Remember, if a fed is trying to convince you they have or have seen dirt on you, it is just as likely that it doesn’t exist and that it’s a psyop. One of the main things they do is throw tons of shit at the wall in order to see what sticks.

Consider the difference between these two scenarios from your perspective:

An actor being paid by their handler to say they have seen dirt on you

An actor being paid by their handler that actually saw dirt on you

What this looks like and what I have heard from others:

Using times that you lost memory from drinking or other forms of browning out or memory loss to imply that you, during that time, committed some sort of heinous act and that they have proof or accounts of it. Polaroids, nondigital media, regular media, or personal accounts. Pics or it didn’t happen type deal. They can more or less invent whatever they want because you don't have memory of the event or the evening. Unless you see it, it’s much better to just assume they are bluffing because they probably are. Often they will choose things related to your triggers to distress you more.

In worse situations they have they could have curated a situation in which they try to entrap you and may actually have proof because they were ready to capture the moment. If that’s you, rip, guess you shouldn’t have been such a pos when you were drunk.

In either situation whether real proof exists or not is immaterial until you see it It is mostly just a way to stress you out and guilt trip you about something they either don't have proof for, have doctored proof of, or have proof that would look worse on them for revealing if it suggests that entrapment was involved.

I’ve heard plenty of cases about this. Only thing you can do is ignore it.