>>191174, >>191175, >>191176, >>191177, >>191178, >>191179, >>191180, >>191181, >>191182, >>191183, >>191184, >>191185, >>191186, >>191187, >>191188, >>191189, >>191190, >>191191, >>191192, >>191193, >>191194
The vast majority of my income comes from subscribers paying $3 a month.
Here is what happened, without embellishment. I was handed a bunch of documents marked sensitive. I had a responsibility to handle them correctly and no institutional cover while I did it. I consulted with others - for instance, Tulsi’s staffer said that such documents typically carried markings like “Authorized for Release by Order of ___.” I also confirmed with two State Department executives that what happened to me was deeply nonstandard practice for sanctioned journalist leaks. The documents were hardcopy, given to me without commentary or context, along with repeated requests to “leak” them.
My first public read was that I had been set up, that the markings were a trap. I said that with more certainty than I earned, without ruling out the explanation of an oversight.
I corrected my own record before anyone could extract the correction out of me. That being said: that is the only disavowal I am willing to perform. I will say when I got something wrong. I will not restore my standing by spending someone else’s.
To see what I mean, first look at the structure of what I walked into: Hand a person sensitive documents and every move they can make reads as guilt.
Keep the documents and it is possession.
Publish them and it is leaking.
Act on them and it is undermining the government.
Say nothing and it is complicity.
That was what instigated the panic in me. There was no non-liable move I could make with those documents. That is exactly the kind of procedural trap that has ensnared many good conservatives like Jeff Clark. I had no reason to trust the actual person giving me documents. Every action becomes evidence.
Then, the same structure appeared again, aimed at who I am rather than what I did. I have been described by a very vocal segment as someone who is somehow simultaneously a Zionist and being part of the Flynn network.
Dwell on that for a moment.
Michael Flynn endorsed my work in early 2025. His more recent public identity is as someone who seeks Quincy Institute style restraint. He asked whether every member of Congress has an “an AIPAC handler” and called out foreign influence in the lobbying system.
In other words, the charge assigns me on both poles of a single issue at once.
At first I labeled this development as “incoherent.” But that was the wrong word. Conspiracy framing eats those kinds of contradictions for a living - as they do, and continue to do. The deeper accusation is that I work all sides, and the contradiction proves how deep it runs. You see this with Tyler Robinson.
Candace Owens' has explained Charlie Kirk's death multiple separate ways: a rooftop rifle, a second gunman, a bomb in his microphone. New pieces of evidence do not rearrange the theory; contradictions just drive the conspiracy framing deeper and harder.