After ex-comedian Rosie O’Donnell’s meltdown on Twitter before the Senate’s big tax vote Tuesday night, President Donald Trump can reasonably direct federal authorities to lock her up — and even to “take some money out of her fat-ass pockets,” which he once infamously cited as a personal goal.
Federal law addresses O’Donnell’s actions.
18 U.S. Code § 201 criminalizes the attempted bribery of federal officials by whoever “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official … with intent to influence any official act.”
The penalty? For Rosie, she could spend up to 15 years in jail, suffer a lifetime ban from elective office and pay up to a cool $12 million:
The statute calls for a fine of “not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be
disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
In court, O’Donnell would probably argue that her attempted bribe was in jest, or perhaps a syndrome of a mental illness.
After all, her attorneys would argue, who, while seriously attempting to bribe members of the U.S. Congress would do so in such a reckless, public manner that would all but ensure a conviction?
When Billy “Will” Frazier IV filed his first federal RICO lawsuit, it wasn’t about water. It was about retaliation, housing games, and courts more focused on procedure than protection.
But during that fight, something bigger came to the surface — signs of long-term contamination that no one had warned his household about. As Will pushed forward, the city continued insisting the water was “safe,” even as his filings documented problems that couldn’t be ignored.
Then, almost unbelievably, Cedar Rapids was celebrated on TV for having “the best tasting tap water in Iowa,” courtesy of the Iowa Section of the national American Water Works Association (AWWA).
At the same time, Will was filing lead-exposure emergencies, identifying galvanized lead service lines, and uncovering chemical hazards inside the very homes tied to his housing case.
This is how a retaliation lawsuit became the foundation for Watch the Water in Cedar Rapids.
1. “Two hours to fill the tub”
In a phone call recorded for this story, Will starts at the beginning:
“I moved in in 2017, discovered that something’s wrong with the pipes because the water was taking so long to come out of the tub. It’d take two hours to fill enough water to bathe my baby. So I had to pre-plan every night to bathe my baby… for three years.”
From 2017 to 2020, he says he raised the issue repeatedly:
To the landlords
To housing authorities and Section 8
To the city
But “nobody did anything about it.”
Finally, he decided to fix it himself.
2. Cutting open the floor
“Eventually in 2020, I decided, let me figure out how to do plumbing… I cut the floor up and the drywall and replace a four-foot galvanized lead pipe that was so corroded you could tell why the water wouldn’t come through.”
The inside of the pipe, he says, had narrowed from roughly half an inch in diameter down to a fraction of that — choked by corrosion and buildup. Once he replaced it, the water pressure normalized.
No inspection. No follow-up. No curiosity from the people who were supposed to keep low-income families safe.
“Nobody did anything about it, didn’t care. My water was running good. I was happy. I didn’t say anything else.”
For a while, the story could have ended there.
It didn’t.
3. Street work, a broken washer, and metal in the valves
Two or three years later, Will says, the city came back—this time outside.
“The city decides to disguise and install sidewalks in front of my house so they could tear out their portion of galvanized pipe to cover up what was going on… They couldn’t fix it knowingly because I wasn’t supposed to be in the house on Section 8 if they weren’t providing clean drinking water.”
Shortly after that work wrapped up, he says, the main water line in the street burst right in front of the house.
“When that happens, the water inlet valves to my washer clog up. So it breaks my washer… I took out the water valves, where the water lines come into the back of the washer, and there’s all type of metal contaminants and sediment inside the valves from the city disturbing the galvanized lead pipes.”
According to Will, the landlords were never forced to replace their side of the galvanized lines. The disturbance sent whatever was sitting in those pipes straight into his appliances—and his family’s water.
4. From RICO to lis pendens — and then the lead letters
By 2025, the legal war had escalated.
Will had already filed a federal RICO case and a separate housing suit. In the housing case, he recorded retaliation, discrimination, and attempts to evict him while he was raising health and disability concerns for his family.
He then filed lis pendens (notices/liens) on the rental property and a neighboring property owned by the same landlords—putting buyers and banks on notice that the homes were tied up in litigation.
“After I do that, the city sends out mass notices of lead—possibly lead, GRR—to everybody’s residences that have lead in their pipes. Mine and my neighbor’s was one of them.”
Those notices are at the heart of his filings. In a supplemental federal notice, Will and co-plaintiff Jean Goodfellow tell the court their residence contains galvanized lead service lines, confirmed through public documentation, city notices, and media reports. They also state a disabled child with an IEP and an infant have been consuming this water for years.
To Will, the timing was no coincidence.
5. GRR vs “possibly lead”: alleged misclassification
Under federal rules, homes with galvanized lines that were ever downstream of lead can be classified as GRR – “galvanized replacement required.”
“The federal law says they’re supposed to label my house and Jean’s house as GRR, galvanized replacement required. They hid it and disguised it as ‘possibly lead unknown’ to try to throw me and her off, because we’re in a lawsuit we could just amend and change to a water lead-contamination lawsuit too.”
In other words, Will alleges the city:
Knew these homes should be tagged as requiring replacement
Instead used a softer “possibly lead / unknown” classification
All while he and his neighbor were active plaintiffs in housing litigation
In his filings, he frames this as concealment, misclassification, and failure to warn, contributing to what he calls a “life-threatening lead-exposure emergency” for disabled tenants and children.
6. The Media Split-Screen: What the Public Was Told vs. What Was Really Happening — And the Numbers No One Mentioned
While Will was living through years of low pressure, metal debris in appliances, corroded galvanized pipes, and documented lead hazards, the public was being shown a very different story about Cedar Rapids’ drinking water — one built on selective reporting, reassuring headlines, and an award from a national water association that did not account for safety at all.
To understand the disconnect, it helps to look at the numbers.
Across Iowa, a 2025 statewide survey found that only about 4% of known service lines were confirmed as lead. Nationally, the EPA estimates roughly 9.2 million lead service lines remain in use, with many utilities still uncertain about the full extent of their inventories.
But Cedar Rapids was not in the average range. A city analysis showed that up to 17% of Cedar Rapids water service lines could contain lead — more than four times the state average and significantly higher than typical national city-level estimates.
That alone should have resulted in aggressive transparency and immediate public notification. Instead, residents got something else entirely.
In November 2024, KCRG aired a statewide story saying thousands of Iowans were receiving lead notifications. The broadcast even displayed a graphic stating:
“In Cedar Rapids: approx. 7,800 homes received a letter.”
Yet Will never received one. His neighbor never received one. The families now documented in federal filings — with ADA-protected children consuming contaminated water — received nothing in 2024.
Which raises a simple question: If 7,800 homes received letters, why were the ones with the clearest hazards left out?
Months later, in June 2025, The Gazette reassured the public that Cedar Rapids’ water was “safe” during nitrate spikes in the Cedar River. This came at the same time Will was recording metal sediment in his washer valves, documenting corroded galvanized service lines, and filing federal emergency notices describing a “life-threatening lead exposure” hazard inside the home.
None of that made it into the Gazette’s reassurance narrative.
Then in October 2025, KCRG ran a polished feature celebrating Cedar Rapids for winning the “Best Tasting Tap Water in Iowa” award. The honor came from the Iowa Section of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) — which is the Iowa chapter of the national AWWA, the same organization currently suing the EPA to block mandatory nationwide lead-pipe replacement rules.
The public was never told that the “best tasting water” award had nothing to do with safety, nothing to do with lead, and nothing to do with nitrate contamination. AWWA’s taste tests are based on appearance, odor, aftertaste, and mouthfeel — not the presence of neurotoxic metals.
Meanwhile, Cedar Rapids had up to 17% lead-suspect service lines, and Will documented physical evidence of contamination in court.
And then, in November 2025, when KCRG did report on lead-pipe concerns again, it centered the story entirely on Iowa City, despite Cedar Rapids issuing its own belated lead notices only weeks earlier — and despite Cedar Rapids being the city where contamination was part of an active courtroom record.
The message presented to the public was simple and reassuring. The message residents like Will received was silence.
This selective coverage, contradictory messaging, and award-driven optics created the split-screen that defined Cedar Rapids’ water narrative. It’s why Will said during the recorded call:
“It’s just optics. Fraud to trick the public.”
And he wasn’t wrong. Cedar Rapids’ lead burden was significantly higher than the state average. The city celebrated a taste award the same month residents were filing emergency lead-exposure notices. And media coverage consistently directed attention away from where the crisis was actually unfolding.
This gap between lived reality and public narrative is what transformed Will’s housing retaliation case into something much larger — the seed that grew into Watch the Water in Cedar Rapids.
7. Fighting eviction while escalating to federal courts
While all of this was unfolding, Will says, the landlords pushed a forcible entry and detainer (eviction) case, even as his housing suit contained pending restraining orders, injunctions, and protective orders related to disability status and environmental hazards.
On the call, he describes a mix of legal maneuvering and survival:
Filing emergency supplements describing lead-exposure as a federal life-threatening emergency
Documenting alleged retaliation, yellow-tagged meter access, and city entry
Tracking broken appliances and corrosion as physical evidence
Watching landlords change lawyers mid-case and “jump ship”
Catching procedural defects and deadlines in the eviction attempt
In late November 2025, he escalated the evidence to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, tying the water issues into his broader RICO narrative.
“My 8th Circuit Court of Appeals paperwork has been delivered. It’s in the mailroom… Because my filings hit the court today, I’m now protected under 18 U.S. Code 1512 and 1513. Any retaliation, court manipulation from anybody legally becomes federal witness retaliation. I am a federal whistleblower that’s protected now.”
Whether a court will ultimately agree with every legal interpretation remains to be seen. But the paper trail is undeniable: federal filings, emergency notices, ADA enforcement references, and documented exhibits placing Cedar Rapids’ water issues directly into the judicial record.
8. “I’m 18–24 months ahead”
“No pro se litigant in any of the lead litigation history has ever filed this fast, has ever cross-connected this many cases, ADA notices, sworn affidavits, and federal escalations before eviction even reaches a hearing. We’re 18 to 24 months ahead of the typical timeline.”
Whether that timeline comparison proves accurate or not, it captures where Will stands:
Not just a tenant
Not just a housing defendant
But a documented whistleblower who connected housing retaliation, disability protection, and water contamination in the same record—before the public narrative caught up.
9. Why this matters beyond one family
In the notice titled “Notice of Federal Intervention & Supplemental Evidence,” Will and Jean frame their case as more than a local dispute. They identify:
Public-health danger – lead/metal contamination affecting children and tenants
Infrastructure failure – galvanized line breaks, corrosion, city notices
Conflicting public statements – “safe water” and “best tasting tap water” vs. physical evidence
Retaliation and intimidation – eviction attempts and procedural interference while these issues are under review
They explicitly ask the court to take judicial notice of media exhibits (The Gazette and KCRG water stories) and to recognize a pattern of misrepresentation, concealment, and negligence.
Separate filings classify the situation as a “life-threatening lead-exposure emergency” affecting ADA-protected individuals and minors, invoking the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act and HUD lead-safe housing rules.
Whether judges move quickly or slowly, whether special masters are eventually brought in or not, one thing is already true:
Cedar Rapids’ water issues are now permanently embedded in multiple court records.
Linn County, Iowa — In a case that has already raised red flags for judicial conduct, DHS contradictions, and violations of federal sibling-preservation laws, one mother is now taking her fight far beyond the courtroom.
For Kristin Mitchell, the system that once separated her from her siblings as a child is now repeating the same trauma with her son WG, who was adopted through Iowa DHS, later removed from that adoptive home after abuse, and is now facing yet another rushed adoption while Mitchell appeals at multiple levels.
“I experienced harm in foster care as a child — and now my own child is living the same trauma,” she said.
Her intervention hearing in Linn County left her with more questions than answers. DHS issued her a Family Notice legally recognizing her as a qualifying relative. But in court, the agency reversed itself, and the judge denied her motion to intervene.
Not a single safety concern was presented about her home. The State called just one witness — the same DHS worker who separated Mitchell from her siblings decades ago.
“Nobody named a single safety concern. Not one reason why my home would not be good for WG.”
When evidence later surfaced showing the presiding judge and DHS workers viewed Mitchell’s private Facebook stories during deliberation — and the judge’s account disappeared shortly after — her concerns about impartiality only grew.
So Mitchell did something few parents in child welfare cases ever do.
She took the fight to Washington, D.C.
A Journey From Linn County to Capitol Hill
During the trip, Senator Mark Finchem conducted a full sit-down interview with activist and FJAA author Francesca Amato at the B&B where the team stayed. Kristin and her son were present throughout the discussion, had the chance to ask their own questions, and captured photos with the Senator during the extended conversation.
Mitchell traveled with a coalition led by Francesca Amato, author of the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA). Their goal: secure bipartisan support for sweeping national reform.
“We came with purpose,” Mitchell said. “Our team met with 10 senators or congressmembers — some meetings went over two hours.”
She visited offices across Capitol Hill. Her youngest son made popcorn and played with tractors in Senator Joni Ernst’s office. She took photos with Arizona Senator Mark Finchem. Congressional staff, she said, treated her evidence with seriousness and gravity.
“They listened closely. They took notes. They understood that what is happening in Iowa is part of a national pattern.”
Mitchell wasn’t just representing her own experience. She brought with her 27 credible stories from Linn County families, many describing similar systemic violations: retaliation, ADA discrimination, sibling separations, and rushed removals.
“The gap between federal foster-care standards and what’s happening in Linn County is enormous,” she said.
The same week Mitchell walked the halls of Congress advocating for reform, Donald Trump and Melania Trump signed a foster-care–related federal law.
“When I learned they signed that law while I was in D.C., I honestly felt it was no coincidence,” she said.
“It was incredibly validating. It gave me hope.”
She believes the synchronization signals something larger: “Our voices are finally reaching national leaders.”
The Push for Accountability
Mitchell delivered a clear message to federal officials: the Family Justice and Accountability Act is not about creating new rights — it is about enforcing rights the system already violates.
“I told them the FJAA is about accountability,” she said. “About enforcing constitutional rights, civil rights, human rights, and ADA protections.”
She also stressed the urgency of stopping rushed adoptions.
“I have appeals at multiple levels. And yet WG is being pushed toward another adoption before my appeals are decided. That is why this cannot wait.”
Her personal history magnified her purpose.
“I lived through sibling separation as a child. I know what it does to you. No child should live that twice — and that’s what’s happening to WG.”
Washington Responds
Multiple policymakers expressed interest in reviewing her documentation, obtaining evidence, and potentially examining Iowa DHS practices.
“I want to give them the space to conduct their reviews responsibly,” she said. “But yes — interest was real.”
Even the judge in her own case acknowledged she had “strong experience to speak to legislative reform,” a comment Mitchell found telling given the legal barriers she still faces in WG’s case.
The New Federal Law Sends a Message to Iowa
Mitchell believes the new foster-care law sends a direct warning to states like Iowa:
“Pretending to comply with federal mandates is no longer enough.”
She said, “Iowa has repeatedly violated the Fostering Connections Act. My case proves it. DHS recognized me as a relative in writing — then told the court I wasn’t one.”
The new law, she argues, makes one thing clear: “The era of unaccountable child-welfare agencies is ending.”
A Call to Other Iowa Families
As she continues her appeals — including exploring whether to overturn the original termination of rights, which the court stated was “not strictly necessary” — Mitchell is turning outward and calling on other survivors to come forward.
“If you’re in Iowa and you’ve been harmed by DHS, I want you to contact me.”
She emphasized that many families remain isolated or silenced, and she wants them to know there are safe channels and advocates ready to support them.
What Comes Next
Mitchell is now working with local lawmakers to bring Iowa into full compliance with federal law. The FJAA author is also preparing portions of the bill for a potential executive order, which could activate protections more quickly nationwide.
“Our movement is gaining momentum,” Mitchell said.
“And we’re not stopping until every child is protected from the trauma the system has allowed for far too long.”
From the courtrooms of Linn County to the halls of Congress, Mitchell’s fight now sits at the center of a growing national reckoning over child welfare, accountability, and the long-overlooked rights of siblings.
In a seismic two-hour conversation that has ripped the conservative movement wide open, Tucker Carlson sat down with far-right firebrand Nick Fuentes on October 28, 2025, and what emerged wasn’t just a podcast episode—it was a reckoning. The interview, which rocketed to the fourth most-viewed video in Carlson’s post-Fox catalog, didn’t merely platform a controversial figure; it exposed the festering rift between genuine America First patriots and the neoconservative “Israel First” faction that’s been masquerading as MAGA for far too long.
Fuentes, the 27-year-old provocateur whose “Groyper” army has long challenged the GOP’s sacred cows, didn’t hold back. He eviscerated U.S. foreign policy as a “suicide pact” driven by Zionist lobbies that prioritize Tel Aviv over Toledo. Carlson, no stranger to bucking the establishment, nodded along, calling endless aid to Israel “insane” and questioning why American blood and treasure are funneled into a foreign war while our borders bleed. This wasn’t fringe talk; it was a mirror held up to the MAGA base, revealing how a vocal minority—think Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts defending Carlson amid backlash—has been hijacked by interventionists who wrap endless wars in the flag of evangelical Zionism.
The fallout was swift and savage. PBS labeled it a “rift among Republicans,” with a task force on antisemitism severing ties with Heritage over the scandal. NPR chronicled how isolationism and creeping antisemitism are eroding conservative support for Israel, once a bedrock of the movement. Even within MAGA, the knives came out: Ted Cruz and Josh Hammer decried Carlson’s platforming as normalizing extremism, while Fuentes’ defenders accused the critics of being “Zionist agents.”
At its core, this interview peeled back the layers of a movement Trump built on “America First”—no more forever wars, no more blank checks for allies. Yet, as Fuentes hammered home, neocons like those at the Daily Wire have turned MAGA into a Trojan horse for Israeli interests. Carlson’s agreement that “neoconservative policies harm America” struck a nerve because it’s true: billions in aid, vetoes at the UN, and now whispers of U.S. troops in Gaza—all while veterans sleep on streets and fentanyl floods our cities.
This isn’t about hate—it’s about priorities. Trump won by promising to drain the swamp, not refill it with Tel Aviv lobbyists. The Fuentes interview has forced MAGA to choose: Do we stand for American workers, secure borders, and fiscal sanity, or do we bow to foreign gods? Carlson and Fuentes may not be saints, but they’ve done the movement a favor by naming the elephant in the room. The “Israel First” crowd’s days of puppeteering from the shadows are numbered. America First isn’t negotiable—it’s the soul of MAGA. And it’s roaring back.
