drawn, adding that the court leaves to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions. Hans von Spakovsky of Advancing American Freedom said that "AI-generated images are now virtually indistinguishable from the real thing and some of these images may be created based on real child sexual abuse material". The Justice Department can seek rehearing before the full Seventh Circuit or petition the Supreme Court, which under its Rule 13 allows 90 days from the entry of judgment to file for certiorari, putting the date at 23 November 2026 unless a rehearing petition resets the clock. No decision has been announced. Anderegg still faces trial in the Western District of Wisconsin on the three surviving counts. Where the ruling can still be challenged The Office of the Solicitor General decides whether the United States petitions the Supreme Court, and it has announced nothing. Rule 13 allows 90 days from the entry of judgment, putting the date at 23 November 2026, and a timely petition for rehearing before the full Seventh Circuit would restart the clock from its denial. Both moves are discretionary calls inside the Justice Department that lost the appeal, and neither carries a public comment process. S.3021, the ENFORCE Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on 16 December 2025 and was held at the House desk the following day, where it has sat for eight months without a scheduled vote. John Cornyn sponsored it with Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy and Mike Lee. Constituents pressing for a floor vote have one named target each, their own House member. The bill strips the statute of limitations from obscene depictions of child sexual abuse, requires sex offender registration, presumes pre-trial detention, mandates supervised release and tightens the knowledge element on interstate transport. None of that restores a possession charge for images depicting no real child. The obstacle in Anderegg is Stanley, not the drafting of § 1466A, and Congress cannot amend a Supreme Court precedent. Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont and the District of Columbia have no statute reaching AI-generated or computer-edited abuse material, which leaves a live bill to write for residents of those five jurisdictions. Stanley was itself a Georgia prosecution, so a new state ban on possession inside the home meets the same barrier the Seventh Circuit applied. State law reaching production, distribution and possession outside the home is untouched by the ruling. Nothing in US federal law matches the offence England and Wales created on 29 April 2026 of adapting, possessing, supplying or offering to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, carrying five years. An offence aimed at the tool rather than at the file in a person's house falls outside what Stanley covers, and no bill before Congress creates one. LAION withdrew its dataset and published a cleaned version after the Stanford finding, on its own initiative. No US statute requires a model developer to audit training data for abuse material or to disclose what an audit found. NCMEC's reporting form carries a single generative AI checkbox, which produced the 80 per cent miscount Pfefferkorn identified, and she has asked the organisation to replace it with granular options. Congress, the courts and the concurrence in this case all cite figures drawn from that form. Overturning the holding itself takes the Supreme Court revisiting Free Speech Coalition and narrowing Stanley, which is what Lee and Kolar asked for in writing, or an amendment to the Constitution. No lower court in the Seventh Circuit can reach it

WATCH: Is Tucker Carlson Right to Call for Trump’s Immediate Removal for Considering The Use Of Nuclear Weapons? Watch the livestream here! ⏬ x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Government can lie to you. Government has lied to you. Government is lying to you. Government will lie to you. Live your life accordingly.

They are terrified that Massie will run for Mitch's seat and win.

Kentucky Girl @Kentuckygirl1

2 months ago

The legacy media in the US is so corrupt that the DISAPPEARANCE of a US Senator is completely ignored. Mitch McConnell hasn’t been seen in person in 76 days, and not a single corporate media “investigative journalist” has even raised an eyebrow.

2K 16K 51K 1.3M 712

On the House floor tonight, I read the names of several Epstein coconspirators who should be investigated and prosecuted. I also began collecting 218 signatures for the discharge petition to force a vote on Epstein Files Transparency Act II.

@FedupCitizen250 @RealAlexJones You do NOT understand the scriptures. This has NOTHING to do with Jesus' return. Stop listening to false teachers and seek God with your whole heart.

@AJNlive @Matt_Murphy_23 @rexjonesnewz Unfortunately we were all wrong about Trump and thought he was MAGA but he was never MAGA as he was always all in for TRUMP and once a con man always a con man because he lied big time on no more forever wars and I am the peace President.

Whoever thought the anti-war president would turn into a man that treats war like a video game and threatens to nuke countries preemptively?

Alex Jones @RealAlexJones

2 months ago

Netanyahu brags to Israeli voters by declaring that he manipulated Trump: “it took a long time to get the US to come to its senses” but I finally got it to attack Iran due to my “influence” over its leaders through “1000 hours on American television” The American people must

446 4K 14K 2.4M 2K

@DropSiteNews Share Your Opinion - U.S. Senator Rick Scott share.google/IvFSB9vZSlAaG3…

@TimSheehyMT you are disgusting for attacking a U.S Marine who has EVERY RIGHT TO SPEAK HIS MIND! He's the one who gets sent to die for your illegal war!!!!

Roddy 🇨🇦 @RodKahx

8 months ago

X is blocking this video. You know what to do.

2K 48K 82K 1.5M 8K

This is horrifying and, of course, connected to "our greatest ally" facebook.com/share/v/196uRJ…

IT WAS ALL A SCAM, THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN, EVERYTHING AFTER. #TRUMP FOR PRISON

Jack @NFLD_Jack

3 months ago

@RepThomasMassie And as a reminder, Trump's Mossad Handler Howard Nutlick made a killing on these doomed tariffs through his sons

4 41 132 4K 9