BOMBSHELL Bill Clinton/Epstein Info Drops

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna appeared on Bill Maher’s show and confirmed what the Epstein document dumps have long hinted at: the former president wasn’t just flying on the Lolita Express — he was operating under an entirely different identity in the files.

This revelation lands as the House Oversight Committee presses forward with its investigation, following the Justice Department’s release of millions of pages under the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed by President Trump. Lawmakers and victims are still pushing for the remaining 2.5 million documents that remain hidden or heavily redacted, according to recent reporting.

Bill Clinton’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein runs deep and documented. The former president flew on Epstein’s private jet multiple times in the early 2000s, often for Clinton Foundation-related trips, and maintained social ties with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell long after red flags emerged. He has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes or visits to the island.

Luna laid it out plainly during the interview. When Maher questioned bringing Hillary in, asking, “You have Hillary Clinton come in? This is like three gazillion pages of men behaving badly. And the witness you want is a woman?”

Luna shot back: “She was issued a bipartisan subpoena, meaning the Democrats wanted her in, too. Cause Bill Clinton was all over those logs.”

She continued: “We can get at the whole Jeffrey Epstein ties because I actually talked to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton specifically about that, presenting them with the actual document that showed that he had a COMPLETE OTHER ALIAS.”

Keep reading

Sen. Richard Blumenthal BLATANTLY Lies: Claims Non-Citizen Voting Is “As Rare As Being Struck by Lightning” — Data Shows MILLIONS May Be Registered

In yet another example of Democrats downplaying serious election integrity concerns, Sen. Richard Blumenthal made a stunning claim on MSNOW Friday, insisting that non-citizen voting is “rare to the point of nonexistence”—even going so far as to compare it to being “struck by lightning.”

That statement is not just misleading—it directly contradicts available data.

Blumenthal’s comments came during a broader defense of Democrat opposition to election integrity measures, including provisions in the SAVE America Act that would require proof of citizenship to vote.

Rather than address the substance of those concerns, Blumenthal dismissed the issue entirely, telling viewers that non-citizen voting is essentially nonexistent and not a serious concern.

But the facts tell a very different story.

According to an analysis by Just Facts, cited by the Cato Institute, which builds on established academic methodologies, between 10% and 27% of non-citizen adults in the United States are illegally registered to vote.

With more than 19 million adult non-citizens recorded in the U.S. Census, that translates to roughly 2 million to 5 million illegal registrations nationwide. These numbers are large enough to influence major elections, including congressional races and even presidential outcomes.

This is not a new concern. A 2014 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Electoral Studies found similarly troubling trends. Researchers estimated that roughly one-quarter of non-citizens were registered to vote and that 6.4% reported actually voting.

Among those who voted, 81.8% said they supported Barack Obama. The authors concluded that illegal non-citizen votes likely affected key election outcomes, including Electoral College results and a pivotal Senate race that enabled Democrats to pass Obamacare.

The methodology behind those findings combined self-reported survey data with verified voter registration records, producing a best estimate that 25.1% of non-citizens were illegally registered to vote.

That estimate aligns closely with more recent analyses, reinforcing the conclusion that the issue is neither rare nor nonexistent.

Blumenthal’s “lightning strike” comparison collapses under even basic scrutiny.

Keep reading

SHOCKING: Democrat Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar’s Staffer Caught Posing as Attorney 11 TIMES to Sneak Cell Phones into ICE Detention Facilities – Permanently BANNED After Security Breach

A senior staffer for Texas Democrat Rep. Veronica Escobar repeatedly lied and impersonated an attorney to gain unauthorized access to an ICE detention facility on at least 11 separate occasions, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The staffer, Benito Torres, a senior caseworker in Escobar’s office, falsely claimed to be a licensed attorney or “accredited representative appearing before EOIR on immigration matters.”

Torres signed visitor logs stating he possessed a signed Form G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative) and used the deception to meet with detainees at the Camp East Montana ICE facility in Texas.

On January 30, Torres was caught passing a personal cellphone to multiple detainees, a clear violation of facility rules that prohibit personal phones and group meetings.

When confronted by the facility administrator, Torres admitted he was not an attorney and was visiting only as a private citizen. He falsely claimed the visits had been coordinated through Rep. Escobar’s office and ICE headquarters.

A full review of visitor logs revealed Torres had pulled the same stunt at least 11 times between September 26 and January 30.

Earlier this week, Todd M. Lyons, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director at ICE, sent a formal letter to Rep. Escobar detailing the violations and permanently banning Torres from all ICE facilities nationwide.

Keep reading

Eric Swalwell “Nannygate” Explodes: DHS and FEC Complaints Allege Illegal Alien Employment and Misuse of Campaign Funds for Childcare

On February 16, 2026, I filed two well-documented federal complaints against Congressman Eric Swalwell, one with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS/ICE), and another with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Together, these filings raise serious questions about whether Swalwell engaged in illegal patterns of conduct that reflect his disregard for federal law and a potential abuse of campaign funds for personal benefit.

At issue are two distinct but closely related allegations: first, that Swalwell continued employing a foreign national nanny illegally for two years after her legal work authorization expired; and second, that he illegally used campaign funds to cover what appear to be ongoing personal childcare expenses totaling more than $300,000.

Taken together, these allegations suggest a sustained pattern in which legal requirements were well understood by Swalwell, and then ignored for personal gain. I published both complaints on SwalwellisDisqualified.com.

The DHS/ICE Complaint: Alleged Employment of an Unauthorized Worker

In 2022, Eric Swalwell and his wife employed a Brazilian national, Amanda Barbosa, as a live-in Au Pair under the J-1 visa program. Barbosa resided in the Swalwell household and provided full-time childcare for their three young children. In 2022, Barbosa was paid approximately $46,929.70 for her services by Swalwell’s campaign under “Childcare for Campaign Events”.

Critically, Barbosa’s J-1 visa, and thus her legal authorization to work, expired at the end of December 2022. The Swalwells were fully aware of this deadline. In fact, earlier in 2022, they attempted to secure permanent work authorization for Barbosa by filing a federal labor certification (ETA-9089), which required a formal job posting in The Washington Post. Their advertisement outlined a demanding, full-time nanny position which included:

  • taking care of 3 kids & help satisfy kids’ physical, emotional, intellectual, & social needs
  • assist w/care of dog, organize kids’ play activities, drive kids to appts & activities
  • household cleaning &laundry, prep kids’ meals, Mon to Fri, 7A to 4P, Wknd work time

The Swalwell’s permanent work authorization application was denied by the Department of Labor.

Keep reading

‘WHO HAS THE BOXES?!’ Fulton County numbers don’t match after FBI seizure

Officials from Fulton County, Georgia, wanted to quash a subpoena from the Georgia State Board of Elections because providing “approximately 750 boxes” of material would be too burdensome.

Yet, when the FBI came knocking in a Jan. 28 raid, federal agents left with 656 boxes (653 by one count), prompting a top Georgia election official to wonder about the gap in the number.

“That’s almost 100 boxes of evidence,” Janice Johnston, vice chair of the Georgia State Election Board, told The Daily Signal.

She referenced one county affidavit that only estimated “over 700 boxes” at the county elections hub. She said, “Even 50 [extra] boxes would be a lot of evidence.”

In a post on X, Johnston posed the questions, “WHERE ARE 100 BOXES OF ELECTION DOCUMENTS?!! … WHO HAS THE BOXES?!!”

A rough estimate does not excuse such a large numerical disparity in an affidavit or court filings, Johnston said.

The State Election Board has since made a records request to the Fulton County Board of Elections to provide information about materials delivered or removed from storage in the four weeks preceding the FBI raid.

“Fulton County is effectively the person of interest in this case,” Johnston said. “We are not assured that everything was available.”

The FBI seized materials from the 2020 election that included ballots, tabulator tapes, and ballot images from a recount, Georgia Public Broadcasting reported, citing court documents that supported the search warrant. About 370,000 ballot images are missing, Johnston noted.

Keep reading

Forced Organ Harvesting Issue Key to Shifting US Understanding of CCP, Says ‘Killed to Order’ Author

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) practice of forced organ harvesting is a lens through which Americans can come to understand the true nature of the CCP and how it engages with the United States and international community, according to Jan Jekielek, author of the new book “Killed to Order.”

Jekielek, senior editor and Washington bureau chief at The Epoch Times, sat down at the Hudson Institute with Nina Shea, director of the think tank’s Center for Religious Freedom, to discuss on March 18 evidence of the CCP’s forced organ harvesting and how the regime expands complicity.

In the book, Jekielek discusses how the United States poured money and support into China beginning in the 1970s, believing that industry would be a liberalizing force, and how that belief would unravel only decades later.

The book also reveals how the CCP began its practice of harvesting organs from unwilling prisoners as early as the 1980s, subsequently building up China’s transplantation expertise and expanding medical experimentation on political prisoners.

“The very moment when we were introducing them to the World Trade Organization, giving them [Most Favored Nation] status, this was going on, the organ harvesting was getting off the ground,” Shea said.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Exempt Legislators From Their Own Gun Law

The 2026 legislative session has come to a close in Virginia, but not without some last minute changes to several gun control laws that are now on their way to Gov. Abigail Spanberger. 

None of the changes benefit gun owners, except for one… and with that bill only a very select number of Virginians will qualify. 

It reads to me like Virginia Democrats did exempt lawmakers from facing misdemeanor charges if they leave one of their guns where it’s visible in their car, so long as it’s in the parking garage reserved for them. 

This isn’t just hypocrisy. This is a taunt from the anti-gun caucus in Richmond, a reminder to Second Amendment advocates that, no matter how many of them might rally on the statehouse grounds in opposition, they have the power to both pass any gun control bill they want and exempt themselves in the process. 

I asked on X whether this would be the one gun bill that Spanberger vetoes in an attempt to look moderate, but I’m not holding my breath. 2A folks are already complaining about her, so what are they going to do about one more legislative middle finger? If she vetoes the bill, though, she’s going against the gun control lobby who spent a lot of money getting her elected and the Democrat majority in the General Assembly. Maybe she lets the bill become law without her signature, but I think the law.. and the exemption for lawmakers, is going into effect later this year. 

***UPDATE***

As it turns out, while the House of Delegates did approve the language exempting lawmakers from the gun storage bill, that language did not make it in to the version that was sent to the governor. Here’s what happened: 

The Senate and House couldn’t agree on the language of HB 110, so it was assigned to a conference committee to hammer out the differences. The substitute bill that emerged on Saturday morning contained the exemption for lawmakers, and was adopted by the House on a 60-36 vote. The Senate, however, asked for a second conference committee (instead of rejecting the compromise bill outright), and the House agreed, apparently on a voice vote. HB 110 was sent back to the drafting table, and when it emerged for the second time, the lawmaker exemption was gone. The Senate quickly passed the bill and the House concurred a short time later. The bill sent to the governor can be found here

Keep reading

Female Secret Service Agent Who Didn’t Secure Roof of AGR Building at Butler Rally on Day of Trump Assassination Attempt Suspended AGAIN – Hid Marriage to Foreign National

One of the Secret Service agents who failed to secure the roof of the AGR building at the Butler rally on the day of the assassination attempt against President Trump has been suspended again.

Myosoty “Miyo” Perez was one of the agents who failed to secure Trump’s July 2024 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Perez was one of the female agents seen fumbling with her firearm and struggling to holster her gun following the assassination attempt.

Thomas Crooks was able to (climb?) on the roof of the AGR building, put President Trump in his scope from an elevated position, and fire his weapon at Trump.

A countersniper killed Crooks.

President Trump was shot in the ear, and firefighter Corey Comperatore was fatally shot.

To this day, only six Secret Service agents connected to the Butler assassination attempt were temporarily suspended without pay.

Myosoty Perez was one of the six Secret Service agents who were suspended, but she was allowed back at her post until she was suspended again.

President Trump also banned Perez from getting anywhere near him.

According to Real Clear Politics, Perez was suspended for not properly disclosing her relationship and marriage to a foreign national.

Perez secretly married a Brazilian woman in April 2025 and did not notify the agency until this January, according to Real Clear Politics.

The agency is investigating whether Perez’s partner was actually in the US illegally and overstayed her visa.

This is the third time that Perez has been suspended in the last year-and-a-half.

“Despite the ongoing congressional investigations and internal Secret Service review of her role in the Butler failures, Perez quietly married a Brazilian foreign national last April without notifying the agency, according to a copy of her marriage certificate located on the Brevard County public records website and according to sources familiar with the timing of when she informed the agency of her marriage. Upon learning of the marriage, the agency suspended her and issued an internal “Do Not Admit” notice,” RealClear Politics reported.

“The internal Secret Service investigation is examining whether the woman Perez was dating and married last year had overstayed her visa and was facing a deportation order, multiple sources familiar with the matter told RCP,” the outlet reported.

Keep reading

What Covid Policy Did to Doctors Who Refused to Stay Silent

The sound I remember most from the early days of Covid-19 is not the alarms. It was the silence between them. Intensive care units became Covid wards. Monitors glowed in dark rooms while ventilators pushed air into failing lungs. Nurses, shrouded in protective gear, moved quietly. Families were absent—barred from being with loved ones in their final hours.

One night at 3 am, I stood by a patient whose oxygen levels were steadily falling. Outside the room, another patient crashed. Down the hall, a third awaited intubation. For months, this was every night. For 715 consecutive days, I worked in that environment without taking a single day off. In moments like that, medicine becomes very simple. There are no politics in an ICU at 3 am. There is only a physician and a patient, and the responsibility to do everything possible to keep that patient alive.

That philosophy has guided physicians for generations. It is the foundation of clinical medicine: when a patient is dying, you explore every reasonable option that might help.

Yet during Covid, something extraordinary happened. What made the shift so jarring was not simply the presence of disagreement. Physicians have always disagreed. In fact, disagreement is the normal language of medicine. Grand rounds exist for that reason. Journal clubs exist for that reason. The entire structure of scientific publication—from peer review to replication—exists because medicine advances through argument, not obedience. During the pandemic, however, the culture of medicine changed almost overnight. Instead of asking whether a treatment might work, institutions began asking whether discussing that treatment might create the wrong public message. The priority quietly shifted from discovery to control.

Scientific debate faded. Physicians who questioned policies or explored treatments were treated as threats rather than colleagues. Instead of debate, there was enforcement.

Hospitals warned physicians to stay quiet. Medical boards hinted at disciplinary action. Social media platforms censored discussion of therapies that doctors around the world were actively studying. Media outlets portrayed dissenting physicians as reckless or dangerous. What had once been normal scientific discourse was suddenly labeled misinformation.

To physicians trained in earlier decades, this shift was deeply unsettling. Medicine has always lived with uncertainty. Treatments begin as hypotheses and evolve through observation and debate. During the AIDS crisis, clinicians tried multiple strategies before effective therapies emerged. The same was true for sepsis, trauma care, and organ transplantation. No one expected immediate unanimity. Yet during Covid, uncertainty itself became suspect. If a physician acknowledged that evidence was incomplete—or that clinical experience suggested alternative approaches—those statements were sometimes interpreted as challenges to authority rather than contributions to knowledge.

Keep reading

Is “Taxation Without Representation” Occurring in 2026? Massive School District Bond Fraud Uncovered Across the US

Perhaps no phrase is used more to describe the grievances of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution than “No taxation without representation!

Mark Maloy, a historian wrote “While the exact phrase did not appear until 1768, the principle of having consent from the people on issues of taxation can be traced all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Magna Carta was one of the first steps in limiting the power of the king and transferring that power to the legislative body in England, the Parliament. Parliament had the power to levy taxes. When King Charles I attempted to impose taxes on the English people by himself in 1627, the Parliament passed the Petition of Right the following year, which stated that the subjects of the king “should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.”

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights from 1689 helped to form the basis of the British constitution (which is not a single document, but a combination of written and unwritten agreements). The British constitution protected the rights of Englishmen. English colonists in North America believed that they had the same rights as Englishmen. In North America, colonists formed their own colonial governments under charters from the king and regulated their own forms of taxation through their colonial legislatures. For many decades, these colonies enjoyed an extended period of benign neglect as the English parliament let them handle taxation on their own.

In Great Britain in the eighteenth century, there were no income taxes because it was viewed as too much of a government intrusion into the lives of the people. Instead, taxes were placed on property and on imported and exported goods. Money from these taxes helped to pay for public goods and services and supported the government’s military for defense.

In North America, the British colonies regulated their own tax system in each individual colony. These taxes, though, were exceedingly low, and the colonies did not have a professional military to support. Instead, they used a volunteer militia system to defend their towns and homes from attacks along the frontier.

In 1754, the French and Indian War broke out in North America. During the war, the British sent their military to help defend the colonies. The war spread across the globe and became known as the Seven Years’ War. Following Britain’s victory in 1763, the British national debt greatly increased. They now had a larger empire that needed to be defended. In light of this tenuous situation, and since the North American colonists benefited directly from the British military during the war, Great Britain looked to levy taxes on the colonists to raise revenue for the Crown.

In Massachusetts in 1764, James Otis published a pamphlet titled “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” which argued that man’s rights come from God and that governments should only exist to protect those natural rights. He believed that any attempt to tax the colonists without their consent violated the British constitution. Here, Otis made a compelling argument for the need for representation in any taxation on the colonies: “no parts of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature; that the refusal of this would seem to be a contradiction in practice to the theory of the constitution.”

Colonists wrote pamphlets protesting taxes and explaining their views. Daniel Dulaney the Younger from Maryland wrote this one in 1765.

Keep reading