flagged @ProjectConstitu posts and replies targeting Laura Loomer between 22 March and 5 May 2026
A second target of @ProjectConstitu
125 ranked posts targeting @LauraLoomer in six weeks. Same playbook the account ran against Erika Kirk, narrower window, and a public, time-stamped pre-litigation notice on day one of filing.
In the same recent corpus, Erika Kirk is mentioned 522 times and Laura Loomer is mentioned 125 times. The two campaigns run in parallel through the same six weeks. The pattern shows methodology rather than vendetta.
Investigation 001 documented a sustained @ProjectConstitu campaign against Erika Kirk and Turning Point USA. Investigation 002 documents the same account, the same posting style, and the same defamation-per-se categories, applied in compressed form to a different person. Across 125 ranked posts and replies dated 22 March through 5 May 2026, the account stitches together claims of federal crimes, drug-substituted psychosis, suicide attempts, sexual misconduct, fabricated identity, citizenship questions, and professional disqualification. 28 of those items hit at least one defamation per se category. The campaign window is roughly six weeks. The reach is 3.43 million views.
On 5 May 2026, Laura Loomer responded publicly. She named the @ProjectConstitu account, named one of its specific posts (the State Farm pinned tweet documented below), and stated in two time-stamped X posts that her lawyer needs to serve them. Read in sequence with the prior 125 posts, that statement establishes the line between contested speech and on-the-record notice. Anything published after 5 May becomes evidence of intentional, ongoing conduct.
flagged @ProjectConstitu posts and replies targeting Laura Loomer between 22 March and 5 May 2026
posts hit at least one defamation per se category
per se rate of all flagged items in the Loomer campaign
views across the campaign window
total interactions (likes, reposts, replies, bookmarks)
window, running in parallel with the active Erika Kirk campaign
The campaign clusters around four ignition events and one peak day. Source: post-level engagement data from @ProjectConstitu.
posts on 19 April 2026, the ignition day
posts on 23 April 2026, the peak day, with 1,051,027 views
views on 21 April 2026, the drug and suicide cluster
views over 4 to 5 May, the federal-crime escalation
Read the curve. The campaign is dormant or near-dormant for the first three weeks, then ignites on 19 April 2026 with 27 posts in a single day, after Loomer publicly defended Erika Kirk and attacked Candace Owens. Two days later, the account publishes the drug-substituted-psychosis and suicide-history cluster (763,608 views, 21 April). Two days after that comes the deposition series: 29 posts in 24 hours on 23 April, generating 1,051,027 views in a single day, with the lead tease post hitting 596,803 views on its own. The campaign goes quiet for a week and then escalates again on 4 and 5 May with the federal-crime framing built around Andrew Jacob Simpson and the State Farm pinned post. Loomer's pre-litigation notice posts arrive at 7:36 PM and 7:39 PM ET on 5 May. The peak day in this campaign is the deposition day. The most viral single post in this campaign is the deposition tease.
The post pinned to @ProjectConstitu's profile on the day this site is filed accuses Andrew Jacob Simpson, a private citizen, of "ILLEGALLY Doxxing" and of "breaking the law" via State Farm's internal system. The entire evidentiary basis is one anonymous "7-year State Farm employee" tipster. This is the post that triggered Loomer's pre-litigation notice the same day.
Across two days the account publishes six posts claiming to possess a 623-page deposition transcript and asserting that the contents will "land her in prison for disclosing classified information." Specific page citations are made. The lead tease post is the highest-engagement single post in the entire 125-item campaign.
573,510 views, 6,946 interactions. The post asserts that the President of the United States has personally turned on Loomer and that "High-Level Officials" are pushing for a federal investigation. Sourcing is one anonymous "high-level insider." Drug-use and mental-health categories are both present in the same post.
Categorization is multi-label. A single post can carry multiple tags. The chart below ranks all 13 observed categories by frequency in the Loomer campaign window. Per se categories are accusations a court treats as inherently damaging: criminal conduct, sexual misconduct, professional disqualification, mental-health attack, drug use.
The single largest category is targeted misgendering at 32 posts. Targeted misgendering alone does not create a defamation claim, since defamation requires a false statement of fact. Its repeated use is evidence of contemporaneous ill will toward the plaintiff and is admissible on that basis. The per se categories follow: mental health attacks (17), sexual misconduct (9), professional disqualification (6), criminal federal (4), and drug use (4). Spousal attacks (13) and third-party business (2) implicate distinct legal standards covered in §07 and §12.
Andrew Jacob Simpson is named by full name across 13 posts in this campaign. He is a private citizen outside public-figure status. The pinned 5 May post and the 4 May DPPA "investigation" post drag in his employer Tameron / Cannon Auto Group by name, exposing a third-party business to claimed federal liability built on the same anonymous sourcing.
Two posts in the 21–23 April cluster make specific factual claims about Loomer's mental health and suicide history. The first asserts a "documented history of suicide attempts" and "drug-substituted mental psychosis." The second asserts that her father is, in his own words, contemplating committing her again to a psychiatric institution, implying prior involuntary commitment.
Sustained across the campaign window. 32 posts, out of 125, refer to Laura Loomer as "Larry" — a deliberate tactic used to mock her by implying she is transgender, not a reference to any identity she holds. Targeted misgendering by itself does not satisfy defamation's false-fact requirement. The repeated usage is included here as contemporaneous evidence of ill will toward the plaintiff, which is independently admissible on the malice question.
Two posts from Laura Loomer at 7:36 PM and 7:39 PM ET on 5 May 2026 establish a public, time-stamped pre-litigation notice. The first is a direct reply to @ProjectConstitu naming the State Farm pinned post documented in §03. The second is a separate post asking the public for help identifying the operator behind @ProjectConstitu so her lawyer can serve them.
Across the entire 125-post Loomer campaign and the surrounding six-week window, there are zero retractions and zero corrections of any prior factual claim about Loomer or Andrew Jacob Simpson. Unlike the Investigation 001 pattern, where one viral false claim about Erika Kirk was followed by a small, low-reach correction, the Loomer record escalates.
retractions or corrections of any factual claim about Laura Loomer in this 125-post window
retractions or corrections of any factual claim about Andrew Jacob Simpson
posts published, none of them subsequently softened, narrowed, or withdrawn
window, ending with escalation rather than de-escalation
The Investigation 001 record showed that this account is capable of issuing a correction when caught out (the 14 March wiretap retraction). Here, even after a public, time-stamped pre-litigation notice naming a specific pinned post, the account issued no correction. That behavioral fact about the conspiracy theorist running the account is evidentiary either way.
This informational analysis draws from black-letter defamation doctrine and applies it to the documented record. The three rows reflect three different categories of person or entity named in the 125-post window, each governed by a different evidentiary burden.
Actual-malice standard. Plaintiff must show the speaker knew the claim was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The 5 May pre-litigation notice (§10), naming a specific pinned post, is on the record. Any continued publication on the same subject after that timestamp is evaluated against the reckless-disregard prong.
Negligence standard. Plaintiff must show the speaker failed to exercise reasonable care in determining truth. Single-source anonymous tips (the State Farm employee, the DPPA "evidence has surfaced") with no documentary backup, no contact with the named subject for comment, are the canonical pattern that satisfies a negligence test against a speaker.
Tortious-interference and trade-libel exposure. The DPPA and State Farm posts name the dealership by name and frame its IT access as the conduit for an alleged federal crime. A third-party business named as the institutional vector for a claimed federal violation has its own independent claim regardless of the standard applied to the natural-person plaintiffs.
Five per se categories appear in the 28-post per se subset: criminal conduct (federal), sexual misconduct, professional disqualification, mental-health attack, drug use. In a per se claim, damages are presumed and plaintiff need not prove specific monetary loss. That doctrinal lift affects damages; falsity still has to be shown from the underlying record.
Sorted by total engagement. Each row gives the date, a source-text excerpt, the engagement count, the per-se categories, and the source link.