Controlling Accountability: Networks, Power & Money: Examining Patterns from the 2024 Election to the Epstein Files

This article examines publicly verified information alongside whistleblower allegations to explore troubling parallels between systems of power, influence, and accountability. We're not making accusations. We're following the evidence and asking questions that deserve answers.

The Whistleblower's Claims

Adam Zarnowski, a former United States intelligence officer who specializes in human trafficking, sexual assault, and crimes against children, has made extraordinary claims about the 2024 presidential election. According to statements attributed to him, Zarnowski was personally involved in an NSA-authorized forensic audit of the 2024 election that revealed Harris and Walz won by a wide margin, while Trump "lost dramatically."

Zarnowski alleges the fraud involves "multiple layers of complexity" including transnational organized crime syndicates extending beyond U.S. elections, with connections to human trafficking networks that have ties to Trump and Epstein—not to Biden, Harris, or Walz.

These are serious allegations from someone with credentials in intelligence work. We have not been able to independently verify the existence of such an audit or access any classified information. Zarnowski's claims could be accurate, partially accurate, or incorrect. What we can do is examine publicly documented irregularities and patterns to see whether they support, contradict, or raise additional questions about these allegations. This is not about proving or disproving claims—it's about documenting what we know and what deserves further investigation.

The Money: Unprecedented Billionaire Influence

Elon Musk's role in the 2024 election was historically unprecedented. According to federal election filings and news reports, Musk spent approximately $277-290 million supporting Trump and Republicans, making him the single largest individual political donor in the election cycle.

But it wasn't just the money. Musk essentially led Trump's ground operation in battleground states like Pennsylvania, with his America PAC spending over $97 million on canvassing and field operations. He launched a controversial $1 million per day giveaway for swing state voters—a program the Justice Department warned could potentially violate federal election laws, though it was allowed to continue.

After the election, Musk himself claimed: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election." He became omnipresent at Mar-a-Lago, leading some to call him "President Musk," and was rewarded with a government position leading the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Important context: Large political donations are legal, and wealthy individuals have every right to support candidates they believe in. The question isn't whether Musk broke the law—it's whether this concentration of wealth in elections creates influence that undermines democratic equality, regardless of legality.

The Threats: Targeting Democratic Voters

On Election Day 2024, a disturbing pattern emerged: at least 227 bomb threats targeted polling locations, with a striking geographic and political pattern.

While election officials stated disruptions were minimal due to preparation, research suggests the gap in voter turnout between threatened and non-threatened precincts in DeKalb County was larger in 2024 than in 2020—possibly due to the bomb threats.

Critical questions this raises: Were these threats coordinated or coincidental? If coordinated, by whom and for what purpose? The FBI's attribution to Russian email domains doesn't answer whether this was state-sponsored interference, independent actors, or domestic groups using foreign servers. These are open investigative questions.

The Files: Trump Controls His Own Investigation

Perhaps the most troubling conflict of interest involves the Epstein files. Trump campaigned on releasing the files, signed a bipartisan law requiring the Department of Justice to release them by December 19, 2025, and then—once in office—his own Justice Department controlled that release.

The pattern of release has been deeply problematic:

First release contained few Trump mentions, drawing immediate criticism. Three days later, the DOJ released thousands more files with many Trump references—but only after public outcry.

The DOJ's statement read "as if it's from Trump's personal lawyer" according to critics, and included a fake letter they initially released, then later declared fake.

The DOJ missed the legal deadline, with 5.2 million pages left to review. They stated it will take until late January despite the December deadline.

What do the files contain about Trump? According to released documents:

Someone potentially implicated in the files is now controlling their release. That represents a massive conflict of interest.

Alternative explanations exist: The DOJ could be acting in good faith to protect ongoing investigations, national security concerns, or privacy of other individuals mentioned in the files. The delays could be due to the genuine complexity of reviewing millions of pages. However, the pattern of initial omissions followed by later inclusions after public pressure raises legitimate questions about whether the release is being managed strategically.

Trump's Pageants: Another Industry, Another Pattern

Trump owned the Miss Universe Organization—which includes Miss USA and Miss Teen USA—from 1996 to 2015. During that time, multiple contestants came forward with disturbing allegations about his behavior that echo the same patterns of exploitation seen in other industries.

In a 2005 Howard Stern interview, Trump openly boasted about his access to contestants: "I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else... And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant... You know, they're standing there with no clothes... And so I sort of get away with things like that."

When asked by Stern if he'd slept with contestants, Trump declined to answer directly, saying "It could be a conflict of interest"—implying the possibility while acknowledging the power dynamic.

The pageant world, like the modeling industry, creates conditions ripe for exploitation: young women (and in Miss Teen USA's case, girls) seeking career opportunities, dependent on the approval of powerful gatekeepers, in environments where they're expected to appear in revealing clothing. Trump's ownership gave him unfettered access and control—access he admitted to using and that multiple contestants say crossed clear boundaries.

The Network: Wexner, Epstein, Jeffries, and Systemic Abuse

Barrett Pall, a former Abercrombie & Fitch model and trafficking survivor, has been speaking out about his experiences and the interconnected nature of these abuse networks. In a recent video statement, Pall explains:

These connections are documented:

Mike Jeffries, former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO, was arrested in October 2024 and charged with sex trafficking and interstate prostitution involving dozens of men.

Les Wexner, founder of L Brands (Victoria's Secret, Bath & Body Works), had a long financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and gave him power of attorney over his finances—an unprecedented level of access and control.

Pall emphasizes that male survivors have been speaking out for years but were ignored: "What we're fighting is a system that was built by predators for predators... People don't actually care about this are now going to use us to get engagement, to get likes, to get follows."

His point is crucial: these aren't isolated predators but an interconnected system using legitimate industries (modeling, fashion, entertainment) as cover for trafficking.

Connecting the Threads

When we lay out the verified facts alongside the whistleblower allegations, a pattern emerges that warrants investigation. We must be clear: patterns are not proof. Correlation does not equal causation. Multiple explanations could account for these coinciding events. What follows is one possible interpretation based on the available evidence:

As Barrett Pall describes it: a system built by predators for predators. But this system isn't just about trafficking. It's about power protecting power at every level—using wealth, influence, disruption, and control of institutions to avoid accountability.

Counter-narrative worth considering: Each of these elements could have innocent explanations. Musk may genuinely believe Trump was the best candidate and spent accordingly. Bomb threats may have been uncoordinated bad actors. The DOJ may be legitimately overwhelmed by document volume. The trafficking networks may be entirely separate from political power. The election results may accurately reflect voter preferences despite all irregularities.

The question is: which narrative better fits the totality of evidence?

The Questions That Demand Answers

We are not declaring definitive conclusions. We are presenting documented facts and asking the questions that responsible journalism demands:

1. What did Adam Zarnowski's alleged NSA audit reveal? If such an audit exists, why hasn't it been made public? What mechanisms exist for whistleblowers to share classified information about election fraud?

2. Why were bomb threats so precisely targeted at Democratic precincts? Who benefits from making it harder for Black voters in swing state cities to cast their ballots? Has there been a thorough investigation?

3. What did Musk expect in return for $290 million? Is a government efficiency position adequate compensation, or does his influence extend further into policy and decision-making?

4. Why is Trump controlling the release of files that implicate him? How can there be legitimate accountability when the subject of investigation controls the evidence?

5. How deep do the connections go between trafficking networks and political power? If Wexner enabled both Epstein and the Jeffries operation, and Trump appears in Epstein files, what other connections exist that we haven't yet uncovered?

What Comes Next

The patterns documented here—unprecedented billionaire influence, targeted voter disruption, conflicts of interest in releasing evidence of potential crimes, and interconnected networks of abuse—paint a troubling picture of power protecting itself.

Whether Adam Zarnowski's specific allegations about election fraud are accurate, the documented facts alone warrant serious investigation. When systems appear designed to protect predators, when transparency is controlled by those potentially implicated, when democratic processes show signs of disruption and manipulation—these are not partisan concerns. These are threats to the foundations of accountability and justice.

Barrett Pall urges survivors and concerned citizens to "push this conversation forward so that justice can actually be had." That starts with believing survivors, demanding transparency, and refusing to accept that power makes people untouchable.

The threads are there. The question is whether we have the courage to follow them wherever they lead.