Cleveland, OH | July 2025
In a stunning development that should trigger Senate ethics investigations and potential legal action, we obtained images and transcripts that reveal Senator Cassidy, a sitting U.S. Senator for the state of Louisiana, engaging in what legal analysts are calling a covert and coordinated attempt to oust a Cabinet-level official—Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK). The material shows Senator Cassidy conspiring to manipulate public and internal perception to pressure the President into removing RFK and replacing him with a preferred loyalist.
The scheme, documented in writing and captured on camera as Senator Cassidy typed it, includes a clear intent to fabricate a sense of internal chaos, “stay silent” to mask involvement, and elevate an alternate candidate (“Oz”) as part of the replacement strategy. Who is Oz? It is TV personality and surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz. These actions—premeditated, organized, and documented—may constitute federal criminal violations.
Internal Memo: Reflections on June Senate Activity & Broader Strategy
Title: Jornadas después del 6 de junio del tema de la policía y el senado
Date Range: June 6 – June 24, 2025
June 11, 2025
Ty and Matt discuss how to approach RFK.
They recommend that I stay silent.
If candidates keep dropping out, it creates the impression that there’s chaos.
Reassure others that they’re doing good work.
Elevate Oz, for example.
The plan is that the overall effect of this will be to cast RFK in a bad light, and the administration will replace him with someone else.
I don’t remember if there was already an agreement with RFK in this journal. But, I recently spoke with RFK and he shared the draft agreement. At first, he denied that an agreement had been made. Later, he sent it.
RFK Agreement
This is tentative and subject to approval, but this is what I understand us to have discussed:
- Any board and consent representatives chosen…
The behavior observed — a group of U.S. Senators (and possibly others) strategizing to undermine a sitting Cabinet member (RFK, Secretary of Health) to pressure the President to fire him and replace him with someone they prefer — can cross serious ethical and potentially legal boundaries.
Let’s be clear—Members of Congress have the right to speak out against a Cabinet official. They can express their opinions, push the President to consider alternative options, discuss strategy among themselves, and even block nominations or legislative efforts with which they disagree. That’s not illegal—that’s constitutional. It’s how our system is designed to function. But what Senator Cassidy is doing goes far beyond that. This wasn’t dissent or healthy debate. This was a premeditated, coordinated effort—off the record, in secret, and in writing—to sabotage a sitting Cabinet member for political advantage. That is not oversight. That is subversion.
What we’re looking at here is not just backroom politics—it’s potentially a textbook case of federal conspiracy and ethical misconduct. If a sitting U.S. Senator conspires, even informally, with others to manipulate public perception, engineer a false sense of chaos, or deliberately deceive the public or the President to push out a Cabinet member, that may very well violate 18 U.S. Code § 371—conspiracy to defraud the United States. That statute has been historically applied in cases where government operations were obstructed, interfered with, or manipulated by coordinated acts intended to circumvent lawful duties and responsibilities. If this kind of behavior can be proven—especially when the goal is to sabotage a Cabinet official like RFK from fulfilling his lawful responsibilities—it moves from political scheming into the realm of criminal exposure.
This isn’t oversight. This is abuse of official position. When elected officials use the prestige of their office not to fulfill their duties, but to create manufactured narratives for political gain, they erode public trust and violate the very standards the Senate claims to uphold. Senate ethics rules are clear: conduct that discredits the institution, or the misuse of influence and authority for personal or partisan objectives, is grounds for censure, removal, or even referral to the criminal authorities.
What’s more, if these actions disrupt or interfere with a Cabinet member’s ability to perform their duties—if initiatives are quietly sabotaged, or if the public is misled to erode confidence in that official’s leadership—then obstruction of government operations becomes a live issue. We’ve seen similar charges emerge in past cases involving interference with federal investigations or obstruction of lawful agency actions. The intent to interfere matters, and here, that intent is not subtle—it’s in writing.
This also strikes at the heart of the constitutional order. Senators have no authority to hire or fire executive branch officials. That’s the President’s role. Attempting to force the President’s hand through covert manipulation isn’t just politically dishonest—it’s a violation of the separation of powers. If this were done openly, through proper channels, we could debate its merits. But the fact that it was done secretly, with the strategic goal of replacing RFK with someone more politically convenient, reveals bad faith and a betrayal of oath.
And perhaps most damning of all: it’s documented. This isn’t speculation or hearsay. We have written evidence showing a coordinated plan to remain silent, allowing “chaos” to appear organically, and to elevate a specific replacement, Oz. That written intent is more than a smoking gun. In any ethics investigation or federal inquiry, it becomes Exhibit A.
The bottom line is this: while not every unethical act is a crime, this one skirts both lines. The strategy is ethically bankrupt. However, if it involves deception, collusion with outside actors, or disruption of federal operations, it may also be considered illegal. At the very least, it demands a Senate ethics probe. At the very least, it opens the door to charges of criminal conspiracy and abuse of power. The paper trail doesn’t lie. It reveals exactly what they thought you’d never see.
Legal Analysis
Potential Violations of Federal Law and Constitutional Boundaries
🔹 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Senator Cassidy’s coordination with others to create the appearance of dysfunction within the executive branch, to remove a lawfully appointed Cabinet member, could fall under the category of criminal conspiracy to obstruct the lawful function of the federal government. If this conspiracy impaired Secretary RFK’s ability to carry out his duties, it meets the threshold of “defrauding the United States.”
🔹 Abuse of Official Position
As an elected senator, using the powers of office to covertly sabotage a federal official for political gain—without due process or oversight—may constitute a gross abuse of public trust. Encouraging a narrative of failure, while withholding facts and coordinating replacement options behind the scenes, crosses the line from politics into ethically sanctioned sabotage.
🔹 Obstruction of Government Operations
According to the texts, the strategic intent was to paralyze the Secretary’s effectiveness and reputation, thereby forcing executive action. This type of manipulation—executed by lawmakers to interfere with executive functions—is a textbook case of obstruction.
🔹 Violation of Oath and Separation of Powers
Senator Cassidy and his colleagues are not entitled to execute personnel changes within the executive branch. Attempting to do so through deceit and backchannel pressure represents a direct violation of the constitutional separation of powers and the senator’s sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.
What makes this case particularly explosive is that the conspiracy isn’t speculative—it is verifiably real and irrefutably recorded. In a series of high-resolution images, Senator Cassidy is visibly engaged in drafting a strategy that outlines, in his own words, how to engineer the political downfall of a sitting Cabinet official. The language is unambiguous: he discusses shaping public perception to cast RFK in a negative light, orchestrating coordinated silence among fellow senators, and promoting an alternative candidate to fill the role. Legal analysts familiar with prosecutorial standards say this isn’t circumstantial—it’s direct evidence of mens rea, the criminal intent necessary to establish conspiracy under federal law.
This shows us that our elected members, such as senators, engage in conduct that intentionally undermines a Cabinet official’s ability to perform their lawful duties; they enter dangerous legal territory, specifically, obstruction of government operations. The law does not require that the obstruction be overt or violent; it can be quiet, calculated, and internal. Spreading disinformation, sowing distrust among colleagues, or covertly sabotaging policy initiatives—especially when done with the intent to weaken a Secretary’s standing or trigger their removal—can constitute constructive interference with the normal functioning of a federal agency. The courts have recognized that obstruction need not be dramatic to be illegal; deliberate acts that derail, delay, or distort an agency’s mission may rise to the level of criminal obstruction, particularly when coordinated among individuals in positions of power. In this case, if a group of senators—armed with institutional authority and political influence—intentionally crafted a strategy to discredit Secretary RFK and disrupt his ability to lead, then their actions could very well meet the standard for obstruction. The law protects not only the outcome of government functions, but also the integrity of the process itself—. When that process is sabotaged from within, accountability becomes not only ethical, but also legal.
The precedent is sobering. During the Watergate era, the so-called “smoking gun” tape revealed President Nixon giving explicit instructions to obstruct an investigation—an act that ultimately led to his resignation. The difference here is that Senator Cassidy wasn’t caught on a surreptitious audio tape. He documented the plot in writing, on camera, with timestamps and context that leave no room for ambiguity. This isn’t political discourse. It’s calculated subversion of executive authority—a premeditated effort to destabilize a lawful Cabinet member’s position by manufacturing public doubt and manipulating presidential decision-making. In any court of law, this level of documentation would elevate the matter from an allegation to a probative fact. And in the court of public accountability, it demands immediate scrutiny.
There is more than enough legal, ethical, and constitutional basis to demand an immediate congressional and Senate ethics investigation into Senator Cassidy’s actions, particularly given the weight of the documented communications and the implications they carry. When a U.S. Senator uses their public office not to fulfill their oath or provide legitimate oversight, but to engage in covert efforts to discredit a Cabinet official for political reasons—especially with the apparent intent to replace that official with a more politically favorable figure—such conduct strikes at the heart of constitutional order and the integrity of government institutions. In this case, the evidence strongly suggests that Senator Cassidy may have engaged in a deliberate campaign to politically neutralize Secretary RFK under pretenses, not based on official misconduct or policy failure, but on internal optics and manufactured perception. That alone demands a full review.
This is not protected speech or benign politicking. This is the calculated misuse of senatorial authority to orchestrate a narrative—internally and externally—that would discredit a sitting Cabinet member and create the illusion of dysfunction. Suppose that effort included knowingly spreading disinformation to colleagues, staff, or the media, misrepresenting the Secretary’s conduct, suppressing facts, or coordinating silence with fellow senators to allow public suspicion to grow unchallenged. In that case, Senator Cassidy may have engaged in what amounts to institutional deception—a betrayal of both his oath and the public trust. That betrayal is further compounded if it can be shown that his real goal was not to “protect the Republic” or offer better leadership, but to install a loyalist—someone aligned with his political faction—through a contrived collapse of confidence engineered from within.
Under Senate ethics rules, such actions would constitute improper conduct that discredits the Senate, and possibly misuse of influence or coercion for political gain. Moreover, the separation of powers doctrine, enshrined in the Constitution, is not optional. Senators are not entitled to remove or replace executive officials. That is the exclusive domain of the President. Attempting to circumvent that through backdoor pressure, especially if done secretly and in bad faith, is not merely inappropriate—it is a form of usurpation.
Because this effort was conducted, at least in part, in writing—and appears to involve other public officials—a comprehensive inquiry must be launched. The scope of that inquiry must include a full review of Senator Cassidy’s emails, text messages, call logs, and internal communications with staff and other members of Congress. Only then can we determine the breadth and depth of this conspiracy. Was this a lone act of political sabotage, or was it part of a broader, coordinated effort to manipulate internal policy and mislead both the executive branch and the American people?
The potential damage here is not abstract. Undermining a Cabinet Secretary’s legitimacy from within not only hinders agency operations but also erodes the President’s authority and sows distrust in government itself. It is, in effect, an attempt to conduct a silent coup by the executive branch without public accountability. And that is why this cannot be ignored. The record must be made clear, and the precedent must be set: no senator, regardless of rank or reputation, is above the law, the Constitution, or the people they are sworn to serve.
So, Senator Cassidy has made quite the career reminding us—loudly, frequently, and oh-so-righteously—that no one is above the law. Presidents, CEOs, protestors, even the President’s son—he’s declared them all subject to accountability. And yet, when the lights dim and the cameras aren’t rolling, Cassidy believes he can orchestrate a quiet coup from the Senate cloakroom- or in this case, on a flight—subverting a sitting Cabinet official, manipulating perception, and scheming to install his preferred replacement all without public debate, without transparency, and consequence. That, folks, isn’t oversight—it’s sedition in a suit. And if no one is above the law, then let that apply to Cassidy, too. He shouldn’t just be questioned—he should be investigated. He should be exposed. He should be made an example. Because until we identify who the traitors among us truly serve—and gut the rot infecting our Senate, Congress, and judiciary—we will never reclaim a government of, by, and for the people. The law applies to everyone, Senator—even you.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume IV is now on sale.
