We are told to never forget. That is the easy part. The harder part — the part official Washington has never wanted to sit with — is to look again at what was actually photographed at the Pentagon that morning, and to ask whether the pictures still support the account we were given.

This is not a piece about New York. It is not a piece about Shanksville. It is not a piece that pretends to name a plot. We said the same thing when we first put these frames in front of readers in March 2024: *without going onto the “who did it” of it all*. What follows is the visual record at the one target that was supposed to be the most defended building on Earth — and the questions that record still will not bury.

If you have not read our earlier collection of Pentagon footage and FBI interior stills, start here: [Revisiting 9/11]

What we were told

The official account is short, and it has not moved in a quarter century.

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 registered N644AA, left Washington Dulles at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. Five hijackers took the aircraft. At 9:37:46 a.m. Eastern, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour and a few feet off the grass, the jet struck the west face of the Pentagon — Wedge 1, the section that had just been renovated and reinforced. All 64 people on the aircraft were killed. One hundred twenty-five people inside the building were killed. A section of the outer ring came down about twenty minutes later.

That is the story. A 155-foot airliner with a 125-foot wingspan, full of jet fuel, disappeared into reinforced concrete at highway-overpass height, left a comparatively compact wound in the first photographs, punched a neat hole through to an interior service road, and left trees, a flagpole, and stretches of lawn looking as if a storm had missed them.

Look at the pictures. Then decide how comfortable you are with that sentence.

Image One — The fireball, before the façade came down

This is the frame we put in front of readers on March 25, 2024, quoting Alex Jones’s question — *where is the passenger jet?* — and adding our own:

> Imagine a hole roughly the size of the orange fireball you see here — taken before the collapse of that portion of the building. Light pole and tree seem unaffected from the “plane crash.” Now compare that orange glow to the “exit” hole in the last images.

Twenty-five years later the same photograph still does the same work.

What the frame actually shows, without commentary:

• A compact orange fireball at the base of the west wall, not a wing-shaped wound 125 feet across.

• A column of black smoke already boiling straight up the façade.

• A mature tree, still leafed, standing to the right of the fire.

• The flagpole standing.

• Arlington County rescue apparatus in the left foreground.

• Construction trailers and fencing from the renovation still on the lawn.

• Firefighters and civilians on the highway barrier, close enough to sit on the wall and watch.

• A maroon sedan in the near lane. Ordinary traffic geometry. No wreckage field of engines, landing gear, and fuselage sections in the roadway.

The official explanation for the small-looking wound is that this photograph is taken *before* the outer wall failed, and that the “real” entry hole was about 75 feet wide if you count destroyed first-floor columns rather than the fireball you can see. The American Society of Civil Engineers said as much in The Pentagon Building Performance Report (2003). They also said one wing struck the ground, the other was sheared by columns, and that what remained of the aircraft “flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.”

That is an extraordinary physical claim. It may be true. It is also convenient. It asks the public to ignore the picture in front of them and trust a column-count performed after the façade had already come down.

Our question in 2024 was simpler, and it has not aged out:

If a Boeing 757 arrived on that lawn at 530 miles per hour, where, in this frame, is the path of a 125-foot wing?

The tree is still there. The pole is still there. The trailers are still there. The fireball is the size of a room, not the size of an airliner.

The aircraft we are asked to fit into that frame, a Boeing 757-200 is not a small object.

• Length: about 155 feet

• Wingspan: 124 feet, 10 inches

• Fuselage width: roughly 12 and a half feet

• Tail height: about 44 feet

• Typical fuel load on a transcontinental departure: measured in the tens of thousands of pounds

The official flight-path study from the NTSB puts the aircraft a few feet above the ground in the last third of a second, after a descending 330-degree right turn, engines near maximum, nose pitched down. Light poles on the approach are said to have been clipped. A 750-kilowatt generator on the construction site is said to have been struck by the right wing. The left engine is said to have hit a steam vault. Then the nose entered the west wall.

That sequence is tidy on paper. In the photograph above, the tidy sequence has to live in a strip of lawn and construction yard that still has a standing tree and a standing flagpole in the same field of view as the fire.

We are not required to pretend that is an easy fit.

The collapse that enlarged the wound

About twenty minutes after the strike — sources put the failure near 9:57 to 10:15 a.m. — a section of the E Ring above the impact came down. The hole the public remembers from the afternoon photographs is not the hole in the first photographs. It is the hole after the building did the work the aircraft, in the official story, did not finish in one piece.

On March 25, 2024, we put it this way:

> After the initial missile strike, they realized that the entry point was WAY too small for a jetliner. They decided to pull down a huge portion of the outer ring corridor.

Call it a missile. Call it a plane. Call it whatever the next document dump requires. The sequence in the photographs is not in dispute: first a compact fire at the base of the wall, then a much larger bite taken out of the façade. The official report says gravity and fire did that work, starting at an expansion joint, after columns on the first floor had already been destroyed.

The public was shown the larger wound. The public was told that was the airplane. The earlier frame — the one with the orange fireball and the standing tree — is the one that still has to be explained, not the one taken after the wall failed.

Image Two — The “exit” hole, and the orange paint

This is the other photograph that will not go away.

Official language has always been careful here. The Army and the ASCE did not say the fuselage came out the other side. They said an engine or the landing gear punched a hole of about twelve feet in the inner wall of Ring C, opening onto AE Drive, the interior service road that rings the building between C and B. The opening in this frame is tight, almost tidy, with a black soot bloom on the lintel and a debris field of office contents, insulation, and broken masonry on the wet floor.

Look at it the way a crime-scene photographer would look at it.

• The opening is not 155 feet long. It is not 125 feet wide. It is a punch.

• The wall around it is standing.

• The spray-paint tags — “MD” inside an inverted V — are the markings of the Military District of Washington / responder teams working the scene, not some occult signature. They are still part of the picture. They tell you this frame was processed as evidence.

• The debris on the floor is real. What is not obvious in the frame is a Boeing 757.

In 2024 we asked readers to put Image One next to this one: the orange fireball on the west face, and this punch-out on an interior ring. That comparison is the whole case for a second look. A large commercial aircraft is supposed to have connected those two points, through three rings of a fortified office building, and left this as the far-side souvenir.

The official answer is that most of the aircraft disintegrated into the first ring, and only a heavy component — gear or engine — continued. That is possible. It is also the sort of answer that should have been accompanied, in a country that claims to believe in evidence, by an unedited, high-resolution camera record of the half-second before impact. That record was never given to the public in a form that settles the question.

The cameras that should have ended the argument

The Pentagon is not a farmhouse. It is ringed with cameras.

What the public received were a handful of low-resolution security frames from a Pentagon parking-gate camera, released by the Department of Defense years after the fact, in which a blur streaks across a few frames and a fireball appears. Independent researchers have argued for two decades over whether those frames show a 757, a smaller object, or almost nothing that can be identified at all.

Citizens who stood on Route 27 and on the overpasses that morning described a large silver airliner. Other citizens described something they could not identify. A C-130 crew circling the area radioed that an aircraft had hit the building. Forensic teams later said they identified the remains of the people on Flight 77.

None of that is nothing. None of that is a substitute for the raw, unedited camera takes from every Pentagon-facing lens that was running at 9:37 a.m. Those takes were collected. They were not published as a set. Twenty-five years later, that is still the hole in the public record that no press conference has filled.

When the most fortified office building in the United States is struck in daylight, and the public is asked to accept a liquid-metal explanation for why the first photographs do not show an airliner-shaped wound, the cameras are not a courtesy. They are the case.

What the FBI Vault added — and what it did not

In 2017 the FBI’s FOIA library, The Vault, posted a set of Pentagon investigation stills that had sat out of circulation: overheads, exteriors, debris fields, emergency-response frames, and interior shots of agents working the scene. We published a run of that material in [Revisiting 9/11], in March 2024, alongside emergency-response video most readers had never been shown.

The Vault release was useful. It was not a substitute for the missing seconds of video. It showed fire, water, debris, and men in raid jackets standing in rooms that had been offices that morning. It showed the punch-out. It did not show a 757 at rest. It did not show a 757 in the last hundred yards. It showed the aftermath of whatever arrived.

That is the honest description of the file.

The questions that are still not crank questions

Twenty-five years is long enough for slogans to harden into liturgy. It is also long enough for a free people to demand that a photograph be allowed to mean what it shows.

These are the questions the pictures still ask. They do not require a theory of the crime. They require an answer in evidence.

1. Why does the first public photograph of the west face show a compact fireball rather than a 125-foot wound?** If the answer is “the wall fell in later,” say so every time the afternoon photographs are used as if they were the impact.

2. How did a 757 cross that lawn at a few feet of altitude and leave the tree and flagpole in Image One standing in the same frame as the fire?** If the flight path ran elsewhere on the grass, publish the surveyed path against this exact photograph.

3. Why was the far-side opening in Ring C the size of a truck bay, and why was it attributed to landing gear rather than a fuselage?

4. Where is the complete, time-stamped camera record from every Pentagon exterior lens running at 9:37 a.m.? Not five frames. The take.

5. Why did it take until 2017 for a basic FBI photo set to reach The Vault, and why are so many of those frames still the kind of image that raises more questions than it closes?

We can honor the dead — 184 at the Pentagon, thousands in New York, forty in a Pennsylvania field — without agreeing that curiosity about a photograph is a moral failure. The people who died in Wedge 1 are not protected by a blurry gate camera. They are protected by a record that can stand in daylight.

What we published in 2024, and why we are publishing it again

On March 25 and 26, 2024, we put these frames on X and on this desk.

The first post is here: [x.com/georgenews/status/1772351283552510209]

The follow-up piece, with the video record from the Pentagon grounds, is here: https://www.georgenews.org/p/revisiting-911

We said then that recent events had put 9/11 back in front of people who had been told the file was closed. Two more years have gone by. The file is the same. The photographs are the same. The official sentences are the same.

What has changed is the anniversary. Twenty-five years is the point at which a government that was confident in its account would have released the rest of the tape, because there would be nothing left to protect except the feelings of people who were wrong.

They have not released the rest of the tape.

So we will keep putting the pictures on the table. The orange fireball. The standing tree. The standing pole. The small punch-out with the orange paint. The collapse that arrived later and did the work the first frame did not show.

Readers can hold those images next to a Boeing 757. They do not need a laboratory to do it. They need permission to look.

Never forget — including the part they asked you not to look at

We will say the names when the memorials say the names. We will not pretend that a slogan is the same thing as a closed investigation.

September 11, 2001, at the Pentagon, is a morning that still has a photograph problem. Twenty-five years is long enough to admit that.

Look at the fireball. Look at the tree. Look at the pole. Look at the hole they called an exit. Then ask the only question that has ever mattered in this file:

If that is a 757, why does the first picture still look like this?

---

*GEORGE NEWS is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.*

Regards,

George

This is Part 4. The facts have moved. The moral case has not.

On July 1, 2026, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal dismissed Kim’s latest challenge to the Justice Minister’s surrender order. The last domestic door is leave to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. That is a narrow door. After that, the only people who can still stop this are political: Wellington, and Washington.

Two days before I published a short note on X asking you to remember him in your prayers, I sat with Kim at his home in New Zealand. I’m back visiting the country until October. This is no longer a file I read. It is a man I have looked in the eye after fourteen years of this.

Regardless of your party, your tribe, or what you think of file-sharing in 2012 — the unnecessary prosecution and torment of Kim Dotcom for almost fifteen years is government overreach fused to a Hollywood lobby vendetta. We can argue about everything else. We should be able to agree on this.

What just happened in the courts

The Court of Appeal did not retry whether Megaupload was a pirate ship. It asked whether the Minister of Justice erred in law or fact when he signed the surrender warrant. The panel said no. It rejected the argument that a likely U.S. guidelines range of 30 to 150 years “shocks the conscience” of informed New Zealanders. It rejected the claim that co-defendants who took deals in 2022 created a duty to charge Kim in New Zealand instead. It ordered costs.

That is the legal posture as of September 2026: eligibility for extradition was settled years ago; the Minister’s surrender decision has now survived High Court and Court of Appeal review; Supreme Court leave is the remaining Kiwi appeal.

None of that answers the American question.

The American question is whether this indictment should still exist.

The law still does not add up — and it never did

I will not re-litigate every footnote from Part 1. The white paper by Robert Amsterdam and Ira P. Rothken, The United States vs. You (and Kim Dotcom), remains the clearest map of the wreckage. The core points have not aged out:

Secondary copyright infringement is not a federal crime. The Copyright Act creates civil and criminal liability for direct infringement. It does not make a cloud locker a racketeer because users stored files. Dowling v. United States (1985) is still the Supreme Court’s warning: only Congress invents new crimes. Congress never wrote “aiding user uploads” as a felony.

DMCA safe harbor was not a slogan. Megaupload used it. They processed takedown notices. They even gave major studios direct access to pull infringing links. Viacom v. YouTube (2013) said generalized knowledge that some users infringe does not strip a service of safe harbor.

Substantial non-infringing use still matters. Sony Betamax (1984) protected a machine because people used it for more than theft. Megaupload stored family photos, schoolwork, business archives. U.S. government and military personnel used it.

Jurisdiction was always the quiet scandal. Foreign company. No U.S. offices. Most users and servers offshore. Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010): U.S. statutes do not rule the earth unless Congress says so.

Process was dirty from the first warrant. Files the FBI asked them to preserve were later spun as ignored takedowns. Ex parte seizures. GCSB illegal spying. Invalid raid warrants. Prime Minister’s apology. Data taken out of New Zealand in breach of local law.

The Hollywood civil case against him was terminated on March 16, 2023. The criminal case is the one that will not die.

Hollywood’s vendetta is not a vibe. It is the origin story.

After SOPA collapsed in 2012, the MPAA needed a scalp. Megaupload had already been branded a “notorious market.” Chris Dodd — then MPAA chief, longtime Biden Senate ally — turned the heat up. Helicopters. Dogs. A global freeze. A press narrative written before the first hearing. The case landed in the Eastern District of Virginia under a U.S. Attorney who had been a Biden aide.

The white paper’s phrase is the right one: state capture. You do not have to love Megaupload to see the principle. If a lobby can turn a civil copyright fight into a 14-year transnational manhunt, every cloud locker on earth is next.

The human cost is no longer theoretical

November 2024: stroke. Speech impaired. Memory holes. Balance so wrecked he has described feeling drunk in a body that has never been drunk. Wheelchair through a long stretch of rehab. He has fought — lost a huge amount of weight, worked with nurses and coaches, posted through the fog.

I have now sat with him more than once. The first visit was the larger-than-life innovator with a laugh that filled the room. This week’s visit was a father of six who is still funny, still sharp in flashes, and visibly paying for a case that should have been dismissed before his children finished growing up.

Fourteen years of this is the punishment. The trial would only be the second act.

Why this is urgent now

Three clocks are running.

Wellington. Supreme Court leave is discretionary. If it is refused, surrender mechanics start moving.

The body. Stroke recovery is not a straight line. A Virginia detention center is not a rehab ward.

Washington. This is an Obama-era trophy that survived Biden and now sits on a Trump DOJ desk. Declining to pursue, moving to dismiss, or recommending against extradition is not “soft on copyright.” It is a decision that the United States will not use felony statutes as a trade association’s enforcement arm.

A pardon, a declination, or a simple finding that this 2012 indictment is no longer in the interests of justice would end a saga that has already outlived the website, the civil case, and the health of the defendant.

Who he actually is

The 2012 press package was “pirate in a mansion.” The record is an entrepreneur who built a locker millions used for ordinary storage, who patented two-factor authentication and open-sourced it, and who has spent the back half of his adult life as a defendant instead of a builder.

You can dislike the old business model. That does not get you to: invalid warrants, a frozen family, ignored DMCA compliance, extraterritorial criminal law, and a stroke patient being told to board a plane toward a 30-to-150-year guidelines range.

That is not law and order. That is an example being made.

What I am asking you to do

This is not a fandom. It is a due-process test.

1. Read the record — Part 1 and Part 2 — not the 2012 press release.

2. Share this past your usual tribe. The argument does not require agreement on Trump, Biden, or SOPA. It requires agreement that fourteen years is enough.

3. Put it in front of people who can still stop it: White House counsel, DOJ leadership, the pardon office, New Zealand’s Prime Minister and Justice Minister.

4. Pray for him if that is your language. I asked for that on X after I left his house. I am asking again.

Kim Dotcom is not a mascot. He is a test of whether the United States can admit a prosecution was born in a lobby and should die in an office.

I sat with him. I will not look away while the last door closes.

Stay vigilant.

— George

At the time, the account already showed an outstanding balance of approximately $1,800.

New primary documents prove the problem never went away.

The June 2026 Evidence

Screenshots provided to us by a whistleblower, and taken directly from the AT&T customer portal, along with the official billing statement issued June 24, 2026, tell a clear story.

The account remains under the name ROBERT H. BIDEN at 1101 30TH ST NW STE 500, WASHINGTON, DC 20007-3772 — an address long associated on the public record with Hunter Biden’s professional activities. The visible email domain in the portal is consistent with Rosemont Seneca, Hunter’s former firm.

Current status (as of late June 2026):

• Total due: $1,800.07 — flagged as “Past due — please pay immediately.”

• AutoPay is listed as scheduled for July 13, 2026, yet the account shows the full amount past due.

• The bill history graphic displays eight consecutive months (November 2025 through June 2026) all marked as past due in the exact amount of $1,800.07 each.

These are not old documents or secondary sources. They are current captures from AT&T’s own systems.

Direct Link to Our 2023 Reporting

The account number is identical to the one we examined in December 2023: 464064729470.

In that original piece we showed how documents from the Biden laptop archive established Hunter Biden as the primary account holder, with Joe Biden added as a secondary user. Secondary access on AT&T plans permits the user to view billing information, make plan changes, and manage the line — giving the secondary user significant control and privacy.

The 2023 documents already showed the account carrying an unpaid balance. The new 2026 evidence demonstrates that balance was never fully resolved and has now become a sustained, multi-month pattern of delinquency.

Read that report here:

What Does a $1,800 Monthly Bill Actually Represent?

This is not a basic single-line consumer plan. A recurring charge of this size typically reflects multiple lines, premium features, high data usage, international capabilities, or a bundled family/business plan.

Whatever the exact composition, the service has remained active while the bills have gone unpaid for many years. If Joe Biden’s private line was (or still is) one of the lines on this account, then communications potentially touching the highest levels of American government have been running on a chronically delinquent plan.

The Pattern and the Question It Raises

Dozens of consecutive months overdue on the exact same account we flagged nearly three years ago is not an oversight. It is a pattern.

Hunter Biden has been highly visible in recent weeks — active on social media with viral posts, appearing in long-form podcast interviews, and speaking candidly about politics, recovery, and the Democratic Party’s direction. Visibility at this level usually coincides with access to resources.

Yet the same AT&T account tied to his father’s private communications continues to show a persistent unpaid balance.

This raises straightforward questions:

• Why has this specific account remained delinquent for so long?

• Has AutoPay actually been processing, or has it been failing repeatedly?

• If the line associated with Joe Biden is still active on this plan, what does that say about the continuity of any private communications channel established years ago?

Paying a phone bill on time is basic. When it becomes a recurring failure on an account connected to a former President — and when that pattern was already publicly documented years earlier — it moves beyond personal finance into the realm of accountability.

Bottom Line

The documents are unambiguous.

The identical AT&T account (464064729470) under Robert H. Biden that GEORGE NEWS flagged in December 2023 for carrying an unpaid balance is still delinquent in June 2026 — with eight straight months of past-due status visible in the customer portal and confirmed by the official June 24 bill. The bill in its entirety is actually many years overdue.

Hunter Biden dominates headlines and social media right now. The bill linked to his father’s private line remains unpaid.

We will continue to monitor and publish primary documents on this matter. The public has a right to see whether basic contractual obligations tied to communications at the highest levels of power are being met.

Many thanks to our source who provided these to us.

Today, we revisit that story in greater detail. Hunter Biden is now active on Substack (@hunterbiden), sharing his own perspective. This makes it the right moment to lay out the documented timeline and what has (and hasn’t) changed according to the public record.

The Core of the 2024 Whistleblower Revelations — Expanded

Our reporting centered on BHR Partners (Bohai Harvest RST Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd.), a China-backed private equity firm. Key established facts include:

• December 2013: BHR was formed with registered capital of approximately 30 million RMB (roughly $4.87 million at the time). It was controlled by Bohai Industrial Investment Fund, with significant backing from the state-owned Bank of China. The firm focused on mergers, acquisitions, and investments in state-owned enterprises.

• December 4, 2013: Then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to China on Air Force Two with his son Hunter. During the trip, Hunter Biden arranged a meeting between his father and BHR CEO Jonathan Li. Photos from the trip later surfaced showing Joe Biden with Hunter and BHR executives, including Jonathan Li and managing partner Ming Xue.

• Hunter Biden’s Role: He served as a director on BHR’s board (initially described by his representatives as an unpaid position). In October 2017 — after Joe Biden’s vice presidency ended — Hunter (through his company Skaneateles LLC) invested approximately $420,000–$485,000 to acquire a 10% equity stake in BHR. House Oversight Committee records document specific wires, including a $250,000 transfer from Jonathan Li and Tan Ling, and a $10,000 wire from a BHR employee, with addresses linked to Biden family properties.

• Business Activity: BHR grew rapidly, managing over $1.7–2.1 billion in assets under management by the mid-2010s. It participated in deals such as investments in Chinese energy and chemical companies. One notable transaction involved helping a Chinese company pursue a major cobalt mine acquisition.

The CCP whistleblower claims centered on the impact of these arrangements on what was described as the “Biden Crime Family” network, along with leaks involving a Chinese server. These details aligned with the broader pattern of questions GEORGE NEWS has covered regarding elite financial entanglements.

Above: Context from the 2013 China trip involving Joe Biden and Hunter Biden (publicly circulated images from the period).

Where Things Stand Now — Expanded Legal & Business Timeline

Hunter Biden’s post-White House chapter includes several documented developments:

• 2023–2024 Legal Proceedings: Appointed special counsel investigated tax and gun-related matters. Hunter was convicted in June/July 2024 on three federal felony gun charges (lying about drug use on a firearm form and related counts). In September 2024, he pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges (three felonies and six misdemeanors) related to failure to pay taxes on millions in income.

• Pardon: In late 2024/early 2025, pResident Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon to his son Hunter for the federal offenses.

• 2025 Disbarments: Hunter was disbarred by the District of Columbia Bar and the Connecticut Bar Association following the convictions.

• Financial & Personal Status: Reports have described ongoing financial pressures, including significant legal fees, lower-than-expected memoir sales, and other personal challenges. Hunter has described periods of “homelessness” after losing housing in the 2025 Palisades Fire.

• BHR Status: Hunter resigned from the BHR board years earlier (announced intent in 2019). His 10% stake was held through Skaneateles LLC. Public corporate updates on BHR’s current holdings, distributions, or operations since then have been limited. The historical financial flows and board involvement remain part of the congressional record.

Above: Example of the detailed Biden family influence peddling timeline released by the House Oversight Committee (public document).

Elite Networks and Transparency — Expanded

The whistleblower’s claims in 2024 raised serious, documented questions about how foreign capital and influence networks intersect with U.S. political families. House Oversight Committee investigations produced extensive timelines, bank records, and witness statements detailing wires, meetings, and business structures involving BHR and related entities.

Key patterns highlighted in the public record include:

• Use of multiple LLCs and associates to facilitate transactions.

• Timing of meetings and investments relative to Joe Biden’s vice presidential role.

• Limited transparency around returns or ongoing involvement after the initial stake purchase.

Media coverage of these specific China-related dealings has often been selective or limited compared to other stories. GEORGE NEWS has consistently focused on primary documents and timelines rather than partisan narratives. The core principle remains: full transparency benefits the public, regardless of the individuals or administrations involved.

Above: Publicly released Oversight Committee chart illustrating payment flows connected to Biden family associates and Chinese entities (example of the level of detail in the investigations).

Key Timeline Summary (for quick reference)

• Dec 2013: BHR formed; Joe Biden meets Jonathan Li on Air Force Two trip.

• 2014: Hunter and associate invest ~$485k into BHR.

• Oct 2017: Hunter acquires 10% stake via Skaneateles LLC (post-vice presidency)

• 2019: Hunter announces intent to step down from BHR board amid scrutiny. Devon Archer arranges for Elon Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro to replace him.

• 2023–2024: Federal investigations, trials, and convictions.

• Late 2024/early 2025: Presidential pardon.

• 2025: Disbarments in D.C. and Connecticut.

• 2026: Hunter active on Substack and X (@hunterbiden); limited new public updates on BHR operations.

The whistleblower’s claims in 2024 shone a light on BHR and these networks. The public record has grown with court outcomes, congressional documents, and Hunter Biden’s own recent platform activity — yet many original questions about transparency and accountability persist.

Special note to @hunterbiden: Since you’re now active on Substack sharing your perspective, readers benefit from seeing the full documented record alongside it. The public deserves maximum transparency on these matters.

We told you.

We told you on May 28, 2024, in a 13-point thread that racked up over a million views. We told you again on February 13, 2026, in the vindication update when the Cornyn-Paxton war was already underway. Everything we laid out — the Never Trump history, the self-dealing, the protection of RINOs, the McConnell-orbit ties, the trashing of Ken Paxton — has now been confirmed in the most expensive and embarrassing way possible.

Call us Nostradamus if you want. The receipts don’t lie.

The Viral Predictions That Just Came True

Here’s what we wrote in May 2024 (full thread here)

Then, on February 13, 2026 — as the Texas primary was heating up — we updated it (full thread here)

We were called alarmist. We were told LaCivita was a “winner” who delivered 2024. Now the same operative who protected Never Trump hires and attacked Paxton is the one who just torched nearly $100 million trying (and failing) to save John Cornyn.

The Career Arc That Reveals Everything (LegiStorm + NRSC Receipts)

According to LegiStorm’s employment history for Christopher Joseph LaCivita (born July 15, 1966, McKeesport, Pa.; Virginia Commonwealth University, political science, 1989; Purple Heart recipient):

• 2014: Executive Campaign Manager, Pat Roberts for U.S. Senate (Kansas) — longtime establishment incumbent.

• 2015–2016: Senior Adviser, Rand Paul 2016.

• 2018–2019: National Republican Strategist, RPC Strategies Inc.

• 2019–2022: Partner, FP1 Strategies LLC (frequently tied to McConnell-aligned operations).

• 2024: Senior Adviser / Co-Manager, Donald J. Trump for President 2024 Inc.

• 2025 – January 2026: Of Counsel, PLUS Communications LLC (a major GOP public affairs and lobbying firm).

• 2025 onward: Senior Adviser, Texans for a Conservative Majority (pro-Cornyn super PAC); also joined Lindsey Graham’s reelection campaign as senior adviser (announced June/July 2025), where he publicly attacked Project 2025 architect Paul Dans as trying to “torpedo” Trump’s campaign while defending Graham as Trump’s “longtime friend and ally.”

Notice the pattern. No senior White House job after co-managing the 2024 victory (unlike Susie Wiles). He went straight back to the private-sector revolving door and the old NRSC/RINO protection circuit. The same man who once ran political operations for the NRSC is now helping the NRSC’s traditional allies (Cornyn is a former NRSC chairman) wage war on MAGA challengers.

Chris LaCivita is not an ideologue who had a change of heart. He is a professional operative whose business model has always thrived on access to whoever holds the checkbook.

The $92+ Million Disaster in Texas — And the NRSC’s Role

In 2025, Cornyn brought LaCivita on as senior adviser to Texans for a Conservative Majority. Establishment donors, the NRSC machine, and leadership poured resources into the effort. Reports show at least $92 million spent to help Cornyn (AdImpact tracking), with the super PAC alone raising ~$35.6 million and spending heavily. Total advertising in the Republican primary race approached or exceeded $128 million — one of the most expensive Senate primaries in U.S. history.

Timeline of the collapse:

• March 3, 2026 primary: No candidate reaches majority.

• May 19, 2026: President Trump endorses Ken Paxton.

• May 26, 2026 runoff: Paxton defeats Cornyn ~63.5% – 36.5%.

A four-term incumbent in a state Donald Trump won by double digits got routed after the base finally got the endorsement it wanted. LaCivita’s side spent like it was protecting the last lifeboat on the Titanic — and still lost decisively.

The NRSC (LaCivita’s old employer and institutional home) played its traditional role: backing the incumbent through joint fundraising committees that allowed cheaper ad buys and funneled hard dollars into the protection racket. This is the machine at work.

The NRSC Double Standard: $92 Million for One RINO, Next to Nothing for Kari Lake

Here’s what makes this even more galling.

The same National Republican Senatorial Committee where LaCivita served as Political Director in 2002 and 2010 — the same committee that once paid him and deployed him to save establishment incumbents like Pat Roberts — chose to dump tens of millions into saving John Cornyn in deep-red Texas.

Meanwhile, in Arizona — a genuine battleground — Kari Lake ran for the U.S. Senate in 2024 against Democrat Ruben Gallego. The NRSC gave nominal endorsement and joined her joint fundraising committee, but the institutional effort was a fraction of what was deployed in Texas. Democrats and their allies massively outspent the Republican side. Lake was left to fend for herself with far less establishment firepower while the NRSC machine was busy elsewhere propping up RINOs.

They didn’t spend a dime — not in any meaningful, comparable way — on a true MAGA fighter in a competitive state. The priority was protecting the club, not winning the long game or empowering the base.

This is the LaCivita/NRSC worldview in action: Protect the incumbents who keep the donor class and consultant class happy. Attack or ignore the insurgents. Cash the checks. Even when the “safe” bet loses the primary anyway and the real battlegrounds get starved.

The LaCivita Pattern: Graham, Cornyn, and the Consultant Class

LaCivita didn’t just land with Cornyn. He also signed on as senior adviser to Lindsey Graham’s reelection effort in South Carolina — another longtime RINO target facing primary heat. In both cases, the same operative who helped manage Trump’s 2024 win became the hired muscle trying to keep these incumbents safe from America First challengers.

Mainstream outlets have been remarkably quiet about the scale of the embarrassment in Texas. A $92+ million primary loss in a deep-red state, with Trump’s own 2024 co-campaign manager on the incumbent side and the NRSC machine fully engaged, should be front-page news in conservative media. Instead, crickets — because exposing it would require admitting the consultant class and RINO protection racket are still very much alive and well.

The Vindication Is Complete — Now What?

We said in 2024 that LaCivita was more interested in grift and protecting his old networks than in empowering the base. We said he trashed Paxton before and would do it again if the price was right. We said the operation under his influence was prioritizing the wrong people and the wrong fights.

Paxton’s 64-36 thrashing of Cornyn — after Trump finally stepped in — is the final receipt.

The GOP has a choice: keep outsourcing its toughest primaries to operatives whose track record includes Never Trump signaling in 2021, suspected roles in RINO impeachment efforts in 2023, self-dealing allegations in 2024, and now a nearly $100 million embarrassment in 2026... or start treating these consultants like the liabilities they are.

Primary every RINO.
Support fighters like Ken Paxton who actually deliver for the base.
Demand transparency on where donor money goes and who’s really running the ops.
Sideline the snakes who wear the red hat just long enough to get paid, then pivot back to protecting the old guard.

Our 2024 thread wasn’t a conspiracy, as many said. It was pattern recognition. The 2026 Texas disaster — and the parallel protection of Lindsey Graham — is the proof.

The truth doesn’t expire. It just keeps winning.

GEORGE NEWS is reader-supported investigative journalism. If this kind of accountability reporting matters to you — especially when mainstream outlets stay silent on embarrassing GOP spending disasters and consultant grift — consider becoming a paid subscriber at georgenews.org OR make a donation here: https://georgenews.support.

Share this everywhere. Tag your reps and donors. The next primary cycle is already forming.

We told you in 2024. We’re telling you again now.

Primary the problems. Back the proven fighters. Drain the actual swamp — even when it wears a red hat.

(Spending figures drawn from AdImpact, FEC reporting via Texas Tribune, NYT, and contemporaneous coverage. LaCivita employment history confirmed via LegiStorm PowerBrief. Election results certified via Texas officials and major outlets. All original X threads linked above. This is opinion and analysis based on public records and our own prior reporting.)

~GEORGE

This isn’t a typical “procedural spat” in California courts. This is lawfare—weaponized litigation designed to bankrupt, exhaust, and silence a small nonprofit doing exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect: core political reporting and newsgathering on matters of massive public concern. And it exposes how California’s vaunted “anti-SLAPP” statute, meant to shield speech, was twisted here into a tool that prolonged the abuse instead.

Let me break it down for you, step by step, because the stakes couldn’t be higher for every independent journalist, researcher, activist, and citizen who dares speak truth to power.

The Players and the Speech at Issue

Marco Polo isn’t some shadowy operation. It’s a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by Garrett Ziegler—a former Trump White House aide—dedicated to exposing corruption and blackmail through meticulous research and public records. Their work centered on the Hunter Biden laptop: materials of undeniable national significance involving the son of the then-President (and now involving his inner circle).

The speech? Political reporting and commentary published online and in print. It addressed individuals “closely connected to the most powerful levels of government.” As the Reply Brief rightly notes, this occupies “the highest rung of First Amendment protection” and falls into no recognized exception.

Enter P. Kevin Morris—Hunter Biden’s high-powered attorney, benefactor (he reportedly loaned Hunter millions), and a Hollywood-connected figure. In 2023, Morris sued Ziegler and Marco Polo in Los Angeles Superior Court. The claims included civil harassment, criminal impersonation (under Penal Code § 529), false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At the core: allegations that Ziegler (or someone tied to Marco Polo) impersonated a Democratic donor to extract info about the laptop, then “doxed” Morris and subjected him to harassment.

The trial court and parties conceded the speech implicated protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16). Petitioners met their Prong 1 burden. The burden then shifted to Morris to show his claims had both minimal merit (evidentiary) and legal sufficiency.

Here’s where it goes off the rails.

How Anti-SLAPP Became the Problem, Not the Solution

Anti-SLAPP laws exist to quickly dismiss meritless suits that chill public participation—exactly the kind of strategic lawsuit against public participation this one appeared to be. Petitioners filed the special motion to strike on June 20, 2023. The trial court didn’t rule until October 13, 2023. California Supreme Court denied review on November 12, 2025—more than two years later. Morris then tried to voluntarily dismiss the entire complaint less than a month after that.

No trial ever happened. But the parties burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs over nearly three years. Compelled affidavits. Massive legal bills. Years of uncertainty for a small nonprofit.

The Reply Brief nails the constitutional failure: “The anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent this type of protracted, burdensome litigation involving protected speech. Its failure here raises important First Amendment questions that warrant this Court’s review.”

Even more damning: The claims rested on criminal statutes lacking any express private right of action. One such claim was struck; a materially similar one was allowed to proceed. The California courts, per the brief, misallocated the burden—putting it on Petitioners instead of requiring Morris to prove legal sufficiency. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found Petitioners had “forfeited” the argument despite the statute’s plain text placing the burden on the plaintiff.

This isn’t neutral procedure. It’s a blueprint for suppression: “using state civil procedure to burden, punish, and chill disfavored political speech by out-of-state defendants without the constitutional safeguards that ordinarily restrain the government.”

Sound familiar? It should. This is the same playbook we’ve seen against other truth-tellers—prolonged litigation not to win on the merits, but to bleed the target dry.

The brief ties it directly to this Court’s unanimous holding in National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024): Government (or here, courts enabling private actors) can’t use threats of legal sanctions or coercion to suppress disfavored speech. Allowing baseless claims predicated on criminal statutes to survive anti-SLAPP review does exactly that.

Why This Case Matters Nationally—and to Every One of Us

The Petition doesn’t attack the facial validity of California’s anti-SLAPP law. It challenges its application in this case, where it failed to protect core political speech and newsgathering. And that failure has national implications.

Anti-SLAPP statutes (or similar laws) have proliferated across states—some following the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, others with their own frameworks. Divergence creates a patchwork that chills interstate political speech. Out-of-state speakers like Marco Polo (Wyoming LLC, Ziegler not in California) get hammered with California process.

Respondent’s Brief in Opposition (as dissected in the Reply) identifies no material misstatements in the Petition. It mostly relitigates facts the lower courts already resolved in Petitioners’ favor or tries to manufacture disputes. It concedes the speech was protected activity and that Petitioners met their initial burden. But it stays silent on legal sufficiency for the central “criminal impersonation” claim—never even producing the phone number at issue.

The Reply Brief puts it plainly: “Respondent thus takes the peculiar position that the anti-SLAPP statute is unreliable, and a party engaging in protected speech must be financially prepared to litigate not only an anti-SLAPP motion but also additional motions and appellate review. That is not the kind of freedom of speech and of the press the Constitution guarantees.”

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The constitutional questions were fully litigated through the anti-SLAPP proceedings, resolved by the Court of Appeal, and became final with the California Supreme Court’s denial of review. Post-remittitur proceedings (partial fees, dismissal) don’t moot the core injury.

The Human and Constitutional Cost

Hundreds of thousands in costs. Years of litigation. A small nonprofit diverted from its mission of exposing corruption. This is the real-world toll of lawfare. And it sends a chilling message: Dig too deep into powerful people and their enablers, and you’ll face the same.

Morris ultimately had to pay $50,000 in attorney’s fees after claims crumbled—but that’s a fraction of the true burden. The Reply Brief argues the First Amendment doesn’t condition protection on “procedural perfection or financial resources.”

This case also implicates the public’s right to receive information on matters of public concern—not just the speaker’s right to publish it.

Time for SCOTUS to Act (Supreme Court Rule 10(c))

The Petition warrants review because it presents an important, recurring federal question of national importance: the constitutional limits on anti-SLAPP procedures when they burden rather than protect core political speech and newsgathering by out-of-state defendants.

As the Reply Brief concludes: “The speech at issue in this case involved reporting and commentary concerning individuals closely connected to government and matters of substantial public concern. Such speech occupies the highest rung of First Amendment protection, and the constitutional injury extends beyond the parties themselves because the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the public’s right to receive information concerning matters of public concern.”

The Petition should be granted.

Folks, this is why independent outlets like GEORGE NEWS exist. We don’t have billionaire backers or law firms on retainer. We rely on you—our subscribers and supporters—to keep exposing these stories. Cases like this aren’t abstract legal fights; they’re battles over whether the First Amendment remains a shield for the little guy or gets turned into a sword for the connected.

If the Supreme Court takes this up, it could set precedent protecting researchers, journalists, and nonprofits nationwide from abusive litigation. If not, the blueprint for silencing dissent gets stronger.

More here:

“We believe it's the deepest digital colonoscopy ever performed on a sitting U.S. First Family”~ Garrett Ziegler, 501c3.

The documents, both marked “Confidential | Not for Distribution” and never intended for public release, show the university scrambling to address safety concerns and community backlash in fall 2023.

1. The Antisemitism Action Plan Dashboard: “Ensure All Members… Are Aware of the Process for Reporting Acts of Antisemitism or Other Acts of Hate”

The first document is titled “ANTISEMITISM ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD” (last updated November 18, 2023).

Under the “Safety and Security” section, one explicit commitment reads verbatim:

“Ensure all members of the Penn community are aware of the process for reporting acts of antisemitism or other acts of hate; when report occurs, taking action.”

Status: Listed as “Complete / Ongoing”
Most recent action: “President Magill’s November 12 message to the Penn community provided details on Penn’s bias reporting system. Follow up remains ongoing.”

The dashboard also details the formal charging of a University Task Force on Antisemitism on November 16, 2023 (led by Penn Dental Dean Mark Wolff), reviews of event-space reservation policies, and enhanced security measures for Jewish centers. It links to an internal task-force update page:
https://antisemitism-action-plan.upenn.edu/task-force/messages/nov17

This plan was developed as part of a broader push that included education initiatives, student advisory groups, and partnerships with Jewish organizations.

2. The Palestine Writes Literary Festival: The Event That Preceded — and Sparked — the Action Plan

The second leaked document — “Confidential Background Document: Palestine Writes Literature Festival” — provides the university’s own internal talking points on the three-day event held on Penn’s campus September 22-24, 2023.

Key admissions from the confidential memo:

• The festival was organized by an independent non-profit group but took place on university grounds and featured 125 speakers.

• Programming included book talks, film screenings, and panels focused on Palestinian literature, art, and culture.

• Speakers included Pulitzer Prize winner Viet Thanh Nguyen and Arabic Booker Prize winner Ibrahim Nasrallah — but also individuals who sparked major controversy, such as Roger Waters and Marc Lamont Hill.

• While Penn insists “this public event was not organized by the University,” a Penn faculty member in the Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department helped organize it.

• Several official Penn departments and centers sponsored specific sessions (including the Middle East Center, Cinema & Media Studies, Wolf Humanities Center, Sachs Program for Arts Innovation, Kelly Writers House, and Modern Middle Eastern Studies).

• Some Penn courses initially listed attendance at the festival as a class requirement (accommodations were later offered after student concerns were raised).

• The university provided additional police security to Penn Hillel during the surrounding Jewish holidays.

The document repeatedly notes that “many of the Penn affiliates involved were not aware of the controversial speakers when they agreed to sponsor” and that no university units sponsored the most problematic sessions.

The Timeline Tells the Story

The Palestine Writes festival occurred in late September 2023.
Just weeks later, in mid-November 2023, UPenn’s leadership publicly messaged the community about its bias reporting system and formally launched the Antisemitism Task Force — exactly as captured in these confidential dashboards and background memos.

George News obtained the documents from a source concerned about transparency and accountability at one of America’s most elite universities. They were never meant to see the light of day.

UPenn has not responded to requests for comment on the leaks.

What do you think? Should universities be required to publicly disclose these kinds of internal “confidential” plans — especially when they involve campus safety, event hosting, and the protection of Jewish students? Drop your thoughts below — and subscribe to George News for more exclusive document drops and campus accountability reporting.

Sources (both leaked confidential documents on file):

• Antisemitism Action Plan Dashboard (11.19.23)

• Background and Talking Points: Palestine Writes Literature Festival 2023

Share this widely. Truth matters.

~GEORGE~

This isn’t just politics as usual. This is outright deception, exploiting a noble cause like the Fostering Success Act to ambush a fellow conservative. Georgia voters deserve the truth, and George News is here to deliver it unfiltered.

The Setup: A “Charity” Video Turns Political Poison

It all started in September 2025, when a partner at [Redacted] and a key operative for Jackson’s Fostering Success Act initiative reached out to Jones’ team. The pitch? Lt. Gov. Jones, known for his genuine passion for helping foster kids, was asked to record a short video praising Rick Jackson’s work on the tax credit program that supports youth aging out of foster care.

The emails paint a picture of relentless pursuit. [Redacted] begged Jones’ team multiple times to schedule the filming.

They provided scripts, suggested locations (like the Georgia Chamber of Commerce), and even offered teleprompter setups.

Jones, ever the statesman, agreed – recording two videos on a green screen in early December 2025.

One focused on the Fostering Success Act itself, the other a direct shoutout to Jackson:

“Rick Jackson knows firsthand what it’s like to grow up in foster care, and that’s what makes his commitment to helping others so powerful. He’s taken his own experience and turned it into action, creating real opportunities for foster youth, especially those aging out of the system through the Fostering Success Act. We’re incredibly grateful for his heart and his leadership. Thank you, Rick, for all you do for Georgia!”

Jones’s team delivered the videos on December 9, 2025. [Name redacted] responded enthusiastically: “[name redacted] – thank you so much for these!! They’re great!” But here’s the twist – this “thank you” came just one day before Jackson’s highly publicized $1 million donation to Trump’s MAGA PAC on December 10, 2025. Coincidence? Hardly.

“Fostering Success Act Video”

“Rick Jackson Video”

Sources close to the race tell George News this was a blatant stunt to curry favor for a potential Trump endorsement – one that ultimately went to Burt Jones instead.

The emails show no indication that these videos were for anything but year-end donations to the foster program. In fact, when a Jones representative asked for clarification – “Just to confirm - is this for a specific event or just general use?” – [Name redacted] dodged the question entirely. And the timing? These exchanges ramped up the same week “Georgians for Integrity,” a shadowy dark-money group now linked to anti-Jones attack ads, first hit Georgia airwaves.

The Betrayal: From Praise to Attack Ad

Fast forward to March 2026, and Jackson – now officially in the race – has repurposed Jones’s kind words into a brutal TV spot. The ad juxtaposes Jones’ praise with recent criticisms, branding Jones a “liar” for calling out Jackson’s tactics. It’s a masterclass in manipulation: using Jones’ own voice against him, all while hiding behind the veil of a charitable cause.

Recent X posts amplify the outrage. Cole Muzio (@ColeMuzio), president of Frontline Policy Council, called it out directly: “I genuinely hope a nascent campaign wasn’t being planned when Mr. Jackson’s team scripted a video for @burtjonesforga. I’ve refrained from criticism this far, but this appears to be one of the more underhanded things I’ve seen in politics. #gapol”

Holly Kesler (@HollyKesler) went nuclear: “🚨MIND-BLOWING GEORGIA GOV-RACE SCANDAL EXPLODES!😲 I simply can’t believe Rick Jackson’s campaign BEGGED Burt Jones—not once, but multiple times—to drop his name in that glowing ‘good friend’ praise back in December 2025... only to twist it into a savage TV ad calling Jones a LIAR using his OWN words!🤯 And not only that, used his foster care experience and organization as a part of this!!! Disgusting! ... THIS ISN’T DIRTY POLITICS! THESE ARE SICK, TWISTED MIND GAMES!! WAKE UP, GEORGIA!!!”

Kesler’s post includes screenshots of the emails, which also match the chains in our copies, showing the persistent badgering from Jackson’s team.

Jackson’s Troubled Past: IRS Woes and Dark Money Ties

This isn’t Jackson’s first brush with controversy. The self-made billionaire, who rose from foster care to helm a massive healthcare empire, has a history of legal entanglements with the IRS totaling tens of millions in disputes – issues that raise serious questions about his fitness for office. While Jackson touts his rags-to-riches story, critics point to these financial red flags as evidence of slippery dealings.

Add to that the dark-money ads from “Georgians for Integrity,” which have hammered Jones with baseless smears. Jones’s camp has directly accused Jackson of orchestrating these attacks, leading to a defamation lawsuit filed by Jackson just last week. As reported by Atlanta News First, Jones is casting Jackson as the puppet master behind these shadowy efforts, further muddying the GOP primary waters.

Why This Matters for Georgia

Burt Jones, a proven leader with a track record of fighting for conservative values, doesn’t deserve this backstabbing. He’s been transparent about his criticisms of Jackson – from questionable campaign spending to these underhanded tactics. Jackson’s move exploits a genuine act of goodwill, dragging a program meant to help vulnerable kids into the political muck.

Georgians, ask yourselves: Do you want a governor who schemes behind the scenes, twists words for personal gain, and hides behind charity? Or one like Burt Jones, who puts Georgia first without the games?

This is breaking news, and George News will continue to dig deeper. Stay tuned for updates.

Follow us on Telegram and X:

But the grudge is personal — and it started with our viral threads that exposed the insiders. Here’s the full, concise timeline:

April 9, 2024 – our bombshell thread exposed Charlie Spies (Hillary Clinton voter, Jeb/Romney guy, and election fraud denier who praised Biden’s inauguration & called Trump a “grifter”). LaCivita had installed him as RNC Chief Counsel overseeing “election integrity” and protected him as long as possible. Thread went mega-viral. Spies was gone by early May — fired by Trump THREE times (not the “resigned” spin LaCivita pushed).

May 28, 2024 – OUR 13-point follow-up thread directly hammered LaCivita for hiring Never Trumpers, leaking fake stories to WaPo, redirecting millions to his own firms, praising McConnell allies like Jon Lerner & Marc Short, and more. Point #2: “We need a true Trump loyalist like Paul Dans... in this critical Chief Counsel position.”

(3.3K likes, 1M+ views)

July 30, 2024 – Project 2025 becomes Dem attack fodder. LaCivita personally put the screws to Dans and forced him out as director. His statement: “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed... it will not end well for you”. Dans later calls it campaign “malpractice” — overconfidence, failing to prep for Biden→Harris switch (NYT/Guardian).

2025–2026 – Dans launches the America First primary challenge to Trump-endorsed Sen. Lindsey Graham. LaCivita (now Graham advisor) fires back: “What a loser — same guy who spent months trying to sink the @realDonaldTrump campaign...” (July 30, 2025).

“The reason the campaign [not DJT himself] came down like a ton of bricks on Dans, was because George News revealed [with posted proof that was later confirmed by media] that Charlie Spies WAS dismissed by Trump. Not once, but THREE times!” -via one of our WH sources.

Chris LaCivita made sure Charlie Spies was kept on as long as possible. With Spies fired, we put a name forward to help replace him: Paul Dans. He was also the grand mastermind behind Project 2025.

Boom. Gone!

To this day, there’s a lot of animosity towards Paul Dans because of all this. And as they say in ‘Game of Thrones’, “the North remembers”.

(Plus the alleged campaign mail invoicing schemes, 15%+ manager fees/incentives, and FEC lawyer needs — fits the exact pattern of loyalty-vs-grift fights our X threads exposed.)

This is MORE than “just about policy”.

Project 2025 is now the Trump administration’s blueprint (“beyond my wildest dreams,” per Dans). It’s pure score-settling: LaCivita defends the RINO/endorsement machine (Graham in SC, Cornyn in TX) and his old hires; Dans exposed the insiders, named the loyalist solution, and delivered the detailed America First vetting plan Trump is actually using.

MAGA has factions. Real ones remember who shielded Spies... and who got blacklisted for naming the fix.

“The North remembers”. South Carolina voters will decide in 2026.

~GN

We’ve all heard the passionate arguments about “ancestral rights” to the land of Israel. But apply that same logic to the genetic empire of the greatest conqueror in history, and suddenly billions of us could stake a claim to half of Asia. Time to rethink how we weaponize heritage in endless conflicts.

In the heated debates surrounding ancestral rights, historical claims, and who truly “belongs” on a piece of land, the conversation often boils down to this: “Our ancestors were here first—or longest—or suffered the most.” It’s a narrative that fuels identity, justifies policies, and sadly, perpetuates conflict. Nowhere is this more intense than in the land once called Judea, now the State of Israel—a place where Jewish people point to 3,000+ years of biblical, archaeological, and continuous (even if minority) presence; where Palestinians trace roots to ancient Canaanites, Arab conquests, and centuries under Ottoman and British rule; and where both sides invoke exile, persecution, survival, and divine/historical promise.

But what happens when we take that exact same ancestral logic and apply it universally, without exception? What if we followed the bloodlines to their most explosive conclusions?

Enter Genghis Khan.

The Mongol conqueror (born Temüjin ~1162) didn’t just build the largest contiguous land empire in human history—he left a genetic legacy that dwarfs most others. From the Pacific to the Caspian Sea, his armies swept across modern China, Mongolia, Central Asia, Russia, the Middle East, and into Eastern Europe. His sons, grandsons (like Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty fame), and descendants ruled empires for centuries, often through strategic marriages, vast harems, and integration of conquered populations.

A 2003 study in the American Journal of Human Genetics dropped a bombshell:

A specific Y-chromosome lineage, traced to Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, is carried by about 0.5% of the world’s male population—roughly 16 million men at the time (likely higher now with population growth). When including broader descent (mitochondrial lines, autosomal DNA), estimates suggest 1 in 200 people alive today—around 40 million globally—carry some genetic connection to the Great Khan. That’s not folklore; it’s peer-reviewed DNA evidence spanning Asia, Europe, and beyond.

Why the explosion? Genghis and his lineage fathered enormous numbers of children. Historical records (Persian chronicler Ata-Malik Juvaini and others) describe thousands of direct descendants living in privilege by the mid-13th century. The Mongol policy of rewarding loyalty with marriage alliances and concubinage spread those genes far and wide. Today, that signature appears strongly in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, northern China, Pakistan—and traces reach into Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

So here’s the provocative question: If “ancestral rights” are determined by blood ties and historical dominion, don’t millions (perhaps billions, if we go back far enough) have a legitimate claim to Mongolia—the Khan’s homeland—or vast regions of China, ruled by his Yuan Dynasty successors? Could descendants pitch a tent in the Gobi, demand land in Inner Mongolia, or file a historical grievance over Beijing’s Forbidden City?

Of course that sounds ridiculous. We’d dismiss it as absurd. Yet it’s the mirror image of absolutist ancestral arguments elsewhere.

This isn’t to equate situations—Israel’s secular creation in 1948 came after millennia of diaspora, repeated exiles, the Holocaust’s near-annihilation of European Jewry, and international recognition via the UN Partition Plan and Balfour Declaration. Jewish ties to the land are etched in archaeology (Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient synagogues), texts, and unbroken (if diminished) presence. Of course, that’s if the DNA matches.

Palestinian roots run deep—families tied to villages for generations, with ancestry blending Canaanite, Arab, and other layers.

But the Genghis Khan parallel exposes the slippery slope. If DNA + ancient presence = unbreakable claim, then where do we stop? Charlemagne’s descendants (millions of Europeans) could claim France, Germany, Italy. Niall of the Nine Hostages’ Y-lineage entitles many Irish to royal status. The Lemba in Africa carry Jewish priestly markers—does that reopen old debates? Go back further: we’re all African migrants from 70,000 years ago. Universal claim to Ethiopia?

Human history is endless migration, conquest, and mixing. Empires rise, fall, and leave genetic echoes. Clinging to ancient bloodlines as the final arbiter of modern sovereignty ignores treaties, self-determination, practicality, and the reality of shared spaces in 2026.

True peace rarely comes from digging deeper into disputed graves—it comes from looking forward. Compromise, two-state frameworks (however imperfect), federations, or economic integration where history informs but doesn’t dictate. Weaponizing heritage risks eternal division in an era of global migration, climate displacement, and interconnected crises.

If your 23andMe lights up with Mongol markers, are you booking a flight to Ulaanbaatar? Or is it time we all evolve beyond ancestral score-settling?

What do you think, subscribers? Does this genetic thought experiment change how you view land claims anywhere? Drop your takes below—civil discussion encouraged. And if you’ve got your own DNA surprise story, share it.

We laid out 13 irrefutable points exposing Chris LaCivita—then co-manager of Trump’s 2024 campaign—as a snake in MAGA clothing. From hiring vocal anti-Trumpers into key RNC roles (like election fraud denier Charlie Spies as Chief Counsel), to leaking fake stories to the Washington Post, praising Never Trump architects like Jon Lerner and Marc Short, and redirecting over $4 million in campaign funds to his own companies without transparency—we called it all out.

We warned that LaCivita was more interested in grift and protecting establishment RINOs than getting Trump back in the White House.

You can revisit that original thread here:

It racked up over a million views, hundreds of replies, and sparked real conversations about loyalty in the movement. At the time, LaCivita blocked us on X the very next day—classic swamp move when the heat gets too real. But we didn’t back down. We followed up with more, like exposing his old “likes” on anti-Trump posts from January 6, his failure to support indicted Trump electors like Mike Roman, and his cozy ties to Mitch McConnell’s network.

Fast forward to 2026, and vindication couldn’t be sweeter. Everything we predicted about LaCivita has come roaring back to life, confirming he was never a true Trump loyalist. He was ‘establishment’ all along, wearing a red hat just long enough to cash massive checks off the MAGA base before slithering back to his RINO handlers.

In 2025, LaCivita was also brought on to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) reelection campaign as a senior adviser. Graham also said in a statement, that LaCivita’s experience “will help us keep winning for South Carolina.”

Let’s break down the latest developments that tie it all together.

LaCivita’s Heel Turn: Joining Forces with RINO John Cornyn to Knife Ken Paxton

In our original thread, we highlighted LaCivita’s history of trashing Texas AG Ken Paxton—a rock-solid America First fighter who’s sued the Biden admin over 40 times, exposed election issues, and stood tall against the deep state. We suspected LaCivita helped quarterback Paxton’s bogus 2023 impeachment, working alongside Karl Rove and the Bush network while consulting for George P. Bush.

Now, in a move that screams “we told you so,” LaCivita has been hired as a senior adviser to John Cornyn’s super PAC, “Texans for a Conservative Majority.” Cornyn? The ultimate Texas RINO—longtime Senate GOP leadership fixture, frequent Trump critic, and defender of the Uniparty status quo.

LaCivita’s job? To wage a multimillion-dollar war against Paxton in the 2026 Republican Senate primary, where Paxton’s challenging Cornyn for his seat.

This is confirmation of every red flag we raised. LaCivita’s machine is already flooding Texas with attack ads smearing Paxton’s personal life (like his divorce) while propping up Cornyn as some “conservative” hero. Meanwhile, polls show the race tightening—Paxton surging as endorsements roll in from groups like Turning Point Action. The establishment is panicking because a Paxton win would shatter their grip on Texas and send shockwaves through the Senate.

We updated our thread on February 13, 2026, to call this out:

We even pointed out the crickets from former campaign ‘meme provider’ like Brenden Dilley (@WarlordDilley), who hyped Paxton during the impeachment but now stays silent as his old co-manager LaCivita stabs him in the back. Proximity to power changes people—or reveals their true colors. In fact, he’s actually more of an outsider than an “insider”. Think about this. Everything that Dilley knows about President Trump, about the campaign, about what’s going on in the White House, all of that is coming from Chris LaCivita. He’s not getting it from anyone else. He has one contact point. Yet, he’s gonna sit up here and criticize Steve Bannon. I mean, we all know that Bannon is at the center of everything in this town—and if you don’t live in this town you don’t know jack shit about what’s going on.

And we do know what’s going on.

He’s a guy, that was really good at making memes and videos. Then Chris LaCivita happened. The outcome? Both Dilley and Catturd seem to have been corrupted, and are now simultaneously pushing the same “LaCivita talking points”.

The Bannon-Epstein Smear: LaCivita’s Dirty Tricks Exposed

Adding fuel to the fire, Raheem Kassam at The National Pulse just dropped a must-read piece exposing what looks like a LaCivita-orchestrated “swiftboating” op against Steve Bannon. Titled “The Very Obvious Bannon-Epstein Op,” Kassam details how LaCivita’s hyper-online influencer network is misrepresenting old texts and emails between Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein to paint Bannon as disloyal to Trump.

The backstory: In 2018, Bannon was working on a documentary to expose Epstein’s network. He interviewed the pedophile financier, probing his ties to powerful figures, including questions about invoking the 25th Amendment against Trump. Footage was even released by the DOJ after Epstein’s re-arrest halted the project. Bannon’s goal? To warn Trump about cabinet risks and blow up the deep state web—aligning perfectly with his public statements, like in a 2017 Vanity Fair article where he flagged the 25th Amendment threat.

But LaCivita’s crew twists this into “Bannon colluded with Epstein to remove Trump.” Why now? Because Bannon’s WarRoom is all-in on defeating Cornyn in Texas, fighting Elon Musk’s H1-B visa push, and calling out rising Islamism.

It’s a proxy war: Smear Bannon to divide MAGA and protect RINO interests like Cornyn’s. Kassam connects the dots to Mediaite’s Isaac Schorr, who promotes establishment hacks like Karl Rove—echoing the same network we exposed LaCivita for in 2024.

This isn’t about morality. It’s about grift and jealousy. Figures like Howard Lutnick (who visited Epstein’s island) get a pass because they’re swamp-approved. Bannon, who went to prison to protect Trump, gets swiftboated. Sound familiar? It’s the same playbook LaCivita used against Trump loyalists back in the campaign days.

The Dropped Lawsuit: More Evidence of LaCivita’s Grift

Remember point 9 in our original thread? “LaCivita has redirected significant campaign funds (more than $4 million) to his own companies without transparency. He appears more interested in making money than providing Trump with sound advice.”

Well, flash forward to January 2026: LaCivita quietly dropped his defamation lawsuit against The Daily Beast over reports that his firm, Advancing Strategies LLC, raked in $19.2 million (originally reported as $22 million) from the Trump campaign. The Beast’s stories, based on public FEC records, noted the funds might be pass-throughs to vendors—but LaCivita sued anyway, demanding millions in damages and claiming reputational harm. He even posted “F--- Around Find Out” on X, hyping a jury trial.

Then, poof—lawsuit abandoned on a Friday night before MLK Day, with no retraction, no apology, and no payout from The Daily Beast.

Why drop it? Probably because discovery would have forced transparency on where every penny went—exposing the very grift we called out.

Reports from The Atlantic say Trump himself grilled LaCivita about the numbers mid-campaign, even urging him to sue. But when push came to shove, LaCivita folded. Donor money wasted on a meritless suit? Sounds like using campaign cash for personal vendettas, just like we warned.

Bonus context: The Daily Beast link we referenced in our query—https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-campaign-manager-ditches-lawsuit-against-daily-beast—lays it all out. We call it ‘bluster without backbone’, further proving LaCivita’s priorities: Protect the wallet, not the movement.

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters for America First

These threads aren’t isolated. They’re a continuation: Our 2024 exposé predicted LaCivita would betray the base post-election. Now, in 2026, he’s openly waging war on Paxton for Cornyn, orchestrating smears against Bannon, and dodging accountability on his campaign haul. It’s the swamp’s survival tactic—infiltrate, grift, divide, repeat.

George News has been investigative journalism since 2014, and we’re not stopping. We’ve tied it all together here to show just how right we were—and why the fight’s far from over. Texas Republicans, primary EVERY RINO like Cornyn. Back Ken Paxton—he’s the real deal. MAGA nationwide, stay vigilant against these fake loyalists.

Share this far and wide. Follow us on X @georgenews for real-time updates.

The truth doesn’t expire— it vindicates.

Why are we so interested in what happens ‘down-under’, in little ol’ New Zealand you ask? Well, for one, they’re our Five Eyes ally. And two, they’ve been a ‘test case’ population for us, going back to the early 1980’s with the likes of “EFTPOS”, and other emerging tech. It pays to pay attention.

Now, in Part 5, we’re zeroing in on what may be New Zealand’s most egregious data breach scandal yet: the Manage My Health (MMH) app fiasco. This isn’t just your typical ‘run-of-the-mill’ story about technical glitches—it’s a tale of willful ignorance, corporate deception, and potential government complicity that covers 7 months of unheeded warnings.

As whistleblowers and independent investigators, we’ve been on this since June 2025, when our team at George News received explosive intel from a source using the handle “FVEY25” (an obvious nod to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, of which New Zealand is a member).

What started as a tip about exposed personal data ballooned into evidence of a massive breach affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of Kiwis. But here’s the kicker: MMH and New Zealand authorities claim the breach was only discovered on December 31, 2025.

That’s absolutely incorrect! Some may call it a “flat-out lie”.

We have the emails—dozens of them—proving they were alerted as early as June 22, 2025. And despite pleas to media outlets, politicians, the Privacy Commissioner, and even the New Zealand Prime Minister’s office, via his private and personal comms, the response was crickets... or worse, deflection.

This breach isn’t minor. We’re talking many thousands of personally identifiable information (PII) records—email addresses, passwords, and potentially linked health data—exposed via third-party search engines which we cannot name here, but are mentioned in the raw EML files.

It’s the kind of leak that could enable identity theft, medical fraud, or even targeted scams. In a country pushing for digital driver’s licenses and national IDs, this should be a wake-up call. Instead, it smells like a cover-up. Let’s break it down, using the raw email evidence provided by our whistleblower, ‘FVEY25’.

The Initial Alert: June 22, 2025 – A Whistleblower Sounds the Alarm

It all began with an email from FVEY25 titled “Manage My Health App Data Concerns,” sent at 3:15 PM NZST on June 22, 2025. Addressed directly to MMH support (support@managemyhealth.co.nz) and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (enquiries@privacy.org.nz), with a BCC to New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, via his personal and private comms. The message detailed a “significant data exposure incident.”

It referenced a 52-page PDF documenting exposed PII, including emails and passwords, scraped from MMH’s authentic site—not a phishing clone. Full-string URLs, starting mostly with messy “http” links, contained thousands of individual PII credentials.

Key quote from the initial alerting email: “These records have not come from a ‘phishing’ site, but from the authentic website in question. Discovered on June 22, 2025, and reported as of 07:00 AM NZST, June 23, 2025, immediate action is recommended... This report is submitted within the 72-hour regulatory deadline under the Privacy Act 2020.”

This single email went to 2 recipients in the ‘To’ field and 1 in BCC, alerting the company, the privacy watchdog, and the Prime Minister, Chris Luxon himself. Attached were PDFs like “06222025_MMH_NZ_REPORT - Copy.pdf” and a PGP public key for secure follow-up. MMH auto-responded with a case number (CAS-2592268), but no substantive action followed immediately.

The Privacy Commissioner’s office? They sent an automated reply acknowledging receipt but warning they might not respond if not directly addressed. Spoiler: They didn’t—at least not meaningfully at first.

Escalation and Forwards: June to August 2025 – Pleas to Privacy Officials and Media Fall Flat

By June 22 evening (11:33 PM EST equivalent), FVEY25 forwarded the original alert to four senior Privacy Commissioner staff: Blair Stewart, Katrine Evans, Annabel Fordham, and Joy Liddicoat. That’s 4 recipients, emphasizing the urgency to those tasked with protecting Kiwis’ data.

No response? Undeterred, on July 9, 2025, Callum Townsend from the Privacy Commissioner’s office followed up under reference PBN/4009, asking for clarification on potential financial fraud links. FVEY25 replied, providing more details and attaching the full PDF report. But by July 21, Townsend emailed again: “I’m just following up on the below. I don’t believe we’ve received a reply...”

This pattern of slow-walking continued. On August 7, 2025, FVEY25 forwarded the alert again, this time to an even broader audience, including media and officials.

October 2025: Media Blackout and Health NZ Misconfigurations Exposed

Things heated up in October. On October 2, 2025 (3:53 AM EST), FVEY25 forwarded the original to Newstalk ZB hosts and news desks: Kerre, Kerrie, Leighton, Mike Hosking, Mike, and the general news inbox—over 100 media staff combined. No reply.

Later that day (2:14 AM EST), another forward to Newstalk ZB staff, expanding to Richard, Steff, Ian Johnston, Justin, John D, and more—a staggering 100+ in CC, pleading for coverage. Still nothing.

By October 5, 2025, FVEY25 escalated to Newstalk ZB again, attaching an Excel sheet exposing a separate Health NZ misconfiguration leaking ADHB staff credentials.

This email went to 6 media contacts in ‘To’, CC’d to the Privacy Commissioner’s Callum Townsend, Stuff NZ tips, and even Infowars (tips@infowars.com and showtips@infowars.com).

The message: “We have VERIFIED these are current by contacting a few of your citizens... and have encouraged them to also approach media and their elected officials.”

On October 19, Townsend responded tepidly: “Thank you for the information provided. OPC are assessing... We’ll be in touch if we have any further questions.” But no action was visible.

November 2025: MMH’s Half-Measures and More Ignored Forwards

November brought a response from MMH’s Swazy Ram on November 4, claiming proactive steps: password resets, 2FA enforcement, and a Privacy Breach Notification. But this was months after the initial alert—sent to 1 recipient (FVEY25), it felt like damage control, not prevention.

What’s concerning, is that the person from MMH that eventually responded, wasn’t the CEO or an “I.T.” professional, but a ‘Customer Care Manger’.

FVEY25 replied critically, attaching a screenshot and questioning the delay. Meanwhile, forwards continued: November 3 to RNZ’s Sam Sherwood (1 in ‘To’); November 4 to MMH support channels (3 in ‘To’), attaching the Excel leak; November 20 to Stuff Digital investigations (1 in ‘To’) and another to RNZ’s Blair (1 in ‘To’).

On November 20, Blair (possibly from Stuff or RNZ) responded: “Thanks for your email. I’ll get someone from the team to contact you.” But follow-up? Zilch.

December 2025 to January 2026: The Lie Emerges as the Breach Goes Public

Fast-forward to January 2026. MMH publicly admits a breach, with notifications starting as reported by Stuff NZ and ACS IA. They claim “discovery” on December 31, 2025—conveniently ignoring the June alerts.

FVEY25 kept pushing: January 4 forward to Minister S. Brown (1 in ‘To’); January 5 to ministers M. Doocey, C. Costello, and others (up to 5 in ‘To’ and Cc’); another to media like Kerre et al. (multiple in ‘To’ and Cc’).

By January 6, Kim Griggs from The Post News (finally replying to an email dated months prior) asked for contact details (1 in ‘To’), but FVEY25 rebuffed: “How long has it been since you, and the rest of NZ media read my emails pleading for you to DO SOMETHING about it? You’re all as much to blame...”

Forwards to RNZ’s Russell Palmer (1 in ‘To’) and more ensued, with attachments proving the timeline.

In total, these emails reached hundreds of recipients across media (Stuff, RNZ, Newstalk ZB, NZME, Infowars), government (PM Luxon, multiple ministers), intelligence (GCSB), and regulators (Privacy Commissioner staff). The sheer volume—over 300 unique contacts across chains—highlights the deliberate inaction.

The Cover-Up: Who Knew What, and When?

This isn’t incompetence; it’s a pattern. MMH’s December 31 “discovery” claim crumbles under the email evidence. The Privacy Commissioner dragged their feet, media outlets like Stuff NZ (who later reported the story without crediting early warnings) stayed silent, and PM Luxon’s office? No acknowledgment.

Why the silence? Perhaps ties to digital health initiatives. New Zealand’s government has been aggressive on digital IDs, with Health NZ pushing apps like MMH for “convenience.” But as we’ve warned in this series, centralization breeds vulnerability. This breach—potentially the largest in NZ history—affects patient records, enabling everything from blackmail to insurance fraud.

It erodes trust in any future national ID or digital driver’s license. If a health app can’t secure passwords, how can we trust a government database with our biometrics?

Call to Action: Demand Accountability

Kiwis deserve answers. Why did MMH lie about the timeline? Why did the Privacy Commissioner and GCSB (as FVEY partners, they received direct emails to over 30 staff regarding the breach, on November 18, 2025) fail to act? And why did media outlets ignore pleas until the story broke wide open?

At George News, we’re committed to exposing these truths. Share this series. To our friends down-under in New Zealand, contact your MPs, and subscribe for Parts 6 and beyond. The slippery slope isn’t hypothetical—it’s happening now.

Stay tuned, as we dig further into this story. You can bet your bottom dollar, that this won’t be the end of it.

If you have tips on this or similar stories, reach us securely via our whistleblower portal. Stay vigilant.

George News – Uncovering the stories they don’t want you to know.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting Kim at his Glenorchy estate a couple of years back— the man’s a tech pioneer, inventor of two-factor authentication, and a fighter who’s been dragged through 13 years of hell for daring to disrupt Big Content. But this affidavit? It’s a game-changer. It shows why his prosecution was always political, why the Russia hoax was a smokescreen, and why President Trump needs to issue a full presidential pardon—now— to right this wrong and let Kim spill the beans without fear.

Thirteen years of raids, freezes, and now extradition looming? Add in a stroke that could’ve been avoided without the stress, and it’s clear: This is personal. The Deep State doesn’t want Kim in a U.S. courtroom; they want him silenced.

If you missed the earlier parts, catch up here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. Let’s get into it.

The Affidavit: Kim’s “Will Say” Statement on Seth Rich

This document— a strictly confidential draft witness statement prepared around the time of the Mueller investigation— lays out Kim’s firsthand account of communications with a Twitter user known as “panda,” whom he later learned was Seth Rich, the DNC data analyst tragically murdered in 2016. Kim swears under oath (or would have) to the details, and it’s damning for the narrative that Russia “hacked” the DNC emails. Instead, it points to an inside job— one that Kim inadvertently facilitated by connecting “panda” to a WikiLeaks source.

Key revelations from the statement:

• The Initial Contact (December 2014): Right after Kim announced his plans to launch the Internet Party in the U.S. via Twitter, “panda” reached out, expressing interest in helping with voter analytics. Panda revealed he was a DNC data analyst, sympathetic to Kim’s Megaupload fight, and embarrassed by how the U.S. government had targeted him— likely at Hollywood’s behest.

• Shifting to Encrypted Chat: Kim, paranoid about U.S. surveillance (remember the illegal GCSB spying we covered in Part 1?), moved the convo to Jabber. They discussed corruption in U.S. politics, corporate influence, and Panda’s access to “sensitive data” about the Democrats that could damage them. Panda offered it unprompted, sounding disillusioned.

• Kim’s Suspicion and the WikiLeaks Handoff: Kim smelled a trap— this was during his extradition battles, with the U.S. pushing to revoke his bail and seize assets. He didn’t bite but, believing in transparency, connected Panda to a hacker contact named “loot,” whom he knew as a WikiLeaks source. After that, Kim bowed out, deleted everything, and even destroyed his computer to avoid any blowback.

• Post-Leaks Confirmation: Kim predicted WikiLeaks would hammer Hillary Clinton in a 2015 Bloomberg interview— based on his Panda interactions. On November 5, 2016, he texted what he believed was Bill Clinton’s number: “Tell H I did it. Kim Dotcom.” Not that he hacked anything— just that he knew about the leaks and played a minor role in the handoff.

• Learning of Seth Rich’s Death: Loot later told Kim that Panda was Seth Rich, who’d been shot. Loot “retired” from hacking, spooked. Kim believes Rich provided (or gave access to) the DNC info leaked to WikiLeaks.

• Why Speak Out?: Kim offered this info to the DOJ a year prior (around 2017), willing to testify, but they ghosted him. He respected the Rich family’s grief but felt compelled to come forward, as the evidence was relevant to investigations like Mueller’s.

This isn’t some wild theory; it’s Kim’s sworn account, backed by timelines that predate the leaks. And remember, in 2017, Kim publicly teased this knowledge, offering to testify if granted safe passage. The family dismissed it as “ridiculous,” but the Mueller probe should’ve chased it down. Instead? Crickets. Why? Because it nukes the Russia collusion fairy tale that justified spying on Trump and fueled years of witch hunts.

How This Ties to Kim’s Persecution: The Political Vendetta Exposed

Let’s connect the dots, folks. Kim’s Megaupload shutdown in 2012? Orchestrated by Biden’s DOJ, with U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride (Biden’s former aide) leading the charge in Virginia. The MPAA— Hollywood’s attack dogs— labeled Megaupload a “notorious market” after SOPA flopped, and Dodd (MPAA head) threatened to cut Obama-Biden campaign funds unless they cracked down. As we detailed in Parts 1 and 2, this was “state capture” at its finest: Donors buying prosecutions.

Now, layer in the Seth Rich angle. If Kim’s right— and his pre-leak predictions suggest he is— the DNC “hack” was an inside leak, not Russian meddling. That means the entire Mueller circus, the FISA abuses, the impeachments... all built on sand. Kim, already a thorn in Hollywood’s side (tied to Democrats), becomes a bigger threat: He could testify to the real source of the leaks, embarrassing the Deep State and validating Trump’s “hoax” claims.

No wonder they’ve dragged out his extradition for over a decade, freezing assets, raiding his home, and ignoring his health crisis. His November 2024 stroke— causing memory loss, speech issues, and mobility problems— should’ve halted this inhumane process under international human rights standards (Article 3 of the European Convention, UN norms). But as of September 2025, New Zealand’s courts waved it off, and the U.S. promises “medical care” like that’s reassuring in a federal pen.

This affidavit proves Kim’s case is political payback. He didn’t hack the DNC— he facilitated transparency. In a just world, that’s whistleblower protection, not extradition. (This is the NEXUS.)

In a Nutshell: Why a Presidential Pardon is the Only Fix

• Exposes the Hoax: Kim’s testimony could dismantle the Russia narrative, vindicating Trump and revealing Deep State lies.

• Humanitarian Imperative: Post-stroke, extradition is cruel— pardon him to let him recover in peace.

• Legal Sham: No jurisdiction (Morrison v. National Australia Bank), no crime (Dowling), due process violations galore (illegal raids, asset grabs).

• Political Payback: Hollywood-Democrat ties fueled this; a pardon cuts the strings.

• Bigger Stakes: Freeing Kim protects innovators from global overreach and encourages truth-tellers.

President Trump: You’ve called out the hoaxes. Kim’s got the receipts on one of the biggest. Pardon him preemptively— drop the charges, halt extradition, and bring him stateside as a witness, not a prisoner. DOJ, House committees: Investigate this affidavit. It’s time to end the saga and expose the rot.

What do you think, George News crew? Is this the smoking gun that flips the script? Hit the comment on X, share wide, and let’s amplify. Stay vigilant. —George, The Based Dev

Using freely available open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools—resources accessible to anyone with basic technical know-how—we obtained (were sent) a dataset that appears to contain ten’s of thousands of Bluesky user credentials. This data, compiled in a PDF document we’ve reviewed, includes login URLs, email addresses, usernames, and associated passwords for accounts on bsky.app. The entries follow patterns like “https://account.bsky.app/signin:email:password“ or variations thereof, suggesting these are direct sign-in attempts or stored authentication details. While we won’t reproduce the full dataset here to avoid further exposure, the sheer volume and nature of the information paint a troubling picture of inadequate protection. The information that we received also had proof that these are current and “usable” PII.

The Exposed Data: A Snapshot of Vulnerability

A cache of data was sent to us, along with the method by which it was freely obtained—including proof of its authenticity—that lists an extensive array of entries. Over 100,000 by our count—detailing apparent Bluesky account credentials. These include:

• Email Addresses and Passwords: Numerous Gmail, Hotmail, Outlook, and other provider emails paired with passwords ranging from simple alphanumeric strings (e.g., “123456789”) to more complex ones incorporating symbols and dates. Many passwords appear weak or reused, such as birthdates, common words like “password” or “qwerty,” and even references to pop culture or personal interests.

• Usernames and Handles: Entries tied to Bluesky-specific handles like “bsky-social-XXXXX,” indicating these are platform-issued identifiers. Some include full sign-in paths, such as “https://bsky.app/:username:password.”

• International Scope: The data isn’t limited to one region; emails from domains like .br (Brazil), .de (Germany), .jp (Japan), and .com (global) suggest a worldwide user base is affected. This highlights the global risks when platforms fail to secure data properly.

What’s particularly concerning is that this information was not obtained through sophisticated hacking or insider access. Instead, it surfaced via standard OSINT methods—public searches, data aggregators, and leak monitoring tools that anyone can use for free. This means cybercriminals, identity thieves, or even casual snoopers could stumble upon or actively seek out similar datasets.

In an era where data breaches are rampant, storing or allowing credentials to be exposed in this manner violates basic cybersecurity principles, such as hashing passwords (converting them into unreadable strings) and encrypting sensitive information.

Echoes of Past Exposures

This Bluesky revelation echoes the patterns we identified in our prior reports:

1. The Atlantic’s Unsecure Setup: As detailed in our piece on Jeffrey Goldberg’s outlet, user data was left vulnerable due to outdated security protocols, exposing emails and potentially linked personal details.

2. JoeBiden.com’s Safety Shortcomings: The campaign site for the current U.S. President showed similar issues, with PII stored in ways that could be easily scraped or breached, raising questions about political data handling.

3. Der Spiegel’s Cheap Tricks: The German publication’s hit piece on us inadvertently spotlighted their own lax data practices, where user information was not adequately shielded from public view.

Bluesky, backed by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and emphasizing user control through decentralization, should theoretically prioritize privacy. Yet, this dataset suggests otherwise. If credentials are leaking into public OSINT spaces, it points to potential flaws in how the platform manages authentication, perhaps through unencrypted logs, third-party integrations, or user-submitted data that’s not properly sanitized.

The Risks: From Phishing to Identity Theft

The implications are severe. Exposed email-password pairs can lead to:

• Account Takeovers: Attackers could log in directly, post misinformation, or access private messages.

• Credential Stuffing: Users who reuse passwords across sites risk breaches on email, banking, or other accounts.

• Phishing Amplification: Knowing a user’s email and password patterns makes targeted scams more effective.

• Broader Privacy Erosion: In a platform like Bluesky, which attracts journalists, activists, and public figures, such exposures could chill free speech or enable harassment.

Bluesky’s team has touted their AT Protocol for better data portability and control, but if basic PII isn’t secured, these features become liabilities. We’ve reached out to Bluesky for comment on these findings and will update this article if they respond.

A Call for Better Data Stewardship

As we’ve stressed in our series, websites—especially those handling user interactions—have a responsibility to protect PII. Simple steps like enforcing strong password policies, using multi-factor authentication (MFA), and regularly auditing data storage could prevent these issues. Users, too, should enable MFA where available, use password managers, and monitor for breaches via services like Have I Been Pwned.

At GEORGE NEWS, we’re committed to holding platforms accountable. This isn’t about sensationalism; it’s about safeguarding the digital ecosystem we all rely on. If you’ve experienced data issues with Bluesky or other sites, share your story securely via our tips line.

Stay vigilant, and remember: In the world of online security, what you don’t know can hurt you.

This article is part of our ongoing investigation into website data vulnerabilities. Read the full series: The Atlantic, JoeBiden.com, Der Spiegel.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OVER THE YEARS! If you’re reading this via a free subscription, please consider supporting us by upgrading to a (one-time) yearly subscription. If you do this by 11:59pm EDT on November 15th, 2025, we’ll UPGRADE you to a LIFETIME subscription!

In our previous article, “Richard Heart Wins Against SEC!” published on February 28, 2025, we detailed the federal court’s dismissal of all claims against Richard James “Heart” Schueler, affirming the decentralized status of his innovative blockchain projects. This ruling represented a significant milestone for cryptocurrency.

Now, in this follow-up, we examine the broader implications of this victory, exploring how it reshapes regulatory frameworks for decentralized finance (DeFi) and open-source blockchain initiatives.

As regulatory scrutiny persists, Heart’s success provides a blueprint for balancing innovation with compliance, while highlighting opportunities for projects like our official token, $BASED, which represents a long-term collaboration on PulseChain.

Key Implications for Crypto Regulation

The dismissal of the SEC’s allegations against Heart underscores the challenges regulators face in applying traditional securities laws to decentralized systems. The court determined that HEX, PulseChain, and PulseX do not constitute securities, emphasizing their open-source and community-driven nature. This precedent could shield similar projects from unwarranted enforcement actions, promoting a more permissive environment for blockchain development.

1. Precedent for Decentralization: By validating the decentralized design of Heart’s ecosystems, the ruling establishes that immutable, open-source protocols may fall outside SEC jurisdiction when they lack centralized control or promises of profit driven by managerial efforts.

2. Regulatory Evolution: The case illustrates the SEC’s difficulties in proving fraud in transparent, blockchain-based systems. It calls for updated guidelines that differentiate between centralized offerings and truly decentralized innovations, potentially reducing overreach and fostering global competitiveness in crypto.

3. Industry-Wide Impact: Developers and investors may now pursue scalable, eco-friendly alternatives to established networks like Ethereum with greater confidence. This shift could accelerate adoption of Layer 1 blockchains, encouraging transparency and user empowerment.

Revisiting HEX: A Decentralized Certificate of Deposit

As outlined in our prior coverage, HEX, launched in 2019 as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, operates as a blockchain-based certificate of deposit. Users stake tokens for rewards proportional to staking duration, leveraging Ethereum’s security while promoting long-term holding through an inflation model that mints new tokens for stakers.

Key attributes include:

• Staking Mechanism: Rewards incentivize commitment, with penalties for early unstaking to maintain network stability.

• Performance Metrics: HEX has demonstrated resilience, outperforming traditional assets in certain periods despite market volatility.

• Community Focus: Its design prioritizes user participation, aligning with DeFi principles.

This structure, now legally affirmed as non-securities, exemplifies how blockchain can replicate and enhance conventional financial tools without centralized intermediaries.

PulseChain: Addressing Ethereum’s Limitations

PulseChain, forked from Ethereum, was developed to mitigate high gas fees, scalability issues, and environmental concerns associated with proof-of-work consensus. It offers faster transactions, reduced costs, and a proof-of-stake model, making it an efficient platform for DeFi applications.

Notable features:

• Efficiency Gains: Ten-second block times and lower fees enable broader accessibility.

• Environmental Sustainability: Proof-of-stake minimizes energy consumption, aligning with global sustainability goals.

• Integration with HEX: The migration of eHEX to PulseChain’s version has optimized performance, reducing dependency on Ethereum’s congested network.

Our collaboration on PulseChain through the $BASED token underscores its potential as a foundation for long-term projects. BASED, designed for stability and utility within the ecosystem, benefits from PulseChain’s validated regulatory standing, positioning it as a strategic initiative for GEORGE NEWS in advancing decentralized media and community engagement.

Addressing Criticisms and Controversies

Heart’s projects have not been without scrutiny. Concerns regarding centralization, transparency in fund allocation, and market fluctuations—such as eHEX’s value decline amid the shift to PulseChain—have been raised. However, the court’s ruling addresses these by confirming no evidence of fraud or misappropriation, reinforcing the projects’ decentralized integrity.

Ongoing debates highlight the need for enhanced governance models in DeFi, yet Heart’s victory validates the viability of community-led innovation despite polarized opinions.

Richard Heart: Visionary Amid Controversy

Richard Heart remains a polarizing leader in cryptocurrency, known for insightful predictions on Bitcoin and Ethereum, alongside a commitment to technological advancement. His background, from early entrepreneurial successes in audio and internet marketing to global travels and anti-aging advocacy, reflects a multifaceted intellect. Despite past legal challenges, including unproven allegations, Heart’s ability to build dedicated communities around HEX and PulseChain demonstrates his influence in driving DeFi forward.

The Future of Decentralized Blockchain Projects

This legal outcome paves the way for a more innovative crypto landscape. Key takeaways include:

1. Emphasis on Decentralization: Projects must prioritize open-source elements to withstand regulatory challenges.

2. Transparency as a Pillar: Enhanced disclosure will build trust, mitigating risks for users and regulators alike.

3. Balancing Innovation and Compliance: As frameworks evolve, successes like Heart’s could inspire collaborative dialogues between industry and authorities.

For GEORGE NEWS, this development aligns with our focus on emerging technologies. Our BASED token on PulseChain represents a commitment to long-term value creation in DeFi, leveraging the platform’s efficiency for reader-supported initiatives.

Survey Note: Evolving Perspectives on Heart’s Victory

Since our initial report, industry analyses have further illuminated the ruling’s significance. Sources such as OKX’s examination of HEX and PulseChain emphasize its role in redefining regulation, noting the dismissal’s rarity and its potential to curb SEC overreach. Heart’s X posts celebrating the win, coupled with community discussions, indicate growing optimism. This part two builds on our earlier survey, incorporating updated insights into regulatory dynamics and project sustainability.

Citations

• OKX Learn: “Hex, Richard, and ETH: How Richard Heart’s Legal Victory Redefines Crypto Regulation”.

• Previous GEORGE NEWS Article: “Richard Heart Wins Against SEC!” (February 28, 2025).

• PulseChain Official Website.

• HEX Official Website.

• PulseX Official Website.

Note: As previously mentioned, GEORGE NEWS assisted in recovering long-lost email addresses and domain names for Richard Heart, as detailed in our X post on February 18, 2025. This aligns with our ongoing support for innovative figures in the crypto space.

On this day, as regulatory clarity emerges, we also anticipate further advancements in DeFi, including potential summits to bridge traditional finance and blockchain.

GEORGE NEWS is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Read Part One here:

Today, we’re diving deep into one such puzzle that’s been nagging at me since I first spotted it. It’s about Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the powerhouse organization founded by the late Charlie Kirk, and a curious decision to wipe out an entire section of their website dedicated to Israel.

This happened mere weeks before Kirk was assassinated on September 10, 2025, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University. And no, I’m not here to spin wild theories or connect dots that aren’t there. But let’s lay out the facts as they stand, and you tell me if this doesn’t raise a eyebrow or two.

Let’s start at the beginning. For those who might not recall, TPUSA has long positioned itself as a beacon for young conservatives, rallying around free speech, limited government, and yes, strong support for Israel. Their subdomain, israel.tpusa.com, was a dedicated hub for all things related to that alliance. Archived versions show a vibrant page emblazoned with “TPUSA Stands With Israel” in bold “Israeli” shades of blue, complete with a Star of David logo. Right smack in the middle was an embedded YouTube video featuring Charlie Kirk himself, titled “Why I Love Israel.” The video captured Kirk at a podium, passionately laying out his reasons, surrounded by enthusiastic supporters at what looks like a TPUSA event.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The last known archive of that subdomain dates back to July 22, 2025, courtesy of the Wayback Machine. At that point, everything was intact—the declarations of solidarity, the donation links, and that video still publicly viewable on YouTube under this URL, which now shows it as “private”.

Fast-forward a bit, and poof—it’s all gone. Sometime after that July snapshot, the entire israel.tpusa.com subdomain was scrubbed from TPUSA’s official site. If you try to visit it today, you’re met with a blank page or an expiration notice, as if it never existed.

But wait, there’s more. That “Why I Love Israel” video?

It didn’t just vanish from the site; it was made private on YouTube shortly after the subdomain’s removal.

Why pull the plug on a message that had been proudly broadcast for years?

Was it a routine website cleanup, or something else entirely? Remember, this all unfolded in the shadow of growing tensions within conservative circles over Israel policy—tensions that have only exploded since Kirk’s death.

Kirk’s assassination has understandably dominated the news cycle, with memorials, investigations, and tributes pouring in from all sides. A memorial service was held on September 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, drawing crowds (who were all digitally tracked by the way) from across the political spectrum. Yet amid the grief, whispers have emerged about internal shifts at TPUSA. Reports of leaked text messages, confirmed by TPUSA’s own spokesman Andrew Kolvet, suggest Kirk may have been grappling with his views on Israel in private conversations. These leaks, shared by former TPUSA ambassador Candace Owens, paint a picture of evolving thoughts that contrast with the public persona Kirk maintained for so long.

Now, let’s be clear: TPUSA has faced its share of controversies before. Back in January 2024, a representative was fired over posts about “Zionist Jews controlling the planet,” sparking debates about free speech and organizational boundaries. More recently, the FBI cut ties with groups like the Anti-Defamation League after criticisms over how organizations like TPUSA were labeled in hate maps. And in the wake of Kirk’s death, online discussions have surged, with thousands of posts questioning links to Israel—though, again, that’s the internet for you, full of speculation without solid proof. Or so they say.

So, what prompted the sudden digital purge?

Was it tied to broader strategic shifts at TPUSA as they navigated a post-2024 election landscape? Or did it reflect personal reevaluations by Kirk himself, especially as voices like Owens challenged the status quo on foreign policy?

The timing—weeks before a senseless act of violence claimed his life—can’t help but stick in your mind. Why erase a cornerstone of your public stance right then? Who made the call to privatize that video, and what conversations happened behind closed doors?

I’ve attached a screenshot from the archived version of israel.tpusa.com for reference—it’s a stark reminder of what was once there, now reduced to digital dust. Take a look and ask yourself: In a world where online footprints are forever, why go to the trouble of deleting this one?

As always, at GEORGE NEWS, we’re committed to digging into the stories that mainstream outlets gloss over. This isn’t about answers, per se, it’s about the questions that keep us vigilant.

What do you think? Drop your thoughts in the comments, over on X, and stay tuned as we follow where the facts lead. If you’ve got tips or insights, hit us up securely via our Telegram channel.

— George News Editor

Folks, if you’ve been following our deep dives into election integrity here at George News, you know we’ve been sounding the alarm on the shadowy forces infiltrating our democratic processes. Remember our exposés on “The Invisible Candidate” and “Two Faces of Ideological Legacy: Noor Bin Ladin vs. Sophia Farooq”? Those pieces uncovered how figures with unverifiable backgrounds and ties to extremist ideologies were worming their way into local GOP leadership in Cobb County, Georgia – a microcosm of broader vulnerabilities in our election systems. Now, a new investigative review by Holly Kesler at Kesler Consulting pulls back the curtain on an even more alarming trend: the unchecked consolidation of election technology vendors. This isn’t just about machines; it’s about control, foreign influences, and the erosion of transparency that could make those Cobb County infiltrations look like child’s play.

abcnews.go.com

Dominion Voting Systems machines, now under Liberty Vote ownership – but at what cost to transparency?

Let’s break this down. Despite the controversies swirling around U.S. election tech – from rigged claims to foreign data storage – key players are merging faster than you can say “recount.” The bombshell? On October 9, 2025, Dominion Voting Systems was snapped up by Liberty Vote, a fresh entity founded and solely owned by KNOWiNK CEO Scott Leiendecker. This isn’t a minor shuffle; it’s a full-on restructuring that folds voter registration, pollbooks, tabulation, and reporting under one private roof. Leiendecker, a former Republican elections director in St. Louis, promises “paper-based transparency” and third-party audits, even dropping ongoing lawsuits against conservatives. But as Holly’s white paper reveals, this move raises more red flags than it resolves.

KNOWiNK’s Rise: From Poll Pads to Power Grabs

Founded in 2011 by Leiendecker in St. Louis, KNOWiNK dominates the electronic pollbook market with its Poll Pad, used in thousands of jurisdictions. But its growth isn’t all homegrown innovation. In 2021, it acquired BPro, snagging the TotalVote platform – a powerhouse for voter registration, ballot design, and state database integration across at least 15 states. Dig deeper, and you find a trail of patents and assets absorbed from dissolved vendors, some with foreign links.

• Patent Shenanigans: Leiendecker’s ballot validation patents were first assigned to Tally LLC (his own creation, dissolved in 2021) before landing at KNOWiNK. Some credit Martin White of Election Administrators LLC, which peddled similar pollbook tech before vanishing in 2016.

• Tech Origins and Acquisitions: These systems echo offerings from Scytl/SOE and Konnech – the latter infamous for CEO Eugene Yu’s charges over storing U.S. election data on Chinese servers. Through a chain (Konnech → Votem → Everyone Counts → KNOWiNK), voter registration tech flowed right into Leiendecker’s portfolio, blurring lines and hiding potential backdoors.

This absorption of foreign-linked assets isn’t just corporate chess; it’s a recipe for systemic vulnerabilities, as Holly points out. And with Liberty Vote now controlling Dominion’s ImageCast hardware alongside KNOWiNK’s software, we’re looking at an end-to-end pipeline under one owner. New Mexico’s hybrid setup – Dominion tabulators plus TotalVote for registration – is now fully in Liberty Vote’s hands, centralizing control in ways that scream monopoly.

Vendor Overlaps: ES&S, LHS, and the Blurred Lines

Holly’s review doesn’t stop at KNOWiNK-Dominion. It spotlights connections with ES&S (Election Systems & Software) and LHS Associates, painting a picture of a tightly knit ecosystem:

Links: 2, 3, 4, 5.

These ties highlight fragility: resellers like LHS muddy accountability, while ES&S and KNOWiNK’s rivalries mask interdependencies. As one X post noted, Liberty Vote’s acquisition promises U.S. ownership and paper ballots – but with TotalVote still cloud-hosted on Microsoft Azure (hit by Chinese hackers), and Dominion’s history of Serbian developers, foreign software heritage lingers.

cbsnews.com

Close-up of Dominion hardware – rebranded, but vulnerabilities persist?

Security Red Flags: Centralization, Cyber Risks, and Foreign Shadows

Researchers, including Holly, flag six big issues:

1. Power Consolidation: Fewer vendors mean less competition and oversight.

2. Cyber Vulnerabilities: Azure’s breaches expose data.

3. Foreign Heritage: Konnech’s China links and Dominion’s overseas devs raise sovereignty alarms.

4. Oversight Gaps: Non-competitive contracts, like New Mexico’s $52M Dominion deal.

5. Interdependencies: Resellers blur who’s responsible.

6. Hidden Assets: Acquisitions from dissolved firms create opaque dependencies.

This echoes our Cobb County coverage. In “The Invisible Candidate,” we exposed Sophia Farooq’s ties to APAX Partners – linked to election tech like NGP VAN. Her family’s Jamaat-e-Islami roots (designated terrorist group in most Arab nations) and unverifiable claims mirrored infiltration tactics. Similarly, “Two Faces of Ideological Legacy: Noor Bin Ladin vs. Sophia Farooq” contrasted Noor’s rejection of extremism with Farooq’s silence, warning of hidden agendas in local races. Now, with Liberty Vote’s rise, could these consolidations open doors for such influences? APAX’s election ties and Konnech’s foreign data storage suggest a web where tech monopolies amplify infiltration risks.

Policy Wake-Up Call

Holly Kesler calls for immediate action — demanding independent system certifications, transparent ownership, enforceable cybersecurity standards, procurement reform, full reseller disclosures, and patent tracking across all election technology.

Without these safeguards, we’re not protecting democracy — we’re surrendering it. A handful of private companies would hold the keys to our most sacred process, erasing the decentralized integrity our system was built upon.

That’s why hand-marked paper ballots must remain the foundation of American elections. They are the only verifiable, transparent, and tamper-resistant record of the voter’s true intent — free from proprietary code, cyber vulnerabilities, and corporate monopolies. In a time of digital overreach and centralized control, hand-marked paper ballots aren’t outdated — they’re our last line of defense for real election integrity.

Final Thoughts

Liberty Vote’s Dominion grab, hailed as a “new chapter” by Leiendecker, might sound patriotic. But as Holly’s white paper and our past reporting show, it’s part of a consolidation that hides foreign echoes and centralizes power. From Cobb County’s GOP infiltrations to nationwide tech mergers, the stakes couldn’t be higher. We need vigilance, not complacency. Stay tuned – George News will keep digging.

Prepared with insights from Holly Kesler’s October 2025 white paper. Links to prior stories: The Invisible Candidate and Two Faces of Ideological Legacy.

This is not a distant threat. It’s UNFOLDING AS WE SPEAK in 2025! And the backlash is MASSIVE – this series has PROPELLED GEORGE NEWS to “#27 Rising” in the NEWS category globally on Substack!

🌍📈 Your urgent shares, reads, and subscriptions are FUELING this surge – we MUST keep exposing this before it’s too late!

Here’s the breakdown – read them IMMEDIATELY:

Part 1: New Zealand – The Breach Has Already Hit!

• Unpacking the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Act (2023), the NZ Verify app, and the DEVASTATING 2025 data breach that exposed MILLIONS of medical records. Efficiency? More like a ticking time bomb!

• Read NOW: https://www.georgenews.org/p/the-slippery-slope-of-mandatory-digital

Part 2: Australia – Creeping Mandates and Cyber Catastrophe!

• myGovID and the Trusted Digital Identity Framework: Voluntary today, FORCED tomorrow. The MASSIVE 2025 cyber breach that stole THOUSANDS of accounts proves centralization is a HACKER’S PARADISE – act before yours is next!

• Read NOW: https://www.georgenews.org/p/the-slippery-slope-of-mandatory-digital-129

Part 3: Canada – No Escape from the Digital Web!

• GC Sign In, DIACC, and the SHOCKING August 2025 Interac breach leaking over 880,000 phone numbers. Without a national ID yet, these systems are quietly linking your health, finances, and borders – turning into a vulnerability EXPLOSION!

• Read NOW: https://www.georgenews.org/p/the-slippery-slope-of-mandatory-digital-5c9

Part 4: United Kingdom – Mandates Incoming, Freedoms Outgoing!

• GOV.UK One Login, the looming ‘BritCard’ app, and PM Starmer’s chilling decree: No digital ID? No job, no access, no life. Recent breaches at Home Office and NHS are just the beginning of the CHAOS ahead – WAKE UP!

• Read NOW: https://www.georgenews.org/p/the-slippery-slope-of-mandatory-digital-7bb

This is YOUR wake-up call for the Five Eyes alliance and beyond! Centralized data isn’t just risky – it’s an IMMINENT path to discrimination, exclusion, and the EROSION of your rights. We’ve got the PROOF from real breaches; ignore this at your PERIL.

BECOME A YEARLY SUBSCRIBER to GEORGE NEWS AND GET 20% OFF: https://www.georgenews.org/october17

~George

The United Kingdom has no compulsory physical national ID card, a concept abandoned after public backlash in the 2000s. Instead, citizens rely on passports, driver’s licenses, and NHS numbers for government, financial, and medical purposes. These decentralized options work without forcing digital adoption. However, the government is charging toward a digital future. GOV.UK One Login offers a single sign-in for over 100 services, from taxes to pensions, streamlining access with one identity check. The UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework sets standards for certified providers, enabling secure verification for tasks like renting or criminal record checks. The Office for Digital Identities and Attributes oversees this, ensuring privacy and security through audits. But the real game-changer is the new digital ID scheme, often dubbed ‘BritCard,’ set for rollout by 2029. This app-based system will be mandatory for citizens and residents to prove their right to live and work, affecting access to jobs, childcare, licenses, and more.

This mandate raises red flags. While pitched as a tool to curb illegal work and streamline services, it centralizes vast amounts of personal data. The UK’s track record with data security is troubling. In August 2025, a major breach hit the Home Office, exposing sensitive details of asylum seekers and visa applicants due to a phishing attack on a contractor’s system. Hackers accessed names, passport numbers, and addresses, with some data reportedly sold on the dark web. This followed a 2024 NHS breach in London, where hackers stole patient records from hospitals, leading to canceled surgeries and leaked medical histories. These incidents reveal a pattern: government systems, even with robust laws, struggle to protect data from sophisticated cyberattacks or insider errors.

If ‘BritCard’ becomes mandatory, the risks skyrocket. A single digital ID tying together government, financial, and potentially health data creates a honeypot for hackers. One breach could expose millions to identity theft, fraud, or blackmail, far surpassing the damage of scattered physical IDs. The UK’s aging infrastructure and reliance on third-party providers, as seen in the Home Office case, amplify vulnerabilities. Function creep is another concern: what starts as a work permit check could expand to track movements or access services, eroding privacy. Vulnerable groups, like the elderly or those without smartphones, risk exclusion. And with the government’s slow response to breaches, accountability seems distant.

The UK’s path mirrors the dangers seen in New Zealand’s health app breach, Australia’s myGov hacks, and Canada’s authentication failures. Across the Five Eyes, the push for digital IDs prioritizes control over security. Privacy laws exist, but enforcement lags behind tech’s rapid advance, leaving citizens exposed. This series ends with an urgent warning: mandatory digital IDs aren’t just about convenience; they’re a step toward surveillance and fragility. Consider the alarming vision shared by Oracle’s Larry Ellison in discussions with Tony Blair at the World Government Summit 2025, where he advocated for centralizing all data—health, finance, and genomic— to enable AI-driven enforcement and control. Ellison’s influence extends deeply: Oracle’s 2025 acquisition of TikTok’s U.S. operations grants it oversight of algorithms and data for 170 million users, while his funding has expanded Blair’s institute, which promotes AI integration with systems like the NHS. Blair’s son is linked to the digital ID company behind BritCard, suggesting a network aiming for biometric systems that could span borders. This convergence of corporate power, AI, and government IDs, especially with medical records, risks turning Five Eyes nations into surveillance states where breaches enable real-time behavioral monitoring. Act now before it’s too late:

• Centralized databases will empower AI to predict and preempt citizen actions, eroding autonomy in an instant—your medical history could flag you for “preemptive” interventions.

• Breaches like those in Manage My Health or NHS systems prove vulnerabilities are inevitable; one leak, and your genomic data fuels discriminatory AI decisions across borders.

• Corporate giants like Oracle, controlling TikTok data and health platforms, could integrate IDs for total surveillance—imagine your every move tracked, analyzed, and controlled without consent.

• Five Eyes data-sharing amplifies the threat: a UK mandate cascades to allies, turning voluntary systems mandatory overnight, locking citizens into fragile, hackable ecosystems.

• Resistance is critical—demand transparency and alternatives now, or face a future where privacy is extinct and control is absolute.

Each installment spotlights one country, exposing the risks of handing over personal data to centralized databases under the guise of convenience and security.

From privacy erosion to outright surveillance, these initiatives threaten individual freedoms in ways that could reshape society. We started with New Zealand’s unacknowledged breaches and moved to Australia’s expanding vulnerabilities; now we examine Canada, where federal digital efforts are advancing amid mounting cybersecurity failures.

Canada avoids a single national physical ID card, relying on provincial and territorial documents for everyday verification. But the federal government is building a robust digital ecosystem. GC Sign In provides a unified login for over 270 online services, from tax filings to benefits claims, using bank-like verification. GC Issue and Verify lets departments issue digital credentials like work permits or licenses, stored on mobiles with blockchain security. The Digital ID & Authentication Council of Canada, or DIACC, framework guides standards for privacy and security in online proofs, supporting government, banking, and economic access without a mandatory ID.

Physical alternatives remain key: provincial health cards like Ontario’s OHIP or British Columbia’s Services Card for medical access, the Social Insurance Number card for taxes and jobs, provincial driver’s licenses for broad ID, and Permanent Resident Cards for immigrants. These scattered systems function without forcing digital adoption. Yet the promise of seamless online interactions hides growing perils as adoption spreads.

The threats hit home with a recent breach. In August 2025, Interac’s 2Keys, the multi-factor authentication provider for Canadian government services, suffered a data theft during a routine software update.

Hackers stole over 880,000 phone numbers and 85,000 email addresses tied to federal accounts for the Canada Revenue Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Canada Border Services Agency. These details were used for MFA when accessing services, directly linking to digital verification processes. While no deeper personal data was taken and no account compromises detected, victims have faced spam and scam attempts, raising fears of phishing and identity fraud.

The incident, under investigation by officials and 2Keys, exposes flaws in authentication systems meant to secure digital IDs.

If digital IDs become compulsory, as federal pushes indicate, the fallout could be catastrophic. Canada’s systems already interconnect government, financial, and health data, creating prime targets for hackers. One breach in a centralized setup could ripple across millions, enabling widespread fraud or surveillance. Past incidents, like the 2019 LifeLabs health data ransomware affecting 15 million, show the scale of risk. With Chinese hackers breaching government networks in recent years, external threats compound the issue. Vulnerable populations, including those without reliable tech, face barriers, while “voluntary” tools edge toward necessity. Oversight lags, as seen in delayed responses to breaches, leaving citizens at mercy of flawed tech.

Canada’s troubles mirror those in New Zealand and Australia, underscoring weak safeguards in digital shifts. In Part 4, we’ll conclude with the United Kingdom, where new mandates loom largest. Stay alert: security sold as progress often masks control

Read Part 1 here: