"RECEIPTS DON'T LIE": Sen. Whitehouse Goes Head-to-Head with the President of JCN — The Room Freezes!

 

When Carrie Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network, was smoothly defending a conservative Supreme Court nominee using polished academic arguments about "constitutional originalism," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse quietly pulled his microphone close.

He didn’t ask about legal theory. He signaled his aide to unveil his massive financial poster board, pointing directly at a web of shell companies.

"Ms. Severino," Whitehouse began, his voice ice-cold. "Your organization spent tens of millions in dark money smear campaigns to block a Democratic nominee, and then tens of millions more to buy the seat for a Republican one. But here’s the kicker: Your organization doesn't have real grassroots members. All of that money came from a handful of secretive billionaires."

Severino attempted a sharp smile and fired back with her usual defense: "Senator, we are protecting our donors' free speech and their right to privacy from left-wing harassment campaigns."

Whitehouse instantly wiped the smile from the room: "Do not call buying the Supreme Court 'free speech.' You are not sitting here as a legal scholar. You are sitting here as the paid spokesperson for a billion-dollar dark money operation that has captured America’s highest court. And the receipts don't lie."

The moment Whitehouse completely stripped away JCN's academic facade and branded them as political influence-peddlers left the hearing room in stunned silence. The clip instantly blew up online: Progressives are hailing Whitehouse for exposing the "final boss" of dark money, while conservatives are furiously accusing him of badgering the witness and peddling conspiracy theories.

See less

 

 CHRIS BENNETT

Will the Democratic Establishment Do Another “Bernie Betrayal” Like 2016 and Shoe In Schumer and Jeffries?

After a midterm wave driven by progressive energy, party leaders face resistance over unpopularity, donor ties, and the politics of continuity.

Democrats just delivered a sweeping midterm victory, taking the House and Senate with comfortable margins. Hakeem Jeffries is widely expected to become Speaker of the House—the first Black person in that role—and Chuck Schumer is positioned to return as Senate Majority Leader. Progressive groups and some incoming lawmakers are calling this a continuation of establishment power, drawing explicit parallels to the 2016 Democratic primary and the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders.

The comparison is emotionally potent for many on the left. It is also structurally imperfect.

What Happened in 2016

In July 2016, WikiLeaks released roughly 19,000 emails from DNC officials. They showed clear institutional hostility toward Sanders and favoritism toward Hillary Clinton. Staffers discussed using Sanders’ religion against him with Southern voters, mocked his campaign as disorganized, and explored media narratives to undermine him. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then DNC chair, resigned amid the fallout. The DNC issued a formal apology to Sanders and his supporters for “inexcusable remarks.”

There was no documented evidence that the DNC altered vote counts or directly rigged primary results. What the emails revealed was a party apparatus that viewed Sanders as an outsider and preferred the establishment candidate. Sanders himself stated there was “no question” the DNC had supported Clinton over him. The episode confirmed long-standing progressive suspicions about party neutrality and damaged trust that has never fully recovered.

The 2026 Landscape

The current fight is different in key ways. Congressional party leaders are not chosen by the DNC. They are elected by the members of each chamber’s party caucus, typically by secret ballot in organizational meetings after the election but before the new Congress begins in January. The Speaker is then formally elected by the full House. Jeffries and Schumer are the existing leaders; continuity is the default path unless a challenger consolidates support inside the caucus.

That said, the pushback is real. Progressive organization Indivisible has called for new Senate leadership, arguing voters wanted “a new generation of Democratic fighters,” not a return to the status quo. Several incoming Democratic senators—including Abdul El-Sayed (Michigan), Troy Jackson (Maine), Peggy Flanagan (Minnesota), and others—have publicly declined to back Schumer or called for new leadership. A 'Change' petition urging House Democrats to reject Jeffries as Speaker has gathered over eight hundred thousand signatures. Some progressive polling before the election suggested limited enthusiasm for both men among Democratic voters in key districts.

Schumer and Jeffries have framed the results as a mandate to govern on affordability and deliver results against a Republican White House, with allies arguing the party won big under their existing structures. Yet both leaders remain deeply unpopular—Schumer’s leadership has drawn positive ratings as low as 13% in some polls, and both men rank among the least favorably viewed national political figures. In key primaries, candidates they backed or preferred often lost to more progressive challengers: Jeffries endorsed incumbents Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat in New York, both of whom were defeated by progressive and DSA-aligned candidates, while Schumer’s preferred moderates were also beaten in several races. By contrast, progressive Democrats entered the general election with clear momentum—figures such as Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Troy Jackson in Maine won competitive Senate seats after running against the establishment, and left-aligned House candidates scored upsets that expanded the progressive wing heading into the new Congress.

These tensions are compounded by specific policy and political choices that have fueled progressive distrust. Both Schumer and Jeffries have long received substantial funding from pro-Israel political action committees and related groups; AIPAC publicly congratulated them by name after the midterms, and critics have highlighted Jeffries’ consistent support for U.S. military aid to Israel alongside Schumer’s past statements about keeping the party’s left flank “pro-Israel.” On the Iran war, both leaders have since the election publicly called for it to end and pointed to Congress’s power of the purse, yet many progressives remain skeptical of how forcefully they will confront the conflict given their broader relationships. Jeffries’ private meeting with Jared Kushner earlier this year—where the two discussed potential areas of cooperation on housing, immigration, and costs of living—drew sharp progressive criticism as evidence of too much willingness to seek common ground with the Trump orbit rather than pursue aggressive oversight or “retribution.” Combined with the sense that neither leader prioritizes more expansive policies such as Medicare for All that animated progressive primary winners, these factors have left a significant portion of the Democratic base wary that the new majorities will be led by figures more inclined toward continuity and accommodation than the sharper break many voters appear to want.

Is This the Same Kind of “Betrayal”?

The 2016 episode centered on the national party apparatus and its leadership appearing to tilt the field in a presidential primary where voters themselves were choosing the nominee. The present situation is different in form: elected House and Senate Democrats will select their own leaders in closed caucus votes. There is no formal primary, no superdelegate system, and no national party committee that can directly install Schumer or Jeffries.

Even so, progressive critics treat the distinction as largely procedural. They argue that the Democratic establishment—through donor networks, institutional endorsements, leadership PACs, and the simple inertia of incumbency—has already shaped the outcome long before any caucus ballot is cast. From this perspective, the near-certain elevation of two long-serving New York leaders who remain deeply unpopular with the party’s activist base, who backed multiple candidates who lost in competitive primaries, and who maintain close ties to traditional fundraising and foreign-policy constituencies, functions as another form of top-down continuity. It is less a single act of committee intervention and more the predictable result of an establishment that prioritizes experience, fundraising capacity, and legislative continuity over the economic-populist and anti-war message that energized much of the midterm electorate.

Defenders respond that caucus members, not outside activists or the national party, ultimately decide, and that experienced leaders who can hold a majority together and negotiate are what governing requires. Leadership elections remain ahead—House Democrats are expected to formalize their choices in mid-November, Senate Democrats later. Whether progressive opposition is strong enough to produce a genuine contest, or remains a vocal but minority view that the majority of members can absorb, will be settled by the elected Democrats themselves. The question is whether that internal process still feels, to a large part of the party’s base, like another establishment outcome imposed rather than earned.

The Larger Pattern

Parties on both sides repeatedly face the same dynamic after strong performances: the people who held power when the victory arrived tend to keep it, while the base that supplied the energy wants different priorities or faces. The 2016 emails were unusually explicit because they were private. Most internal power struggles stay quieter. What is public now is a progressive effort to treat the midterm mandate as a demand for leadership turnover, and an establishment preference for stability.

Whether that preference constitutes a “betrayal” depends on what one believes the Democratic Party is for and whom it is accountable to. The institutional mechanisms differ from 2016. The political grievance does not.

See less

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly 15 years worth of hard-won pollution reduction efforts are set to be undone in the United States, as a wave of data centers powered by gas plants enters construction.

That’s according to a new analysis by the Sierra Club, first reported by Bloomberg, which notes that the US energy grid is expected to belch out 2.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030, assuming the country’s currently-planned AI developments enter operation as scheduled.

That’s a massive rise compared to even 2025 — itself a near-record year for US carbon emissions. If the AI industry and its data center developers get their way, the analysis found, emissions will likely skyrocket by 42 percent over the five-year period, an expected increase of 618 million tons compared to 2025.

“The numbers continue to sort of boggle our minds,”  the Sierra Club’s principal advisor for climate and energy Jeremy Fisher told Bloomberg.

Due to major bottlenecks in the electrical grid, many data center developers have opted for on- or near-site power plants, which are overwhelmingly fueled by noxious fossil fuels. Projects like Elon Musk’s 1.2 gigawatt data center near Memphis are already choking out residents with fleets of methane generators, which legal experts say flaunt all kinds of local permitting and federal environmental regulations.

Still, for anybody banking on having clean air to breathe, there is some hope. The number of data center projects at risk of cancellation is rising precipitously as time goes on — driven by grass roots organizing and increasing financial pressures.

So if you’re one of the many activists mounting opposition to data centers in your community, just know that the benefits of a cancelled hyperscale facility extend far beyond your backyard.

More on data centers: Thieves Are Making a Fortune Heisting AI Data Center Equipment

Add Futurism as a preferred source on Google to see more of our reporting.

Joe Wilkins

Correspondent

I’m a tech and labor correspondent for Futurism, where my beat includes the role of emerging technologies in governance, surveillance, and labor.

• 
  

 

This RAND Corp study has numbers every American should become familiar with, revealing how much oligarchs have stolen from the working class over the past half-century ($79T, see meme below)...

The RAND study first came out a decade ago, which back then they estimated the theft at $50 trillion. But the amount has risen dramatically during this Trump era, featuring Trumponomics which is prominently defined by his tax cuts for the wealthy & rising Trumpflation which has hit the struggling working class especially hard...

[https://www.thebulwark.com/p/fifty-trillion-reasons-why...](https://www.thebulwark.com/p/fifty-trillion-reasons-why...)

No wonder there's so much angst & anger out there, as stressed-out American families are living paycheck to paycheck with a justifiable sense they've been robbed by the system...

[https://time.com/.../50-trillion-income-inequality.../...](https://time.com/.../50-trillion-income-inequality.../...)

There are sensible solutions we can strive to achieve, but it's certainly not coming from Trump's MAGA. Our current president is only making things worse...

[https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthiest-1-percent...](https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthiest-1-percent...)

To get our country back on track by lowering costs & helping workers make a livable wage, let's relegate MAGA to the dustbin of history & unite around new policies that advance shared prosperity, upward mobility & opportunity for all...

[https://www.commondreams.org/.../25-trillion-theft-study...](https://www.commondreams.org/.../25-trillion-theft-study...)

See less

 

 

 

Collective Evolution

From what former CIA agent John Kiriakou has stated on record, the JFK files will never be released because "they point directly at Israel." This is not a new theory, but it is getting more weight behind it.

Kiriakou said in an interview: "About a year ago, I said, thank God that the President finally released the remaining documents. And he said, no, he didn't. I said, yeah, he did. He was compelled by law. Congress passed a law twice demanding, compelling the President to release all documents related to the Kennedy assassination.

He said, there are 10,000 documents that are never going to be released. And I said, why? And he said, because every single one of them points directly at Israel. He says that the Israelis were so angry that, A, John Kennedy wouldn't give them nuclear technology, but more importantly, B, he was actively trying to disrupt the Israelis from acquiring nuclear technology, and they decided they had to take him out."

Interviewer: "John, why is it that Israel seems to have this much say over the American government? I mean, I don't get it."

John: "I mean. No, I. I don't either. I mean, they're a small little country. Why do they have this kind of power and control? Is it. I don't know. I don't get it. They genuinely believe that it is them against the world, and if they are not among the strongest powers in the world, they're going to end up floating in the Mediterranean. And so they made a strategic decision in the middle 1950s that they were going to have as much of an impact in American elections as they possibly could.

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was created in the 1950s as a domestic lobbying organization supporting Israeli foreign policy goals. Every country has lobbyists in Washington. There's nothing unusual about that. What's unusual about it, though? Well, there are several things. Number one, AIPAC is the only one of these organizations that does not have to register as a foreign agent. Why? I don't know why.

They're clearly working on behalf of Israel, but they pretend that they're not. And so they don't have to register as foreign agents. More importantly, they really started focusing on fundraising for American elections in the late 1960s, and then they were successful in getting President Nixon in 1969 to guarantee Israeli national security. We had never said that before, beginning with Harry Truman.

You know, Harry Truman said that his role in the creation of the state of Israel made him, quote, a damn fool, that he was a damn fool for creating that country. And he said it was the biggest regret of his presidency because it spun out of control almost immediately."

Do you think we'll ever get to the truth on this story? We virtually know the official story isn't correct. So what is?

See less

 

 

 

Jared Kushner the Mossad Plant (FACT)

According to Dutch intelligence and whoever else is involved in leaking these international dossiers, the two tier system just had one of its biggest shadow directors exposed. I personally believe Kushner is a big, serious player for the syndicate.

If you want to understand how the global elite actually manage sovereign nations, you have to stop looking at the politicians at the podium and start looking at the men standing quietly behind them.

For years, independent researchers have asked the same question: Who is actually running the American executive branch?

Recent intelligence leaks and a bombshell investigative book have painted a picture that is almost too massive to comprehend. Let’s audit the ledger, look at the allegations, and break down exactly what this means for the global control grid. This is fact by the way, I know it reads like fiction or conspiracy but it’s all fact.

The Dutch Hack and the $2 Billion Slush Fund:

The latest exposure comes from Matthew Cole’s investigative book Princes and Thieves, which claims that the Dutch intelligence service (MIVD) hacked into Jared Kushner’s iPhone. What they allegedly found wasn't just diplomatic chatter; it was a sprawling, multi billion dollar financial network.

According to the reports, the Dutch spies watched as Kushner logged into secret bank accounts funded by Saudi and Emirati royals, totaling nearly $2 billion. The book alleges that around $1 billion was transferred to Israel via Azerbaijan and Cyprus, operating as an untraceable slush fund.

The allegations suggest foreign entities were essentially paying for direct, unchecked influence over US foreign policy. Think of the access Kushner has as one of Trumps misted trusted lieutenants. Should someone in this position fully transparent?

Kushner’s camp has vehemently denied these claims, calling the book "complete fiction" and "completely insane," pointing out that no verifiable wire transfers or account numbers were published to prove the accounts even exist.

But in the two tier system, the loudest denials usually point to the deepest secrets.

The Handler: Was Trump Compromised?

The Dutch hack is just the financial side. The intelligence side is even darker.

Earlier this year, unsealed FBI memos related to the Jeffrey Epstein files revealed a Confidential Human Source claiming that Epstein was a co opted Mossad agent.

More importantly, the source explicitly stated, “Trump has been compromised by Israel. And Kushner is the real brains behind his organisation and his Presidency".

Many have alleged for years that Kushner was not just a son in law, but a designated "handler", inserted to ensure that America's populist movements never actually strayed from the goals of the global elite and the military industrial complex.

Just recently I done blogs speaking about elites like the Rothschilds and the Orsini’s marrying family for stronger foundations; it truly reads like a scene from Game of Thrones, but are we just as bad believing that this still doesn’t go on?

The History: When Was He Inserted?

Kushner wasn't born a diplomat. He was the heir to a controversial New Jersey real estate empire. His father, Charles Kushner, was famously imprisoned for tax evasion and witness tampering, only to be pardoned later.

Jared was inserted into the Trump dynasty when he married Ivanka Trump in 2009.

When Trump took office, Kushner, a man with zero foreign policy or intelligence experience, was suddenly handed the keys to the Middle East. He orchestrated the Abraham Accords and bypassed traditional state departments to deal directly with foreign royals and intelligence agencies. Is this Q at its finest, let’s hope so

The Financial Extraction: Crypto, Pump and Dumps, and Private Equity:

The two tier system doesn't just use power; it extracts wealth. The allegations surrounding Kushner and the wider elite circles involve pumping and dumping massive assets, from traditional private equity to the modern wild west of cryptocurrency, using insider geopolitical knowledge.

When you know a peace treaty or a defense contract is about to be signed, you know exactly where the markets will shift. Whether it is through digital assets or his $2 billion private equity fund (Affinity Partners), the investigations all point to the same mechanism: using government access to funnel obscene amounts of money into private, untouchable accounts.

The Verdict: Is He Just a Run of the Mill Spy?

If these allegations are true, what does it mean?

Is Jared Kushner just a spy?

In my opinion, absolutely not. A run of the mill spy steals blueprints for a fighter jet or snaps photos of a military base. What is being alleged here is structural capture. If a foreign intelligence agency (like Mossad) and foreign royals (like the Saudis and Emiratis) can use a single handler to direct the foreign policy of the United States, broker international peace accords, and move billions of dollars through secret accounts, then the American government is completely compromised.

It means the President is just a Capo, and the man whispering in his ear is taking orders directly from the Bosses.

Let's Open the Conversation:

1. If Dutch intelligence and FBI sources both point to Kushner operating as a handler with secret foreign accounts, why are these investigations constantly swept under the rug?

2. Do you believe Kushner’s claims that this is all "fiction," or is this just how the two tier system operates at the highest levels?

3. If an unelected son in law is the "real brains" behind the administration, does it even matter who we vote for?

Drop your thoughts in the comments below. It’s time to follow the money and expose the handlers.

#SocialSessionsMedia #TwoTierSystem #FollowTheMoney #JaredKushner #TruthExposed #Mossad #GlobalElite #TheAlienAuditor #SystemExposed

See less

 Donald Trump Jailtracker

Amy Hamilton

PALANTIR HAS BECOME ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DATA BUSINESS. IT HAS A $10 BILLION ARMY AGREEMENT, A $1 BILLION DHS AGREEMENT, A SOLE-SOURCE ICE RELATIONSHIP, A PROPOSED $244 MILLION PENTAGON SPENDING MEMO, $3.1 MILLION IN A QUARTER OF LOBBYING, AND A $10 MILLION GIFT TO THE WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM. HERE IS WHAT IS DOCUMENTED, WHAT IS ALLEGED, AND WHAT IS NOT SHOWN.

Palantir's government work is large and reported across many outlets. This post puts the main pieces in one place and separates the contracts, which are documented, from the allegations about how the tools are used, which are not.

The Army

- In August 2025 the Army announced an enterprise agreement with Palantir worth up to $10 billion over 10 years, per Washington Technology. That is a ceiling, not guaranteed spending.

- It consolidates 75 contracts, 15 prime and 60 related. The Army said the goals are faster delivery of commercial software and removal of pass-through fees. The Army will reassess it every 18 to 24 months. No dollar savings figure was given.

- Army CIO Leo Garciga called it a "pivotal step in the Army's commitment to modernizing our capabilities." The article describes it as part of a group of administration agreements with software companies for deep discounts, including GSA deals with Google, Microsoft, Uber and Adobe.

The Pentagon memo

- Federal News Network reported in August on a draft memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, dated Aug. 4, directing officials to spend up to $244 million on Palantir's services until the end of March 2027, and to find ways to fund work from April 2027 to December 2028.

- Feinberg wrote that "Palantir is providing valuable support to improve efficiencies with the defense industrial base," including understanding delays in producing critical munitions. A Defense Department official said it is "not exclusive to any single vendor."

- Greg Williams of the Project on Government Oversight called it "alarming in that it expresses the intention of entering into a sole-source contract without any reference" to competition requirements. The article says the memo does not mention competition and does not explicitly use the term "no-bid."

- Not disclosed: how the money will be used, which programs it supports and how many similar memos exist. Palantir did not respond.

Homeland Security

- A DHS blanket purchasing agreement worth up to $1 billion over five years was reported in February 2026. It lets DHS components buy Palantir's Gotham and Foundry platforms without separate competitive contracts, using pre-set pricing. Intended uses include case management, threat identification, logistics and emergency planning, with analytics drawing on enforcement, biometric, financial and travel data. The article does not name ICE as a user and quotes no critics.

- Government contracts make up roughly 55% of Palantir's revenue, per that report.

ICE

- Palantir has run ICE's Investigative Case Management platform since 2014, per the ACLU, an advocacy organization. The ACLU cites USAspending data showing the sole-source deal has grown past $145 million. ICE stated that "Palantir remains the sole provider capable of meeting the specific needs and requirements of ICE."

- In April 2025 ICE reportedly signed a $30 million contract for ImmigrationOS, running through September 2027, per the ACLU and Fortune. ICE contract documents describe selecting and apprehending people for deportation, tracking self-deportations and visa overstays, and logistics "from identification to removal."

- 404 Media reported in January 2026 that ICE uses a Palantir tool called ELITE that ingests Medicaid and other government data to generate leads and a "confidence score" for a person's address. This is reporting, not an official confirmation. Palantir and DHS did not respond to Fortune. ICE and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services signed a data-sharing agreement that would let ICE receive personal data on nearly 80 million Medicaid patients, per Fortune. The Electronic Frontier Foundation asked a federal judge to block it. The outcome is not reported.

- Palantir CEO Alex Karp has framed the work around serious crime and national security, per a December 2025 New York Times interview as Fortune describes it. Fortune also reports a public letter urging tech CEOs to cancel ICE contracts had 450 signatures, including from Palantir employees, and that 13 former Palantir employees criticized the company in a letter.

Money in politics

- The Washington Post reported on Oct. 15 that private donors have given about $333 million for the White House ballroom. Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft and RHI II LLC gave $10 million each, per Forbes' summary of the Post.

- Punchbowl News reported on Oct. 22 that Palantir disclosed $3.1 million in lobbying for the third quarter, up roughly $1.15 million from a year earlier. Punchbowl's related headlines say two Palantir executives gave $425,000 and $250,000 to a PAC tied to a California primary. Details behind those headlines are not public here.

What is not shown. None of this reporting alleges that the ballroom gift or lobbying produced a contract. Most of the big contracts began or were announced before the ballroom donation list became public, and a company this size would have federal business under any administration. The ELITE allegations rest on one outlet's reporting, and the Pentagon memo is a draft.

To be fair to Palantir and the administration: the Army says the deal saves money by consolidating dozens of contracts, the Pentagon says the memo is not exclusive to one vendor, and ICE has said no other firm meets its needs. Data tools help agencies connect databases and respond to threats, and lawful investigations of serious crimes use them. Lobbying and donations are legal and disclosed, and companies of all kinds do both.

To be fair to the critics: sole-source awards and enterprise deals reduce competition, the same company is at once a dominant supplier, a lobbyist and a donor to the president's building project, and the allegations about Medicaid data and deportation tools raise privacy questions that the public cannot check because the contracts and use are largely opaque. Neither a contract nor a donation proves wrongdoing, and the open question is oversight.

Draw your own conclusions.

What you can actually do: call, write, vote.

Call the Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask your senators and representative: Should big, sole-source data contracts get competitive review, and what limits should apply to sharing health and tax data with immigration enforcement?

Write the House Oversight Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the DHS and Defense Inspectors General (oig.dhs.gov, dodig.mil) and the General Services Administration asking for contract terms, justifications and audit results

Read the primary sources: USAspending.gov for contract data, lda.senate.gov for lobbying disclosures, and FEC.gov for political giving, rather than relying on any summary, including this one

Vote. Election Day is November 3. Ask candidates in both parties where they stand on government data contracts, surveillance and corporate money

Sources: [Washington Technology (Aug. 2025)](https://www.washingtontechnology.com/.../palantir.../407153/), [Federal News Network (Aug. 2026)](https://federalnewsnetwork.com/.../pentagon-wants-to.../), [Yahoo Finance on the DHS agreement (Feb. 2026)](https://finance.yahoo.com/.../billion-dollar-palantir...), [Fortune (Jan. 26, 2026)](https://www.fortune.com/.../ice-allegedly-uses-palantir...), [ACLU (Mar. 24, 2026)](https://www.aclu.org/.../pri.../palantir-deportation-roundup) (advocacy), [Forbes on the Washington Post's ballroom donor list (Oct. 15)](https://www.forbes.com/.../these-billionaire-backers-are.../), [Punchbowl News (Oct. 22)](https://punchbowl.news/article/defense/palantir-trump-dc/).

#Palantir #GovernmentContracts #Transparency #AshAMiltonUniverse

See less