Nine Anonymous Critics Condemn Raniere Expert for Anti-FBI Bias

The commenters are out in force. Eager to discredit Dr. J. Richard Kiper, nine have made comments. They claim Kiper has a strong anti-FBI bias. So, he is worthless for testimony that sheds unfavorable light on the FBI. Kiper is the expert Keith Raniere retained to present evidence of FBI tampering.


He sounds more like a tattle tale than a “whistleblower”.

Exposing deadly chemicals are being dumped into the public water supply by the company you work for is a “whistleblower”.  Saying we spent too much money on the copy machines? Meh.

Kiper tattletales on the FBI to the US Senate.


He tattle-taled to the US Congress. They made a law that coerced those poor FBI supervisors. Now they can’t retaliate against whistleblowers.

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Aristotle’s Sausage

“…the FBI demoted Kiper from a GS-15 to a GS-13 position and transferred him to another division.” He was demoted and removed from his position of responsibility. He resented this to the extent of testifying against his employer, the FBI, before a Congressional committee.

The FBI was forced to reinstate him… Here’s a guy with a grudge against the FBI giving his opinion on the “question” of FBI evidence tampering in the Raniere case. I take his opinion for what it’s worth. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.


The FBI forced Kiper to teach forensic examination to FBI agents. The FBI forced Kiper overseas to teach forensic examinations to partner nations. The FBI forced him to teach digital forensics to Saudi Arabia just before he retired in 2019.



Come on, Frank…it can be reasonably assumed that Kiper holds an anti-FBI bias…

If my former employer put me through the wringer (like the FBI did to Kiper) for pointing out waste and fraud, I would ABSOLUTELY hold a grudge. Regardless of his credibility in the realm of technology, he has ZERO credibility as a witness against the FBI.


He believed the FBI needed more whistleblower protection for its employees. He wants the agency to be honest, he says. The thought that with the kind of unchecked power that the FBI has, it can be honest is incredible. You’re right.



… More than likely he was not demoted, nor was he promoted, but simply assigned to desk duty for the remainder of his career shuffling paperwork… 


He was not shuffled to a desk job. He continued as an active special agent. He trained FBI agents. He trained FBI forensic examiners. He trained trainers of forensic examiners. He trained law enforcement for partner nations all over the world. Right until the time he retired. He retired after he got his 20 years.


M. Novak

I predict that the EDNY will eat him alive during the upcoming motion proceedings.  “Can we have Kipers for breakfast Mummy dear, Mummy dear?” – with apologies to Supertramp’s “Breakfast in America” (1979)


Your kipper is a red one.



The government had control of these files since they were discovered. It is logical to assume that someone in the government changed the data. Whether it is FBI or someone at EDNY, it still means the same thing. The government cheated. This is particularly serious since the main basis of the trial was predicated on these photos! If all this is true, I’m not sure where it leaves us.


If the FBI tampered, then it becomes a matter of finding who did what and when. 
If Raniere gets a new trial and if they choose to recharge on the Camila charges – possession of child porn might go out the window. But sexual exploitation of a child, 18 USC § 2251,  may have no statute of limitations.
I am not sure if the government can prove all the elements. I’m not a lawyer. But if they charge this, Camila, as a witness. would be the key. The penalty is steep: 15 years minimum. Raniere is 61. 



Frank, you keep saying that you are “keeping an open mind” about FBI tampering and then writing posts and comments as if ALLEGATIONS are facts… It’s a really big jump from even proving tampering to then pointing a finger at an entire agency as the culprits.

This is really irresponsible reporting.


I want proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. A preponderance of evidence to begin an investigation.



Frank, you should just recuse yourself…  because your bias is so obvious that you must be getting paid to be Keith’s PR campaign now.


I do not plan to recuse myself. I am not working on Raniere’s PR campaign. I would not publish Camila’s Story of 12 Years of Abuse By Keith Raniere.
I doubt Judge Garaufis will recuse himself. Raniere will make a motion to recuse the judge. He would not permit the prosecution to come into his court with tampered evidence. He will want to hear the evidence.


It’s kind of fun to watch Frank acting as though he’s about to publish the most explosive & viral story of 2022, which, in his own mind, will probably be picked up by mainstream media and catapult himself to a Pulitzer. lol.


Ah, Magoo, you’ve done it again. If the story becomes viral, it will be because the evidence is there.


Frank Parlato… keeps saying that the ‘credentials’ (of Rick Kiper) will be the deciding factor in ‘PROVING’ (to the court) that evidence tampering took place. In fact, Frank’s already got a huge BONER from talking about Rick Kiper’s credentials.


Have you ever commented before as Bangkok? 

Was Magoo formerly known as Bangkok?


It seems as though Frank literally WORSHIPS the ground this guy walks on, judging by how ‘giddy’ he sounds when redundantly laying out Kiper’s credentials for us (which he’s already done in previous articles and which he’s getting ready to do again this week, and probably again next week, lol). 

Frank feels honored to be in this man’s presence and is totally enamored by Rick Kiper, in the same way that Sultan is enamored by Kreuk.


No one can worship like Sultan worships Kristin Kreuk. 

Sultan became wroth over Frank Report’s criticism of Kristin Kreuk. He likened it to murder.


It’s not enough to cite ‘credentials’ as a reason to overturn a verdict. You need to PROVE your point with more than dueling experts for the prosecution and defense, interpreting the data differently.

Now, if the government responds by admitting that everything Kiper says is true, then I’ll agree with Frank. But I seriously doubt it’s gonna happen like that.

To reverse a conviction and proclaim that ‘evidence tampering’ actually took place (which could possibly lead to indicting FBI agents) there needs to be more than typical courtroom OPINIONS expressed, regardless of the credentials of the person making the statements.


If there is a sufficient showing, an evidentiary hearing is indicated. Maybe an independent investigation. Perhaps a special counsel. Each level should have higher thresholds.   


Credentials don’t establish facts. Data will establish facts. But if that data can be interpreted in different ways, then there are NO FACTS which can be presented, only opinions.


Unless there are indisputable facts. That remains to be seen.


Frank is trying to claim that Kiper’s credentials make his OPINION an infallible ‘fact’ (which nobody can dispute unless they’ve also worked for the FBI for 20 years, LOL). Kiper is probably a smart guy, but he’s hardly the best cyber-crime expert in the world.


The FBI will find someone with similar credentials. It will be interesting to see if the experts agree.


Nice Guy

None of these experts can read computer code. They all rely on 3rd party software to tell them there has been malevolent tampering which is ridiculous.


Suneel can read code. He teaches people to read and write code. However, he tells me that forensic examiners do not need to read code.
Code is a language instructing the computer on how to compute or function. Here’s an analogy: A doctor might not know how to read the blueprints for an endoscope. However, he needs to know how to use an endoscope to detect disease.

About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Frank, “Perhaps a special counsel” to investigate these old, flimsy, repetitive claims by the dead-eyed NXIVM dead-enders?!

    Dude, did Nice Guy send you a case of that Irish whiskey he drinks too much of and you polished off a bottle by yourself?

    The super-competent Tully, Esq. hasn’t even managed to file the Rule 33 motion yet. You might want to put a saddle on the horse and lead it out of the barn before you start dreaming of leading a mounted charge on the White House.

    You’ve done a lot of great work through the years on this case, but you have become a mouthpiece for Keith at this point. You used to get paid big bucks to do his PR work. Now you do it for free.

    You know better.

    Viva Executive Success®!!!!!

    Viva Ring Dings®!!!!!

    Nice Guy Certified® Comedy Triple Platinum Award Winner 💿💿💿

  • Denial.

    Is Tully that incompetent or was the poorly filed motion intentional?

    Either way, it ain’t happening.

  • Frank,
    I took another look at the Sultan meme. I see what you did there. It took a few minutes to register.

    How could Sultan do something to his beloved Kristen!


  • The problem with all of this, as Ice-nine has stated before, is that Wayne Newton Norris guy. His testimony is so worthless that it spoils the life’s work of anyone associated to him. I wouldn’t believe anything this Wayne Newton said, unless of course it was at The Flamingo.

  • Nicki Clyne wants to play Johnny Depp’s ex-wife with Jonathan Depps as the lead actor.

    She posted it on Twitter.

    She is having wet dreams about Johnny now.

    Sticking up for him as an abused man from his ex-wife.

    My lord, what a shit show of a trial that is.

    No one is innocent in that marriage.

    Nick Clyne thinks Johnny is totally innocent.

    Of course she would.

    She still believes Raniere is innocent.

    • Nicki Clyne and Johnny Depp
      April 27, 2022 at 11:30 pm
      Nicki Clyne wants to play Johnny Depp’s ex-wife with Jonathan Depps as the lead actor.

      She posted it on Twitter.

      She is having wet dreams about Johnny now.

      Sticking up for him as an abused man from his ex-wife.

      My lord, what a shit show of a trial that is. Nicki Clyne and Johnny Depp

      The Depp-Heard trial is literally a shit show!
      Nicki Clyne is herself a masterful internet troll. ShadowState1958

  • Glad to see you have so many open minded commenters on your forum. LOL!!!
    Well anyway, all these negative opinions make it more interesting; people expressing their opinions is what democracy is about.

    • An opinion that does not mirror your own is not by default, “negative”.

      It is merely a different opinion.

      If you’re so open-minded yourself, then you would know that distinction.

  • Frank,

    “Suneel can read code. He teaches people to read and write code.”

    “Lee Haskell, a Hacker Attacker, says a forensic examiner does not need to read code. “Generally no,” he said. “An examiner will be better off knowing some scripting CLI language”.

    You’re taking their word. Are you kidding me?

    IF — you do not understand and are knowledgeable about: machine code, Assembly language, BIT PATTERNS, sectors, and Hard drive/ OS read/write files, e.t.c……

    How the hell can you determine if a file on a hard drive has been tampered with????


    You live near Binghamton University,
    They have an incredible computer science program. Look up an assistant professor or professor, and ask them the skills needed to tell of a file residing on a hard drive has been tampered with!!!!

    Whoever is feeding you this information is full of fucking shit!!!!!

    Don’t believe me — THEN call an actual university professor who works in computer science and ask them!!!!!!!

    • RE My 5:26 Comment:

      At the end of the day the Federal Court will decide, and I will accept their decision. It’s how it works.

      Please ask someone who has an actual degree in Computer Science, not an FBI agent with a PHD in education, a cult-member (Suneel), or a website article.

    • Yeah the offhand “generally no” comment made me laugh. He’s saying you don’t need to know the fundamentals to call yourself an expert.

      In what endeavor can you be an “expert” without knowing the fundamentals?

      Lots of people think they’re computer experts when all they know is apps and programs or can troubleshoot your wi-fi issues.

      The guy down the street who replaces busted smartphone screens will tell you he’s a computer expert.

      Frank is already making excuses for the lack of expertise of the principle investigator in this “investigation”. This is shaping up to be a real joke!

    • —I admit that I am suspicious of the FBI, and I am not a conspiracy nut.

      That’s exactly what a conspiracy nuts says.

      Ask ShadowState1958 if he’s a conspiracy nut…..

      …..I rest my case

  • Frank, how much money did Kiper receive for this report?

    Suneel has only disclosed the total amount of money that was paid for the entire investigation ($98k).

    But he hasn’t said how much money went to Kiper specifically, nor any other experts.

    Nor has Suneel said if any more money has been paid after his last disclosure.

    Since Kiper is the most important expert, can we assume that he was paid the lion’s share of that $98k?

    If not, then let’s have the REAL numbers that each expert received.

    If you don’t have access to these numbers, then can we assume that Suneel wants to hide how much he paid to each expert because it might make them look greedy?

    Also, can you disclose if anybody from Suneel’s team has any agreements with Kiper, or any other expert, to pay them even more money in the future IF they need to testify in any future hearings?

    Also… Has any other money or benefits been promised to them if this case ‘succeeds’?

    If a reversal happens, will these experts be able to collect more money under any circumstances?

    Has the $98k figure changed since Suneel last reported it? Has more money been given between now and then?

    Are you even privy to such info?

    Or are you just their USEFUL IDIOT, who only carries their water but who doesn’t get access to such info?

    Oh… If Mr. Kiper really LOVES the FBI as much as you claimed, and if he’s truly SAD that he discovered this alleged tampering, then why wouldn’t he have donated his time for free to write this report? Or at least for the cost of expenses only?

    He testified to Congress free of charge (presumably), because he truly believed in that cause, right?

    Why would he demand money to write a report which publicly denigrates an organization that he claims to LOVE, if he’s truly doing this to help the FBI for ‘moral’ purposes? LOL.

    To give an analogy… If I spent my career in law enforcement and somebody, whom I loved deeply, needed my help to right a perceived wrong, then I’d donate my time for free and wouldn’t charge them for anything but actual expenses.

    Love does not cost money.

    If you truly love somebody or something, you won’t be concerned about getting lots of money, in my opinion.

    Money has a way of exposing what’s inside a person’s heart.

    Happy birthday Frank.

  • Q: What do Suneel, Eduardo and Frank all have in common?

    Is it…

    1) A rock hard commitment to The Truth?

    2) A commitment to rock hard cock sucking?

    I know you are too much of a pussy to post this, Frankie boy.

    Looking forward to your conviction.

    You aren’t gonna plea out because you know they won’t settle for just $$$$. They wanna see time.

    You are going to lose more money and do more time than what they are offering now.

    Keith says “Hi!”

      • That was a needlessly rude comment that “Question” made, but it clearly hit a nerve with you, Frank. Unusual.

        You are between a rock and a hard place. If you plea, you look guilty because you say you are guilty and you have to swear to that truth.

        If you go to trial, objectively you stand a low chance of being found not-guilty in a federal prosecution.

        That sure seems like what you are prepping for in the way you’ve taken this blog away from NXIVM to now focusing only on allegations of court and law enforcement wrongdoing.

        I’m praying for you.

        • God helps those who help themselves. By the way, I don’t think the odds are low at all. If you have innocence, a fair judge, and a fair jury. I have the first two and we will select a fair, impartial jury. People do not understand that the government wins most cases through coercive plea bargaining. Most people who do go to trial are factually guilty of something. Most but not all. In my case I am absolutely, 100 percent not guilty of one single charge.

          The prosecution cannot prove I am guilty, but I can also prove I am innocent.

          • 2% go to trial, of that, feds have 85% conviction rate. You have the confidence of a naked emperor, it’s impressive. At least you aren’t representing yourself. That’s a plus.

          • I suspect that maybe 75 percent of defendants are guilty so the 85 percent conviction rate is about right.

            I would say that 90 percent of totally innocent defendants are acquitted at trial – if they have reasonable representation. I happen to have the best team of lawyers.

            I happen to be factually, provably innocent – not just that the prosecution cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – I can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

            So yes. Most defendants go to trial because they can’t get a plea deal but are guilty of some charges. Remember that if a defendant is charged with 20 felonies and he beats 19 of them, they still call that a win for the prosecution. And it goes towards the 85 percent.

            No, the odds are not against the innocent. I think truth comes to a courtroom because of the jury. The 12 see something and they are right more than they are wrong.

            My confidence then is in the people. People being able to see the truth. When they see the preposterous case the prosecution hatched – some 7 years ago – it will be stunning. It will destroy any idea that we should have a presumption of regularity or honesty from prosecutors.

            The charges will evaporate into the air. This is the third team of prosecutors on this case. Of the three teams, the current team seems the most honest. I do not think they have understood how stupid this case their predecessors brought is. And how impossible it will be to prove.

            When I was indicted it had a purpose. It led me to expose Raniere and Bronfman who got the feds to indict me.

            My trial may also have a purpose. But for the moment I am interested in whether the FBI tampered with evidence and if Chris Ambrose is going to stop punishing his kids.

  • For those of you who believe that FBI agents are always Saints I present you with the story of Sibel Edmonds.

    When Mrs. Edmonds exposed FBI corruption in 2002 to Senators Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy as a whistleblower the FBI went to court and obtained an injunction against Edmonds and Senators Grassley and Leahy forbidding all three of them from revealing the exact details of her story.

    Mrs. Edmonds, as a native born speaker of Turkish translated for the FBI conversations made by Turkish businessmen talking by phone with Turkey’s Washington D.C. embassy she contacted Grassley and Leahy.
    Those conversations revealed that high ranking US government officials had prior knowledge of the planned Al Qaeda attacks of 9-11-2001.
    Attacks which murdered over 3000 people in New York City and Northern Virginia.
    Those two Senators contacted the FBI and the DOJ Inspector General.

    The US DOJ went to court and took the extraordinary step of obtaining an injunction against US Senators preventing those elected officials from revealing government incompetence or corruption.
    As far as I know that injunction still exists.

    Later Mrs. Edmonds revealed to Vanity Fair that the US Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert had a long history of molesting boys and that the Turkish government was supplying Hastert with trips to Thailand to satisfy his desires.
    Ultimately Hastert was convicted of making pay offs to the boys to obtain their silence.

    Turkey was using those sex vacations for Hastert to obtain his help in preventing a House Resolution condemning turkey’s genocide of Armenians during World War One.

    Mrs. Edmonds also claimed that Turkey was trying to recruit informants inside the FBI offices in Washington DC.

    The same way that the FBI wants to punish Dr. Richard Kiper for being a whistleblower they punished Sibel Edmonds as a whistleblower.

    Here is Mrs. Edmonds’ Wikipedia entry.

    Sibel Edmonds

    Early life and education
    The daughter of an Iranian Azerbaijani father and Turkish mother,[9] Edmonds lived in Iran and then Turkey before coming to the United States as a student[10] in 1988. Fluent in Azerbaijani, Turkish, Persian and English,[10][11][12] Edmonds earned her bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University[10] and her master’s in public policy and international commerce from George Mason University.

    FBI employment
    Edmonds worked for the FBI for six months from late September 2001 until March 2002. Edmonds was hired, as a contractor, to work as an interpreter in the translations unit of the FBI in Washington on[13] September 13, September 15, or September 20, 2001. Among her main roles was to translate covertly recorded conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets.[1]

    Edmonds filed complaints with the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. In response, she claims that managers retaliated[14] against her, and she was fired on March 22, 2002. In June 2002, the Associated Press and Washington Post reported that the FBI claimed Edmonds was dismissed because her actions were disruptive and breached security and that she performed poorly at her job.[15] A 2005 internal investigation by the FBI Office of the Inspector General found that many of Edmonds’s allegations of misconduct “had some basis in fact” and that “her allegations were at least a contributing factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services,” but were unable to substantiate all of her allegations, nor did they make a statement regarding her dismissal being improper.[16]

    Edmonds’s allegations of impropriety at the FBI later came to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held unclassified hearings on the matter on June 17, 2002, and July 9, 2002. During the hearings, the FBI provided various unclassified documents and statements relating to the case, which led to Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley sending letters, dated June 19, 2002, August 13, 2002, and October 28, 2002 – to Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, Attorney General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller, respectively – asking for explanations and calling for an independent audit of the FBI’s translation unit. These documents were published on the Senators’ web sites.

    In April 2004, Edmonds claimed she had provided information to the panel investigating the September 11 attacks in February that year. Although she started work shortly after 9/11 and worked for just over six months, she claimed knowledge of information circulating within the FBI during spring and summer of 2001. The session was closed and over three hours long, she said. Reportedly, she told the commission that the FBI knew of a planned attack months away and the terrorists were in place. She stated, “There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers.”[13] On the 26th, a deposition of Edmonds was quashed under the state secrets privilege.[20]

    On May 13, 2004, Ashcroft submitted statements to justify the use of the state secrets privilege against the planned deposition by Edmonds,[21] and the same day, the FBI retroactively classified as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds’s own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by the Project on Government Oversight.[22]

    On June 23, 2004, the retroactive reclassification was challenged in a suit filed by the Project on Government Oversight, citing fear that the group might be retroactively punished for having published the letters on its website. The Justice Department tried to get the suit dismissed, and the Justice Department explicitly approved their release to the Project on Government Oversight.[23] The reclassification did, however, keep Edmonds from testifying in the class action suit as well as her own whistleblower suit.[24][25] The latter decision was appealed, and Inspector General Glenn A. Fine released a summary of the audit report, claiming “that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services. Rather than investigate Edmonds’s allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract.”[26]

    In August 2004, Edmonds founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), which exists to assist national security whistleblowers through advocacy and reform.[27][28][29] Edmonds is also the founder and publisher of the Boiling Frogs Post, an online media site that aims to offer nonpartisan investigative journalism.[7]

    In September 2005, Edmonds claimed in Vanity Fair that a price was set for Dennis Hastert to withdraw support for the Armenian genocide resolution. That the “… Turkish Consulate … claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $500,000.”[30][31]

    In September 2006, a documentary about Edmonds’s case called Kill the Messenger (Une Femme à Abattre) premiered in France.[32] The film discusses the Edmonds case and offers interviews with various involved individuals.

    Edmonds gave testimony in August 2009 and gave information that had twice previously been gagged under state secrets privilege.[33][34]

    On February 1, 2011, Edmonds published a story on her own website, adding details of events she described as taking place in April 2001. The account is of another translator’s description of meetings with an Iranian informant months before 9/11, and FBI agents’ reaction to it:

    Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S., living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this.
    Edmonds said that two agents with whom this other translator had worked reported this information to a “Special Agent in Charge (SAC)” months before the attack. After the attack, one of them told their translator that the SAC “called us into his office and gave us an order; an absolute order [that] we never got any warnings. Those conversations never existed; it never happened; period. He said this is very sensitive…and that no one should ever mention a word about this case; period.'”[35]

    A film documentary on Sibel Edmonds
    Sibel Edmonds Documentary – Kill The Messenger

    • Shadow, please write about Joe Biden’s plastic surgeries, hair transplants and Botox treatments. Can anyone imagine what he would look like now without all that? Would the old 78-year-old Biden have even been elected without this “beautification”?

      US SUN

      NO ORDINARY JOE Secrets of Joe Biden’s changing face revealed as plastic surgeons think he’s had multiple cosmetic procedures
      Lauren Fruen
      17:40 ET, Jul 14 2021Updated: 9:14 ET, Jul 23 2021

      AS the oldest sitting president Joe Biden might be forgiven for showing signs of his age.

      But the Democrat – who was sworn into office aged 78 – appears to have multiple cosmetic procedures to fill his wrinkles, fix his hairline and whiten his teeth, according to a number of plastic surgeons.

      Surgeons said in 2019 that former Vice President Biden began to look noticeably different during the 2008 campaign. He is pictured in 1987
      Surgeons said in 2019 that former Vice President Biden began to look noticeably different during the 2008 campaign. He is pictured in 1987Credit: Getty – Contributor
      The Democrat was sworn into office aged 78 and is the oldest sitting president
      The Democrat was sworn into office aged 78 and is the oldest sitting presidentCredit: AP
      Attention turned to Biden’s youthful appearance on Thursday after a new book claimed Donald Trump mocked him for having an “awful facelift.”

      Trump also ridiculed Biden for wearing a mask to protect against Covid, telling a crowd last year: “I mean, honestly, what the hell did he spend all that money on the plastic surgery [for] if he is going to cover it up.”

      Surgeons said in 2019 that former Vice President Biden began to look noticeably different during the 2008 campaign.

      Dr. Barry Cohen, a Washington DC plastic surgeon, told the Washington Examiner: “Without any question Joe Biden had hair transplants. In fact, he had bad plugs years ago.

      “Subsequently, he filled in his frontal hairline to camouflage the bad ‘Barbie dollesque’ plugs.

      “I suspect he has regular Botox and probably filler. If he had a face lift, he needs another.”

      Cohen said that he did not expect Biden to face scrutiny for his procedures because they are now common. He added: “No one cares anymore.”

      [ .. ]

  • “Sultan became wroth over Frank Report’s criticism of Kristin Kreuk. He likened it to murder.”

    OK Boomer. Learn what the “Who killed Hannibal” meme actually means.

    • Hi Anonymous 3:09 (Sultan of Six),

      Good to see you’re still around. You and I are both cognizant you meant the meme as a veiled threat. But it’s okay!

      At the time, Frank was teasing Kristen and you. Back a 1000 years ago in Persia, teasing the Sultan would end in a beheading; so your meme post was justifiable under the circumstances.
      You gave Frank a fair warning, as they say.

      I want you to know that by leading Alanzo to the Frank Report, you got your revenge on me for all the shit I gave you. Kudos!

      Having Alanzo here is like torture.

      The day you and Alonzo argued on Twitter and you shared a link with him to the Frank Report is a day that will live in infamy.

      Hope all is well and try not to kill anyone!

      • The meme is so obviously NOT a veiled threat since the meme is supposed to be taken FIGURATIVELY.

        And you boomers have continuously proven your inability to understand it. Now, what I suggest you do is some simple ten minute internet research on what the meme actually means, and if your intellectual capability is still functioning, then maybe it will finally CLICK.

        Like when an unloaded gun trigger is pulled.

        Pun intended.

        • Sultan of Six-

          As usual you take the bait. LMAO @ U!
          Too much!!!! I love busting your balls.
          You never understood I’m just ribbing you!
          I don’t dislike you — I like you.

          You’re, a guy with an “extreme crush” on a girl. We’ve all been there, just not for 20 years….. ☝🏻
          I believe I can speak for Frank, we’ve always enjoyed your visits to the Frank Report, not only because of ribbing you about Kreuk…..

          BUT, because you’re highly intelligent and add to the dialogue. I’ve enjoyed reading your perspectives/takes on variant subjects. I always can tell your writings a mile a away because they’re written in a clear concise manner perfect text writing, with no self-indulgent vocabulary words . No verbosity only brevity.

          BTW: Dick wad you didn’t apologize for leading Alanzo to the Frank Report.

          FYI: I get the Meme, I’m generation X.
          So FU & have a marvelous weekend!

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” He also appeared in "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM, and was credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083