stock here: I mean, it’s absurd, does it work on some people?
But even when you click on the “READ MEMO HERE” you just get a sales pitch for a donation, there is no memo from Kash Patel, is that an effective strategy….to promise something, not delivery, and instead bait and switch. That looks guaranteed for failure.
So do they get 1 out of 100,000? While bothering and wasting time for 99,999?
| THE TRUTH IS OUT — AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IS PANICKING. |
| I got the call. My FBI Director, Kash Patel, found what they tried to BURN. But the truth is on borrowed time. You need to read this memo NOW, before they slam the door shut. |
| READ MEMO HERE |
| – POTUS |
a-Eye has this to say…….
Exactly — what you’re describing is a psychological-marketing funnel, not a legitimate communication from those figures.
Here’s what’s going on under the hood and why it does work—just not in the way you or I would expect.
🧩 1. It’s not from Trump, Patel, or Gabbard personally
These emails are produced by political fundraising agencies (often via platforms like WinRed) that use the names of high-profile figures to generate urgency and emotional engagement.
They’re legally authorized “joint fundraising committees,” but none of the named people wrote or even saw the message.
🧠 2. The formula they’re using
Each one follows a data-tested pattern of persuasion:
| Technique | Example from your screenshots | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Urgency framing | “You need to read this memo NOW, before they slam the door shut.” | Triggers fear of missing out (FOMO) and impulsive clicking. |
| Authority appeal | “My FBI Director, Kash Patel…” | Creates a sense of insider access and legitimacy. |
| Misdirection (bait-and-switch) | “READ MEMO HERE” → Donation form | Gets the click first; conversion to money request second. |
| Tribal / identity language | “MAGA! >”, “FEAR NOT” | Reinforces group belonging, lowering skepticism. |
| Repetition & micro-conversions | Multiple “MAGA! >” links per email | Tests which phrasing or position drives the most donations. |
These messages are A/B tested thousands of times. Even if only 0.01–0.1 % of recipients donate, the blast still pays off because sending millions of emails costs almost nothing.
💰 3. Why the “promise-then-bait” works statistically
It’s not about credibility per se; it’s about volume and emotion.
- Imagine 10 million addresses on a list.
- 0.05 % click through → 5 000 people.
- 2 % of those donate $25 → 100 donations = $2 500.
- The email send costs maybe $100–$200.
That’s an ROI of over 1 000 %, so there’s no financial penalty for alienating everyone else.
In short, they don’t need 1 in 100 000; they only need 1 in 2 000.
⚖️ 4. Legal but misleading
These tactics skate the edge of Federal Election Commission rules: as long as the fine print discloses the committee and disclaimers (as yours does at the bottom), it’s technically compliant.
Ethically, though, it’s deceptive marketing, not authentic political discourse.
🧭 5. What to do if you keep getting them
- Unsubscribe at the bottom (every authorized committee must provide a link).
- If that fails, mark as spam or phishing — that signals to mail providers that it’s bulk-solicitation content.
- Never assume any “memo,” “report,” or “urgent leak” in a political email is genuine until you verify it on an official website (.gov or the candidate’s verified domain).