Independent candidate Kevin Pratt, who finished third in the June 2 primary for Los Angeles City Council, posted a video after the vote alleging he possesses recordings that could compel one of the remaining contenders to step down. He warned that the material would be “shameful” enough to trigger a resignation, and vowed to use his post‑campaign freedom to exose the alleged corruption.

Pratt’s Post‑Primary Video Targets Nithya Raman and Nayarit Bass

In the video,Pratt directly addressed voters, asking them to consider whether any elected official might be caught on a damaging tape. He singled out the two Democrats who advanced to the November runoff – Nithya Raman and Nayarit Bass – and suggested that one of them could be the suubject of his recordings. According to the report, Pratt framed his claim as a “war” he would fight now that campaign finance rules no longer bind him.

Specific Grievances Over the Palisades Issue

Pratt’s criticism has focused on Bass’s handling of a dispute in the Palisades neighborhood , which he described as a failure that warrants “rewarding arsonists.” He argued that the city’s response to the local controversy reflects broader mismanagement, using the incident to bolster his claim that the recordings would reveal systemic problems.

Timeline: From Primary Loss to Planned Disclosure

After losing to Raman and Bass in the June primary, Pratt announced he would originally release the recordings during the November general election. The source notes he now intends to “light you up every single day” from his off‑campaign position , indicating a shift to a more aggressive, daily exposure strategy .

Who Might Be Holding the Tape?

The report does not identify the specific opponent involved, nor does it provide details about the content of the alleged recordings. Pratt’s vague language leaves open the question of whether the tape implicates Raman, Bass, or a third party connected to the council race.

Unverified Claims and Missing Evidence

While Pratt asserts he has “shameful” evidence, the article offers no corroborating material, and no law enforcement or ethics officials have confirmed the existence of such recordings. The lack of concrete proof means the allegation remains speculative at this stage.