Stephen Miller said, through the media, that Charlie Kirk’s last words to him were about dismantling the “radical left”.
“The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his creator in heaven,” Miller said, was, “that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence, and we are going to do that.”
White House adviser Stephen Miller has said Charlie Kirk gave him a message before his assassination, which was to “dismantle” what he called the “radical left.”
Miller said that the killing of Kirk, a stanch ally of President Donald Trump and proponent of the MAGA movement, took place within the backdrop of “a domestic terrorism movement in this country.”
Stephen Miller is fulfilling his ambitions just now, he is a man with a mission, unelected but with strong convictions and the trust of his President.
Brittanica information on Stephen Miller covers his life, career and influences. Here us an extract:
During the 2016 presidential contest, Miller joined Trump’s campaign as a policy adviser. (Bannon also worked on the campaign, and Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump.) Miller later became a speechwriter and was sometimes Trump’s warm-up speaker at rallies. After Trump won, Miller served as a senior policy adviser in the administration. His primary responsibility was shaping immigration policies. Notably, he was a leading advocate of the family separation policy, in which children were taken from parents who had illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border. Miller also supported the so-called Muslim ban, which barred entry into the United States from several Muslim-majority countries.
He talks of radicalisation by the “left” which he abhors.
It is possible that, as a teenager, he was traumatised, as most of America was, by the al Qaeda 9/11 act which put the then president, George W Bush, into a constitution-changing mode after he announced the country was declaring a War on Terror.
The long-term consequences of Bush’s immigration policies included a continued reliance on undocumented labor, increased deportations, and the establishment of a more militarized border. These dynamics contributed to the ongoing polarization of immigration discourse in the United States, shaping public perceptions and policies in subsequent administrations.
Intimidation of Muslims in America after 9/11 – this article helps to illustrate the long term harm resulting from the attack:
the next few days, I’d feel under attack as a Muslim. Our imam at our masjid brought to the prayer a big box stuffed with tiny American flags. He told us that if any of us felt unsafe, we could hang these flags out of our cars or out of our homes. Stories about Muslim women in hijabs and Muslim men with big beards being accosted in the street in hateful “revenge” attacks became commonplace. An FBI hotline was flooded with anonymous tips—96,000 of them in the week after the attacks—and the bar for being suspicious felt as low as being visibly Muslim. It didn’t feel safe to be Muslim outside of the mosque.
All over the country, not just my corner of Jersey, hate crimes against Muslims—and anyone perceived to be Muslim—soared in the days after 9/11. The White House sought to stave off a full-blown wave of violence. President George W. Bush quickly made the distinction between Muslim Americans and the terrorists who attacked us. On Sept. 17, Bush famously gave a speech from inside the Islamic Center of Washington. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” he said. “That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”
In an exclusive interview in an undisclosed location, Sky News learns many of the planes landing in South Darfur are allegedly bringing weapons from the Middle Eastern country – something its government vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview with Sky News at a location we cannot disclose, an RSF intelligence officer confirms widespread allegations that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the RSF’s main backer in a war that has created the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and forced 13 million people to flee their homes.
“In the beginning, it was the Russians – Wagner and the state. Now, they tell me it is the UAE supporting the RSF,” says Ahmed*, using an alias to protect his identity.
UAE increasing support to Sudan’s RSF with new Chinese drones: Report
US intelligence from as recently as October indicated the UAE was stepping up support for the paramilitary force
This image grab taken from handout video footage released on Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) Telegram account on 26 October shows RSF fighters holding weapons and celebrating in the streets of el-Fasher in Sudan’s Darfur (AFP)
US intelligence agencies reported as recently as October that the UAE has increased its supply of Chinese drones and other weapon systems to Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The Department of Defence’s intelligence agency and the State Department’s intelligence bureau both reported an increase in the flow of weapons from the UAE to the rebel group that has been accused of committing genocide in Darfur, according to a report published on Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal.
The supplies include advanced Chinese-made drones along with small arms, heavy machine guns, vehicles, artillery, mortars, and ammunition.
The UAE’s support for the RSF has been well documented, and much of the WSJ report corroborates Middle East Eye’s exclusive reporting on the UAE’s role in the conflict.
MEE reported in January 2024 that the UAE was supplying the RSF with weapons through a complex network of supply lines and alliances stretching across Libya, Chad, Uganda, and breakaway regions of Somalia.
While the two contracts move somewhat in unison, WTI is more sensitive to American economic developments, and Brent responds more to those in other countries.
……….
The Bottom Line
Crude oil, a vital and finite resource, plays a pivotal role in the global economy as the primary source of energy production and a key raw material for products like gasoline, diesel, and plastics. It is traded globally as a commodity, influenced heavily by supply-demand principles and geopolitical factors.
While the environmental impact of oil extraction and consumption is a concern, its importance persists as nations and industries depend on it for energy. Investors engage with crude oil through futures and spot markets to hedge, diversify portfolios, or speculate on price fluctuations. Despite its environmental controversies, crude oil’s significant role in energy production and economic activities underscores its indispensable status.
Tragically, the Amazon forest in Brazil, after decades of destruction, is the latest casualty in oil production
Half a century of oil exploration has left the world’s largest rainforest scarred by deforestation, water contamination and air pollution. Indigenous lands have been infringed and economic disparities exacerbated. Now a new wave of drilling threatens to perpetuate this destructive legacy.
…………
The Amazon now holds nearly one-fifth of the world’s recently discovered oil and natural gas reserves, establishing itself as a new global frontier for the fossil fuel industry.
Almost 20 percent of global reserves identified between 2022 and 2024 are located in the region, primarily offshore along South America’s northern coast between Guyana and Suriname. This wealth has sparked increasing international interest from oil companies and neighboring countries like Brazil, which is looking to exploit its own coastal resources.
In total, the Amazon region accounts for 5.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent
A unit of measurement that converts energy sources into barrels of oil.
In total, the Amazon region accounts for 5.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of around 25 billion discovered worldwide during this period, according to our analysis of Global Energy Monitor data, which tracks energy infrastructure development globally.
And Guyana and Suriname are the locations of this newly found oil.
April 16, 2025, by Melisa Cavcic
Brazilian state-owned energy giant Petrobras has disclosed the arrival of a jack-up rig, owned by Borr Drilling, a UK-headquartered offshore drilling contractor, in Brazilian waters, where it will undertake well decommissioning activities at oil and gas assets off the coast of Brazil.
Arabia I jack-up rig comes to PGA-5, where work will be carried out in Sergipe; Source: Petrobras After Borr Drilling’s Arabia I jack-up rig won a four-year contract with Petrobras in Brazil, with a four-year unpriced option, the work was slated to begin in Q1 2025.
Crude oil is in finite supply. Humans have learned they can’t live without fossil fuels, but using them is accelerating emissions, heating the oceans and killing living things at a rapid rate.
Wars are being fought because of its finite nature.
President Trump has ordered Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to the southern Caribbean, off the coast of Venezuela
The amount of toxic “forever chemicals” flowing into the River Mersey in north-west England has reached some of the highest levels recorded anywhere in the world.
My team’s research links much of this contamination to old landfills, waste facilities and past industrial activity. Even if these chemicals were banned tomorrow, they would continue polluting our rivers for decades, possibly centuries.
But there is a path forward. We’ve developed a new method to track and prioritise the largest sources for clean-up, giving regulators a clearer picture of where to act first.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), more commonly known as “forever chemicals”, are a large family of human-made chemicals found in everyday products like food packaging, water-repellent clothes and fire-fighting foams. They are valued for their ability to resist very high temperatures and to repel water and oil, but these same properties make them extremely persistent.
Once released, some PFAS could take thousands of years to break down. They accumulate in the environment, build up – with different compounds accumulating at different rates – inside the bodies of wildlife and people, and have been associated with harms to health. The most studied types have been linked to cancers, hormone disruption and immune system problems.
Patrick Byrne has been measuring PFAS ‘loads’ in rivers over a period of time, not just the concentration at one moment. CC BY-NC-ND
Last year, my research team discovered that the amount of two potentially cancer-causing PFAS chemicals washing off the land and into the Mersey was among the highest in the world. In our follow-on research, we travelled upstream to try and locate where these PFAS are coming from. But with hundreds of potential PFAS sources, how do we isolate the largest ones?
The secret is measuring something called the PFAS load – the total amount of PFAS flowing through the river at a given point, rather than just the concentration in the water.
Here’s why that matters: a small stream can have high concentrations but carry only a small total amount, while a large river with lower concentrations can be transporting far more PFAS overall. If we only look at concentration, we risk missing the really heavy polluters.
By measuring PFAS loads at multiple points along the Mersey system, we could see exactly where the largest increases occurred. That told us both the location and the scale of PFAS inputs.
We detected PFAS chemicals at 97% of our sample sites, even in supposedly pristine streams draining from the Peak District national park. But the big breakthroughs came when we matched the largest PFAS load increases to specific areas.
PFBS (a type of PFAS) was coming in huge amounts from land draining old landfills in the Glaze Brook watershed near Leigh, west of Manchester. PFOA, a globally banned and cancer-causing PFAS, appeared to originate from a waste management facility on the River Roch, north of Manchester. PFOS, another banned PFAS, was entering the River Bollin, with strong evidence pointing to historic firefighting foam use at Manchester Airport.
What’s most striking to me is that all these sources are rooted in the past – old landfills, waste sites or historic industrial use. These chemicals are no longer in production, but they are still escaping into the environment, decades later.
This is where PFAS load measurements make a real difference. Instead of chasing the highest concentrations – which might lead to cleaning up small streams that contribute little overall – we can target the sites releasing the largest total amounts of PFAS into our rivers.
It’s a simple idea with major implications. In a world where environmental regulators face tight budgets and limited monitoring capacity, knowing exactly which sites are the biggest sources is vital.
The Mersey is just one example. Around the world, PFAS contamination follows a similar pattern: numerous potential sources scattered across the landscape, many of them historical. The chemicals’ extreme persistence means they will continue cycling through rivers, soils and wildlife for generations unless active steps are taken to remove or contain them.
Our latest study shows that measuring PFAS load can help solve one of the toughest challenges in managing chemical pollution: working out where to start. By identifying and prioritising the biggest sources, regulators have a realistic chance of reducing the flow of forever chemicals into our rivers – and perhaps one day, making that nickname a little less true.
Many years ago, one of my blogs was about a powerful Mesoamerican cult which elicited wonderful art and architecture, and it was a positive cult, revering Nature and humbled before it.
Today we have followers of fashion, music icons, great thinkers, drive our favourite motor vehicles and so on…and always we have had religious diversity, with sometimes clashing of belief systems.
We form cultures, and reinforce our strength of belief in them through wearing merchandise proclaiming that belief, and wearing badged clothing. We join together to celebrate them and talk to our fellow enthusiasts online, sometimes day by day, even hour by hour.
And in 2015, Dr Steven Hassan wrote a book, based on his escaping from the mind controlling Moonies Cult:
In the late 1950s the church spread to the West and in the 1970s was identified as a “cult.” Parents protested their children’s membership in the group, which often damaged careers and family ties. They sought the help of deprogrammers and filed civil lawsuits. Controversy surrounding the church led to congressional hearings, and in 1982 Moon was convicted of tax evasion. His supporters, including many mainline church leaders, saw the trial as an example of government religious persecution
His deprogramming led him to study what had happened to him and he earned a doctorate in the subject and became dedicated to helping people escape the psychological warfare people have been sucked into and harmed by the experience.
He wrote this in the preface to his book:
I dedicate this book to all those who have suffered from abusive mind control in the hope that it helps them heal. Freedom of mind—which includes critical thinking, pursuing facts, listening to one’s conscience, and acting with integrity—is the foundation of all our other freedoms, including freedom of religion.
We are also aware of psyops around the world, spreading so easily through social media:
Russian Strategic Psychological Operations (Psyops), specifically information operations, have an important place in the Kremlin’s foreign policy and Russian military strategy. Russia is conducting psyops on a global scale. Still, the war in Ukraine, the increasing attention to the Arctic region, and the Swedish and Finnish ascension to NATO are all factors which increase strategic value in psyops targeting Northern Europe.
It seems, now we no longer ‘see through a glass darkly, but now face to face’ that Charlie Kirk was not right enough for the Far Right Groyper cult.
Well, I am not well versed in this ‘meme’ terminology, so I looked this up.
The original Groyper was a variant drawing of the famous (and infamous) Pepe the Frog cartoon, which portrayed Pepe as overweight, sitting down with one knee in the air and his head resting on his hands. The Groyper is also giving the viewer a smug smile.
In the following years, as Pepe the Frog became increasingly associated with the online far-right, so did the Groyper. By 2019, many alt-right accounts used variations of the Groyper drawing as their profile pictures on social media.
and we are informed by knowyourmeme.com:
The people responsible were part of the then-budding “Groyper Army,” a subset of the far-right, largely focused on American white nationalism and preserving the white race. Like a TikTok cult or a group of friends, they all changed their profile pictures to the same thing: Groypers.
Then-22-year-old Nick Fuentes, a controversial far-right figure, was the de facto leader of the online “army.” He hosted a YouTube show called “America First” in which he harped on Groyper Army talking points and championed the movement.
Conservative pundits and politicians like Shapiro and Trump Jr. were targeted because they weren’t viewed as conservative enough.
For example, the Groypers took issue with the Republican Party’s use of LGBTQ+ speakers and Shapiro’s status as a Jewish man in the movement, according to outlets like Vox.
Tyler Robinson, the 22 year old confessed killer of Charlie Kirk, is from a Republican registered family, a Mormon religion and was seemingly radicalised by the Groyper cult. His minister and father turned him in, the right thing to do.
The group Turning Point, founded by Charlie Kirk is defined by an AI search as:
Turning Point USA has been criticized for promoting extremist views and has been labeled by some organizations as a platform for hate and bigotry, particularly against marginalized groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified it as having ties to hard-right extremism and has documented instances of racist and discriminatory rhetoric associated with its leadership. Southern Poverty Law Center racism.org
It is worth noting that Charlie Kirk did provoke other Right wingers recently, concerning the ‘Epstein files’
While Kirk positioned himself as an ardent defender of Israel, he more recently showed a willingness to engage with other conservative commentators deeply critical of Israel, such as Jewish American comedian David Smith, who has regularly criticised Israel for conducting a genocide in Gaza and lobbied the US to stop sending arms to the country.
Kirk’s hosting of Smith and lobbying for the release of the Epstein files put him in the crosshairs of Trump ally and far-right influencer, Laura Loomer.
“I don’t ever want to hear @charliekirk11 claim he is pro-Trump ever again,” Loomer wrote on X in August. “Lately, Charlie has decided to behave like a charlatan, claiming to be pro-Trump one day while he stabs Trump in the back the next.”
It is worthy of note that a former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was sacked for his recent comments:
Rebecca Kutler fired Matthew Dowd because he said the following about Kirk:
He was constantly pushing this sort of hate speech aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. … You can’t say these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.
Interesting about what happened to quality FBI staff stationed in Salt Lake City:
A month before the Charlie Kirk political assassination at Utah Valley University (UVU), a woman named Mehtab Syed was pushed out of her role as head of the FBI’s Salt Lake City field office. Maybe she did something wrong, or perhaps she was no longer a good fit. While those are the usual lines used to explain a firing, there seems to be much more to Syed’s removal than meets the eye.
Gathering the data and analysing it is often the only way we can stand outside the problem and make clear our view of where radicalisation is being generated sufficient to cause extreme violence.
ADL has done that, and their analysis is highly revealing:
The Covid pandemic probably tilted the vulnerable young minds, isolated from healthy interaction with their peers, to make more ‘friends online’ who some turned out to be radicalising forces.
Zev Shalev has reviewed Charlie Kirk’s effort to prove he had become a critical thinker, losing donor funds for doing so. On Substack, September 15th, Shalev writes:
Kirk’s death wasn’t just an assassination—it was a warning to anyone approaching the Epstein question. “Conviction without courage is just noise,” Kirk once said. In his final months, he proved his courage and conviction by standing up to billion-dollar donors, against Israeli pressure, against his own party’s leadership. Kirk found the courage to ask the questions that mattered. That courage—not the bullet that silenced him—is his legacy.
While it’s easy to fall into the temptation of solving the whodunnit of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, or devolve into partisan fights that achieve nothing but to further divide us, the efforts of citizens and representatives from both parties would honor his courageous legacy by demanding the Epstein Files be released and voting in favor of Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna’s discharge petition.
“Courage is the ultimate virtue,” Kirk opined. “If people aren’t courageous, you don’t have honesty, you don’t have justice, you don’t have beauty, you don’t have wonder.”
Charlie Kirk’s insurgency lives on in every voice that refuses to be bought, every question that refuses to be buried, every truth that refuses to die.
Grasp courage. Release the Epstein Files. For Charlie, and for America.
It is interesting to note Charlie Kirk’s father was involved as an architect in Trump’s Tower in New York:
In a surprising turn of events, the architecture firm owned by Charlie Kirk’s father is gaining attention after its connection to Trump Tower in New York. The revelations have sparked discussions among people about the extent of influence such connections can hold in both business and media realms.
Washington Post columnist says she was fired over her ‘unacceptable’ Charlie Kirk social media posts
‘The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being ‘unacceptable’, ‘gross misconduct’ and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false,’ Karen Attiah wrote Monday
Jimmy Kimmel deserves better than this. He’s a class act. Case in point – after my first appearance on his show back in 2018, he very thoughtfully asked whether I was receiving adequate security at that time, as Trump was repeatedly smearing journalists as “the enemy of the people,” comments that resulted in threats aimed at many of us in the White House Press Corps. I’ll never forget that moment of kindness from Jimmy. It spoke volumes. Make no mistake, our right to free speech is under attack in this country. This right must be defended as it is essential to the American way of life.
Sept 18th, Adam Kinzinger comment:
Brendan Carr’s actions this week are a textbook example of how government intimidation can erode the First Amendment. Yesterday, after Jimmy Kimmel criticized the President’s reaction to the killing of Charlie Kirk, Carr publicly threatened ABC and its parent company Disney. He suggested that the network’s broadcast license could be jeopardized, framing his threat in terms of the FCC’s “public interest obligations.” That is not merely commentary—it is an official signaling of regulatory retaliation aimed at silencing a viewpoint.
Sept 19th, Gary Kasparov remembers his life in Russia:
Very quickly, the Russian government set about squeezing the country’s fledgling free press. They did so in a pincer movement that attacked individual journalists, presenters, and programs from one side and the owners of media enterprises from the other.
The government ratcheted up the pressure to pull shows that didn’t fit their narrative. One early casualty was Kukly (dolls), a puppet show that poked fun at Russia’s elites. NTV dropped a political talk show called Svoboda Slova (freedom of speech) after a pro-Kremlin team took over the network.
Kremlin officials pressured upstart businessmen to sell their stakes in media conglomerates. Government agents raided network headquarters. The authorities strategically orchestrated mergers to ensure conformity and compliance, sacking “bad oligarchs” and installing “good oligarchs” in their place.
Independent journalists faced libel and defamation lawsuits.
18th September,some extracts from Distractify:
FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s Chapter of Project 2025 Called for Freedom of Speech
Apparently FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has had a change of heart when it comes to the First Amendment.
He joined The Heritage Foundation in February 2022 and contributed to Project 2025.
Brandon Carr contributed quite a bit to Project 2025.
For those who don’t know, the Federal Communications Commission regulates U.S. internet access and communications networks such as TV and radio. When it comes to free speech, the FCC adheres to the First Amendment, which states the federal government “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Some of Carr’s goals as outlined in Project 2025 address tech giants like Google, Meta, and others. “Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop,” he wrote. “These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power, they are abusing dominant positions.” Carr wants to make these companies responsible for libelous statements made by its users. He also wanted more transparency regarding algorithm changes.
Carr also focused on broadcast companies like CBS and NBC, supporting President Trump’s allegations that they were engaging in political bias against conservatives. This is particularly noteworthy following ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! off air indefinitely in September 2025. While the Disney subsidiary didn’t cite a reason, many believe it is related to remarks Kimmel made in reference to the assassination of right-wing podcast host Charlie Kirk.
Brendan Carr is celebrating the suspension of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’
Brian Stelter, the Chief Media Analyst for CNN, reached out to Carr for a comment about ABC pulling Kimmel’s show. In a post to X, Stelter revealed that Carr responded with a gif from The Office in which Michael Scott (Steve Carell) and Dwight Schrute (Rainn Wilson) are dancing and raising the proverbial roof.
Anderson Cooper had Stelter on Anderson Cooper 360, where he asked the media analyst about Carr’s response. Stelter said he and Carr had been in touch for months as he was reporting on the FCC. “He’s been very aggressive about using the media to try and pressure companies like Disney,” explained Stelter. Carr also texted Stelter, celebrating Nexstar’s decision to pressure ABC affiliates to pull Kimmel’s show off the air.
When actor Kevin McHale posted, “This was all in Project 2025, btw,” referencing the Jimmy Kimmel situation, Carr responded with a gif of Jack Nicholson grinning and nodding. A few people have pointed out Carr’s hypocrisy by sharing a screenshot of a post he made to X back in February 2019. “Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like?” asked Carr. “Of course not,” he said. Apparently, that didn’t last.
“He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them,” Trump said of Kirk. “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry,” Trump added. “I am sorry, Erika.”
“Charlie’s angry… he’s angry at me,” Trump added.
And of the Democrats recently murdered by a hate inspired shooter, we will not forget the Hortman’s and their lovely dog.
Robert Reich, 22nd Sept. reported:
Immediately after Kimmel’s suspension, Disney viewers and customers began to cancel their subscriptions to Disney+ and Hulu and threaten a broader consumer boycott.
According to Strength in Numbers, the Disney boycott quickly became four times as large as any boycott over the last five years.
Disney’s stock dipped about 3.5 percent and continued to trade lower in subsequent days — a loss in market value amounting to some $4 billion.
The genocide in Gaza has exposed the weaponization of the Holocaust as a vehicle not to prevent genocide, but to perpetuate it, not to examine the past, but to manipulate the present.
Nearly all Holocaust scholars, who see in any criticism of Israel a betrayal of the Holocaust, have refused to condemn the genocide in Gaza. Not one of the institutions dedicated to researching and commemorating the Holocaust have drawn the obvious historical parallels or decried the mass slaughter of Palestinians.
Holocaust scholars, with a handful of exceptions, have exposed their true purpose, which is not to examine the dark side of human nature, the frightening propensity we all have to commit evil, but to sanctify Jews as eternal victims and absolve the ethnonationalist state of Israel of the crimes of settler colonialism, apartheid and genocide.
The hijacking of the Holocaust, the failure to defend Palestinian victims because they are Palestinian, has imploded the moral authority of Holocaust studies and Holocaust memorials. They have been exposed as a vehicles not to prevent genocide but to perpetrate it, not to explore the past, but manipulate the present.
Any tepid recognition that the Holocaust may not be the exclusive property of Israel and its Zionist supporters is swiftly shut down. The Holocaust Museum LA deleted an Instagram post that read: “NEVER AGAIN” CAN’T ONLY MEAN NEVER AGAIN FOR JEWS” after a backlash. In the hands of Zionists, “never again” means precisely that, never again onlyfor Jews.
Aimé Césaire, in “Discourse on Colonialism,” writes that Hitler seemed exceptionally cruel only because he presided over “the humiliation of the white man,” applying to Europe the “colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India and the nègres d’Afrique.”
It was this distortion of the Holocaust as unique that troubled Primo Levi, who was imprisoned in Auschwitz from 1944 to 1945 and wrote “Survival in Auschwitz.” He was a fierce critic of the apartheid state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. He saw the Shoah as “an inexhaustible source of evil” that “is perpetuated as hatred in the survivors, and springs up in a thousand ways, against the very will of all, as a thirst for revenge, as moral breakdown, as negation, as weariness, as resignation.”
He deplored “Manichaeanism,” those who “shun nuance and complexity” and who “reduce the river of human events to conflicts, and conflicts to duals, us and them.” He warned that the “network of human relationships inside the concentration camps was not simple: It could not be reduced to two blocs, victims and persecutors.” The enemy, he knew, “was outside but also inside.”
Levi writes about Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, a Jewish collaborator who ruled the Lodz ghetto. Rumkowski, known as “King Chaim,” turned the ghetto into a slave labor camp which enriched the Nazis and himself. He deported opponents to death camps. He raped and molested girls and women. He demanded unquestioned obedience and embodied the evil of his oppressors. For Levi, he was an example of what many of us, under similar circumstances, are capable of becoming.
Ghetto Lodz, Litzmannstadt, Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, head of the Council of Elders meets with German officials on a street of the ghetto, Poland 1940, World War II. (Photo by: Dukas/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
“We are all mirrored in Rumkowski, his ambiguity is ours, it is our second nature, we hybrids molded from clay and spirit,” Levi wrote in “The Drowned and the Saved.”“[H]is fever is ours, the fever of our Western civilization that ‘descends into hell with trumpets and drums,’ and its miserable adornments are the distorting image of our symbols of social prestige.”
“Like Rumkowski, we too are so dazzled by power and prestige as to forget our essential fragility,” Levi adds. “[W]illingly or not, we come to terms with power, forgetting that we are all in the ghetto, that the ghetto is walled in, that outside the ghetto reign the lords of death and that close by the train is waiting.”
These bitter lessons of the Holocaust, which warn that the line between the victim and victimizer is razor thin, that we can all become willing executioners, that there is nothing intrinsically moral about being Jewish or a survivor of the Holocaust, are what Zionists seek to deny. Levi, for this reason, was persona non grata in Israel.
Holocaust studies, which exploded in the 1970s and were epitomized by the deification of the Holocaust survivor and fervent Zionist Elie Wiesel — literary critic Alfred Kazin called him a “Jesus of the Holocaust” — have now surrendered any claim to championing universal truths. These Holocaust scholars use a benchmark evil, as Norman Finkelstein points out, “not as a moral compass but rather as an ideological club.” The mantra “Do not compare,” Finkelstein writes, “is the mantra of moral blackmailers.”
Zionists find in the Holocaust and the Jewish state a sense of purpose and meaning, as well as a cloying moral superiority. After the 1967 war, when Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank, Israel, as Nathan Glazer approvingly observed, became “the religion of the American Jews.”
Holocaust studies are based on the fallacy that unique suffering confers unique entitlement. This was always the purpose of what Finkelstein calls “The Holocaust Industry.”
“Jewish suffering is depicted as ineffable, uncommunicable, and yet always to be proclaimed,” writes the European historian Charles Maier in “The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity.” “It is intensely private, not to be diluted, but simultaneously public so that gentile society will confirm the crimes. A very peculiar suffering must be enshrined in public sites: Holocaust museums, memory gardens, deportation sites, dedicated not as Jewish but civic memorials. But what is the role of a museum in a country, such as the United States, far from the site of the Holocaust? … Under what circumstances can a private sorrow serve simultaneously as public grief? And if genocide is certified as a public sorrow, then must we not accept the credentials of other particular sorrows too? Do Armenians and Cambodians also have a right to publicly funded holocaust museums? And do we need memorials to Seventh Day Adventists and homosexuals for their persecution at the hands of the Third Reich?”
Any crime Israel carries out in the name of its survival — its “right to exist” — is justified in the name of this uniqueness. There are no limits. The world is black and white, a never-ending battle against Nazism, which is protean depending on who Israel targets. To challenge this bloodlust is to be an anti-Semite facilitating another genocide of Jews.
This simplistic formula not only serves the interests of Israel, but also the interests of colonial powers that carried out their own genocides, ones they seek to obscure. What was the annihilation of Native Americans by European settlers, the Armenians by Turks, the Indians in the Bengal famine by the British or the Soviet-orchestrated famine in the Ukraine? What was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is Manifest Destiny any different from the Nazis’ embrace of the concept of Lebensraum? These too were holocausts, fueled by the same dehumanization and bloodlusts.
The sacralization of the Nazi Holocaust offers a bizarre quid pro quo. Arming and funding the state of Israel, preventing U.N. resolutions and sanctions from being adopted to condemn its crimes, and demonizing Palestinians and their supporters, is proof of atonement and support for Jews. Israel, in return, absolves the West of its indifference to the plight of Jews during the Holocaust, and Germany for perpetrating it.
Germany uses this unholy alliance to separate Nazism from the rest of German history, including the genocide German colonists carried out against the Nama and Herero in German South-West Africa, now Namibia.
“[S]uch magic,” Israeli historian and genocide scholar Raz Segal writes, “legitimizes racism against Palestinians at the very moment that Israel perpetrates genocide against them. The idea of Holocaust uniqueness thus reproduces rather than challenges the exclusionary nationalism and settler colonialism that led to the Holocaust.”
Segal, the director of the program in Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University in New Jersey, wrote an article on Gaza on Oct. 13, 2023 — six days after the incursion by Hamas and other Palestinian fighters into Israel — titled: “A Textbook Case of Genocide.” This denunciation from an Israeli Holocaust scholar, whose family members perished in the Holocaust, was a very lonely stance.
Segal saw in the Israeli government’s immediate demand that Palestinians evacuate the north of Gaza, and the blood-curdling demonization of the Palestinians by Israeli officials — the defense minister said Israel was “fighting human animals” — the stench of genocide.
“The whole idea about prevention and ‘never again’ is that — as we teach our students — there are red flags that once we notice them, we’re supposed to work in order to stop the process that could escalate to genocide,” Segal said when I interviewed him, “even if it’s not genocidal yet.”
“Holocaust studies as a field might be dead, which is not necessarily a bad thing,” he continued. “If indeed Holocaust studies is intertwined from the beginning with the ideology of global Holocaust memory, maybe it’s good that we won’t have Holocaust studies anymore. And maybe it will open the door for even more interesting and important research on the Holocaust as history, as real history.”
Segal paid for his courage and his honesty. The offer to lead the University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies — which has issued no condemnation of the genocide — was revoked.
Nearly two years into the genocide, the International Association of Genocide Scholars finally issued a statement saying that Israel’s conduct meets the legal definition set out in the U.N. Convention on Genocide.
But the vast majority of Holocaust scholars remain mute, endlessly condemning the atrocities committed by Hamas while ignoring those committed by Israel. They were mute when South Africa argued before the International Court of Justice that Israel was committing genocide. They were mute when Amnesty International published a report in December 2024 accusing Israel of genocide.
“How many Palestinian students apply to graduate programmes in Holocaust and Genocide Studies around the world? Usually none. How many Palestinian scholars identify themselves as scholars in this field? They, too, can be counted on one hand,” Segal writes in a co-authored article in the Journal of Genocide Research.
Genocide is coded in the DNA of Western imperialism. Palestine has made this clear. The genocide is the next stage in what the anthropologist Arjun Appadurai calls “a vast worldwide Malthusian correction” that is “geared to preparing the world for the winners of globalization, minus the inconvenient noise of its losers.”
The funding and arming of Israel by the United States and European nations as it carries out genocide has imploded the post-World War II international legal order. It no longer has credibility. The West cannot lecture anyone now about democracy, human rights or the supposed virtues of Western civilization.
“At the same time that Gaza induces vertigo, a feeling of chaos and emptiness, it becomes for countless powerless people the essential condition of political and ethical consciousness in the twenty-first century — just as the First World War was for a generation in the West,” Pankaj Mishra writes in “The World After Gaza.”
The ability to peddle the fiction that the Nazi Holocaust is unique, or that Jews are uniquely entitled, has ended. The genocide presages a new world order, one where Europe and the United States, along with their proxy Israel, are pariahs. Gaza has illuminated a dark truth — barbarism and Western civilization are inseparable.
Israel’s objective is ‘annihilation of diplomacy’ itself
8 hours ago
22:16 BST
“The stated objective of Israel’s attack on Qatar today was the assassination of Hamas’s ceasefire negotiation team, but the unspoken objective was the annihilation of diplomacy itself,” wrote Hanna Alshaikh, Palestine Project Coordinator, Arab Center in Washington, on the center’s website.
Gaza flotilla fire: What the surveillance videos tell us
Middle East
On the night of September 8-9, just after midnight, a boat that is part of a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza was struck by an incendiary device off the coast of Tunisia. Members of the Global Sumud Flotilla say they heard a drone flying three or four metres above their heads before the device hit, causing a fire that damaged the boat but caused no injuries. A drone expert said that such devices can be dropped by commercially available consumer drones.
Israel Steps Up Attacks on Gaza City Ahead of a Planned Wider Offensive
An Israeli strike hit the Mushtaha Tower in Gaza City on Friday. The Israeli military said Hamas used the building for intelligence-gathering, but Hamas denied the accusation.
The Israeli military destroyed a landmark building after saying it had taken control of almost half of the city, where hundreds of thousands of civilians are sheltering amid a worsening humanitarian crisis.
More countries announce plans to recognize a Palestinian state
Belgium, Australia, Portugal, Canada and Malta announced plans to join Britain and France in recognizing Palestinian statehood, joining more than 140 other countries.
Countries that have recognized a Palestinian state
Note: Data is as of September 2, 2025 and includes all countries that have formally recognized or announced plans to recognize Palestinian statehood since 1988. Several European countries, such as Czech Republic and Hungary, originally recognized a Palestinian state in 1988 when they were part of the Communist bloc of Soviet-aligned nations and followed a unified policy, but their current diplomatic stance may be different.
Correction: This graphic has been updated to reflect that North Korea recognizes the State of Palestine.
Sources: United Nations, State of Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, statements from national governments
Hey folks, I know it’s Saturday, and I don’t mean to be the bearer of bad news. But as I promised you from day one—I don’t sugarcoat. I bring you the inside story the way I hear it, the way I know it. No spin, no filter, no corporate agenda. Just the truth.
Donald Trump has completely lost it. He’s not only planning to go to war with Venezuela—to manufacture a crisis that gives him cover to implement Project 2025 and stay in power forever—but he’s also preparing to go to war with America itself. Plans are on the table to unleash the National Guard on cities like Chicago and Portland. And make no mistake, folks: none of this is about the safety or security of our country. It’s all part of Trump’s authoritarian playbook—an orchestrated campaign of chaos designed for one purpose only: to cement himself in power for good.
My sources tell me this is the week. Plans are being drawn to deploy the National Guard into Chicago—and possibly another city, maybe Portland. And you won’t believe it until you see it with your own eyes: Donald Trump is now using AI-generated propaganda that he blasts out on Truth Social and the White House even reposts. Complete with helicopters, fire, and his chilling line, “I love the smell of deportations in the morning.” And now he’s going even further, threatening, “Chicago is about to find out what the Department of War is all about.” This isn’t satire. It’s not a movie trailer. It’s the President of the United States openly fantasizing about turning our cities into war zones.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker called it an “invasion.” Chicago’s Mayor Brandon Johnson said flatly, “Unconstitutional.” And yet, Trump doesn’t care. He’s already renamed the Department of Defense into the Department of War, bragging that America needs a “warrior ethos.” Folks, that isn’t policy—it’s the vocabulary of dictatorship.
But here’s where you have to look deeper.
While the cameras are fixed on Trump threatening to occupy American cities, my sources are telling me the bigger play is brewing south of our border. Preparations are already underway for military strikes against Venezuela.
You’ve heard the drumbeats: warships in the Caribbean, F-35s to Puerto Rico, a $50 million bounty on Nicolás Maduro. He says it’s about gangs and terrorism. But let me tell you what it’s really about: declaring a state of war that gives him cover to do whatever he wants. No oversight. No due process. Eleven men blown up in international waters, no trial, no evidence, just his word—and we’re supposed to accept it.
This is how autocrats seize power. Manufacture chaos at home, declare enemies abroad, and then insist that only one man—the “strongman”—can keep order.
It’s Putin’s playbook. It’s Xi’s playbook. It’s Kim’s playbook. And Donald Trump is begging to be accepted into their club.
Think about what this means.
A president who does nothing to stop Russia’s daily attacks on Ukraine. Who stands silent while Putin kidnaps over 25,000 Ukrainian children. Who laughs nervously as Xi, Putin, Kim, and Modi mock him at their parades. Yet, when it comes to his own people, his own cities, he’s ready to send in troops.
It’s grotesque. It’s un-American. And it’s a warning.
What Trump is preparing isn’t just a deployment. It’s the beginning of a doctrine: Trump versus America. If he can frame Chicago as “the enemy,” then he can frame anyone—any governor, any journalist, any protester, any survivor—as an enemy of the state. And from there, it’s one step to the death of democracy.
And if you think that’s shocking, you won’t believe this. While Trump is preparing to send the National Guard into Chicago and preparing for war abroad, he’s also busy turning the White House into his personal Mar-a-Lago
My sources tell me that just yesterday, he quietly unveiled a new “Rose Garden Club” — a members-only society with buy-in at a staggering $500,000 a head. Yes, you read that right: half a million dollars just to secure access. Trump has literally transformed the people’s Rose Garden into a private playground for the wealthy elite, just as he did with Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Cocktail parties, whispered deals, donors rubbing shoulders with lobbyists — all from inside the very heart of American democracy.
At the unveiling, Trump boasted that the Rose Garden was now “a place where our members can gather with congressmen, senators, and leaders to talk business and make America strong again.” In other words, he’s selling direct access to power—half a million dollars for a seat at the table.
Here is the transcript of the speech Trump delivered at the opening of the Rose Garden Club:
This is more than just a grift. It’s a message. He is not planning on leaving. He’s planting roots in the White House as though it were his personal estate, a gilded club for sale to the highest bidder. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, the great leaders who saw the White House as a sacred trust of the people — they would be turning over in their graves. Trump has reduced it to another cash register, another hustle, another monument to himself.
Folks, this is what dictatorship looks like: while the nation burns, Trump uses the Rose Garden to sell access to the White House.
I want to take this moment and talk to you from the heart. I’m not trying to scare you, but I need you to understand just how serious this is. What’s transpiring right now—the planned attacks on Venezuela, the deployment of National Guard troops into American cities, the Rose Garden being turned into a half-million-dollar pay-to-play club—it all points to one thing: Donald Trump is not preparing to leave power. He is preparing to stay in power forever.
And if we don’t stand together now, if we don’t raise our voices now, there will come a day when we wake up and regret that we didn’t do everything we could while we still had the chance. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: everybody can do something. Spread the message. Become a subscriber. If you can, become a paid subscriber. Contribute. This is how we fight back.
I want you to remember something about me. I wasn’t always on this side of the fight. I was once deep inside Trump’s circle. I saw firsthand how the deals were made, how the lies were spun, how the money flowed and the corruption spread. I know these people because I lived in their world—and I chose to break free, to speak the truth, to risk everything to expose what I saw.
I can’t change my past, but I can use it to warn you about the future they are building.
My son Aaron is on the frontlines exposing Trump and his inner circle, being attacked by his minions for daring to report the truth. And I’m risking my freedom every single day to bring you information the media won’t touch, stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Why? Because I know these people. I know what they’re about to do. That’s why I’m sounding the alarm—because if we don’t save our democracy now, it may be too late.
That’s why I’m asking you, personally, to stand with me in this fight.
I don’t have billionaires behind me. I don’t have corporate sponsors. What I do have is you.
We are more than just a community—we are building a movement. A resistance rooted in truth, powered by ordinary people refusing to be silenced.
Trump is betting on fear. But our strength is solidarity.
So I’m asking you:
Spread this message far and wide. Share it in your group chats, on your socials, at your kitchen tables. Let people know what’s really happening.
Subscribe. If you haven’t yet, join us. Every new subscriber makes this movement harder to ignore.
And don’t forget—pick up your copy of my book, Shadow Diplomacy, at LevRemembers.com. Trump never wanted you to read it, because it lays out the exact playbook of shadow dealings.
This is not just about Chicago. This is about whether America becomes another chapter in the book of failed democracies—another dictatorship where one man rules by fear.
I refuse to let that happen. And I know you do too.
So stand with me. Spread this message. Support this movement. Because together—we are not just witnesses. We are the resistance.
God bless you. God bless America.
—Lev Parnas
And another view on current events by Heather Cox Richardson:
From Heather Cox Richardson, Political Historian: September 6, 2025 (Saturday)
“Today the social media account of President Donald J. Trump posted an AI-generated image of Trump as if he were Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore from the 1979 film Apocalypse Now in front of the Chicago skyline with military helicopters and flames and the caption “Chipocalypse Now.” Kilgore loved the war in Vietnam in which he was engaged; his most famous line was “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”
Over the image, Trump’s social media post read: “‘I love the smell of deportations in the morning…’ Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.” The words were followed by three helicopter emojis, symbols the right wing uses to represent former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet’s goons’ disappearing political opponents by pushing them out of helicopters.
Although it has become trite to speculate about what Republicans would say if a Democratic president engaged in the behavior Trump exhibits daily, this open attack of the president on an American city is a new level of unhinged. Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo wrote: “The president of the United States just declared war, actual military war, not a metaphorical one, on a major American city, and one governed by his political opponents.” He added, accurately: “In any other period, this would be impeachment-worthy.”
Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker called attention to the gravity of Trump’s post: “The President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city. This is not a joke. This is not normal. Donald Trump isn’t a strongman, he’s a scared man. Illinois won’t be intimidated by a wannabe dictator.” Under the words “Know your rights, Illinois,” and “Stay safe and stay informed,” the governor’s social media account posted information about Americans’ rights in both English and Spanish.
Trump’s threats against American citizens are outrageous, but they also feel desperate. Trump’s popularity is tanking, the economy is faltering, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing a chorus of calls to resign or be fired, and the American people are taking to the streets. Thousands of people turned out today in Washington, D.C., for the “We Are All D.C.” march to protest the presence of troops in the city, and in Chicago for the “Chicago Says No Trump No Troops” protest. The protests are notable for the seas of signs the peaceful protesters carry.
And then, with Congress back in session, there is the resurgence of the issue of Trump’s appearance in the Epstein files. Last week, the White House warned Republicans that voting to release the Epstein files “would be viewed as a very hostile act to the administration.” Yesterday, Trump reiterated his claim that the agitation for the release of the files is a “Democrat HOAX…in order to deflect and distract from the great success of a Republican President.”
Also yesterday, lawyers for the Justice Department asked a federal judge to keep the names of two associates who received large payments from Epstein in 2018 secret. Days before the payments, the Miami Herald had started to examine the sweetheart deal Epstein got in 2008. One associate received a payment of $100,000, and the second received $250,000. As part of his plea deal, Tom Winter of NBC News reports, Epstein got a guarantee that the associates would not be prosecuted.
Last night, Trump hosted the inaugural dinner of what the White House is calling the “Rose Garden Club” in the newly-paved White House Rose Garden, telling those assembled that they were there because they are loyal to the president. “You’re the ones that I never had to call at 4:00 in the morning,” Trump told them. “You are the ones that have been my friends, and you know what I’m talking about.”
Yesterday, talking to reporters about the Epstein files, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said that Trump was “an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.” The idea that Trump was secretly working to bring Epstein down is common fare among conspiracy theorists, but as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo suggests, Johnson’s embrace of it might well be an attempt to spin material in the files before it becomes public.
Marshall notes that journalist Michael Wolff, who interviewed Epstein at length during Trump’s first presidency, says that Epstein suspected it was Trump who told the authorities about his systemic sexual assault of girls. But if so, Marshall explains, this is damning rather than exonerating.
It’s pretty well known that Trump and Epstein had a falling out in 2004 after Trump went behind Epstein’s back to buy an estate in South Florida that Epstein wanted. But at the time, Trump was headed toward bankruptcy, and it was not clear where he was getting the money to buy the estate.
Marshall calls attention to a recent interview in which Wolff said that Epstein suspected Trump was laundering money for a Russian oligarch—and indeed, Trump did flip the property to a Russian oligarch for a profit of more than $50 million a few years after buying it—and threatened to sue Trump, bringing the money laundering to light. At that point, the Epstein investigation began.
According to Wolff, Epstein believed Trump had notified the police about what was going on at Epstein’s house, which he knew because he was a frequent visitor. Marshall speculates that Johnson mentioned that Trump was an informant because that information could well be in the files the Department of Justice has, and they’re trying to spin it ahead of time to make it sound like Trump was a hero.
But both Wolff and Marshall note that if indeed Trump turned the FBI onto Epstein, it shows he knew what was taking place at Epstein’s properties.
Johnson’s claim that Trump was an FBI informant suggests Trump’s team is worried that as more and more people get access to the files, it will be increasingly difficult to hide what’s in them. Trump’s demand for Republicans’ loyalty suggests that at least some of them are starting to recalculate it. And that, in turn, might have something to do with why he is putting troops in the streets.”
The White House’s least favorite subject just had another viral glowup this week.
The scandal over Jeffrey Epstein continues to trouble the Trump administration, and this week, another PR nightmare involving the dead pedophile blew up in the White House’s face. Said PR nightmare came from a surprising source: rightwing provocateur James O’Keefe, who notably made his name with the far-right activist group Project Veritas.
In the past, Veritas was known for targeting liberal organizations and Democrats, although, after a series of scandals, it’s no longer active. O’Keefe is still at it, however, and, in a surprising twist, he now seems to be targeting conservatives. This week, O’Keefe released a video captured with a hidden camera that purports to show a top Justice Department official discussing the Epstein case and claiming that the government will selectively redact the files to shift blame from Republicans to Democrats.
On Thursday, O’Keefe’s current organization, dubbed the O’Keefe Media Group, published a video involving Joseph Schnitt, a high-ranking official with the Justice Department. In the heavily edited video, Schnitt appears to discuss the Jeffrey Epstein files and seems to state that the government plans to politicize the future release of files. “They’ll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal, Democratic people in those files, and have a very slanted version of it come out where it’s ‘look at what’s going on’ without really seeing any of their [Republicans’] bad behavior,” Schnitt says. The woman’s side of the conversation is only heard off-camera, and she’s the one who brings up the Epstein files.
Later in the video, during a discussion about Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, Schnitt can be heard saying: “She got transferred to a minimum security prison, too, recently, which is against BOP [Bureau of Prisons] policy because she’s a convicted sex offender and they’re not supposed to get minimum security prisons, which is an interesting detail because she’s getting a benefit, which means they’re offering her something to keep her mouth shut.”
It’s worth noting that O’Keefe’s videos are often drained of context. In the past, we described Project Veritas’ modus operandi as “a pantomime of investigative journalism, using secretly recorded and deceptively edited videos to smear liberal groups, tech companies, and perceived opponents of the conservative movement.” That said, in this case, Schnitt’s comments seem somewhat straightforward, and obviously don’t make the government look very good.
In an effort to dispel the immediate controversy from O’Keefe’s video, the Justice Department took the very unusual (and, some would argue, certifiably insane) step of posting what appears to be an unedited iPhone screenshot of an email sent by Schnitt to Bondi. In so doing, the DOJ seems to have done journalists’ work for them and confirmed much of what O’Keefe’s organization has alleged about the undercover operative’s encounter with Schnitt.
The details provided by the email illuminate some of O’Keefe’s honeypotting tactics. In the email, Schnitt says that, in July, he met a woman on the dating app Hinge who said that her name was “Skylar.” Skylar, who claimed to be an au pair from Georgetown, went on two dates with Schnitt in August. Schnitt admits that he did identify himself as working for the government on his dating profile. The email also identifies Schnitt as an assistant deputy chief with the Justice Department’s Special Operations Unit.
The email sent by Schnitt to Bondi concludes with a groveling disclaimer that he doesn’t actually know anything about Maxwell’s situation:
“The comments I made were my own personal comments on what I’ve learned in the media and not from anything I’ve done at or learned via work. I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Maxwell other than what is reported in the news. I also never divulged anything about what I do at work. I recall that she asked if I had any knowledge about Maxwell and I specifically said I only know what’s been reported in the news.”
In an additional statement published online, the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs further decried Schnitt’s covertly captured claims: “The comments in this video have absolutely zero bearing with reality and reflect a total lack of knowledge of the DOJ’s review process. The DOJ is committed to transparency and is in compliance with the House Oversight Committee’s request for documents.”
Here, the DOJ is referencing a recent effort by the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee to shed additional light on the Epstein files.
Interestingly enough, this week, O’Keefe’s also hosted a YouTube interview with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-West Virginia), who has been at the forefront of an escalating war with the White House over the Epstein files. Trump and his allies have openly criticized Massie for months for breaking with the GOP line on policy, most notably with Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. In turn, Massie has continually platformed the Epstein issue, much to the chagrin of the administration. “If you can’t get Republicans to care about an underage sex trafficking ring with hundreds of victims, how are you going to get them to care about the budget?” Massie recently said, of the issue. This week, the Congressman also held a press conference in Washington, D.C. that involved Epstein’s victims. He is currently attempting to secure a vote on a bill that would force the DOJ to release additional records related to Epstein, the Wall Street Journal has reported.
borderslynn 
You must be logged in to post a comment.