Blog

Aus police to review interactions with Epstein accuser before her death

Interactions between Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre and Australian police prior to her death will be reviewed, Western Australia’s police commissioner has confirmed.

Giuffre, 41, died by suicide at her semi-rural property north of Perth in April of last year.

The investigation will focus on officers’ handling of a dispute between Giuffre and a former partner, commissioner Col Blanch said.

Giuffre was at one point charged with breaching a restraining order in relation to the dispute.

She had long alleged she was trafficked for sex to former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and others when she was a teenager.

Giuffre was one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers and was an advocate for survivors of sex trafficking.

The review would be carried out in response to a letter sent by Giuffre’s family, Blanch said.

“We respond to over 100,000 family violence incidents every year,” he told a Western Australia parliament hearing on Wednesday morning.

“I’d love to give assurance on every single one, but I can’t — but that one will be subject to a review.”

The state’s coroner and ombudsman could also launch investigations, he said.

Members of Giuffre’s family have called for a coronial inquest into her death, which has been backed up by a group of domestic violence experts.

An open letter signed by 16 experts in domestic violence, family violence and violence against women was sent to the WA coroner earlier this month.

“Virginia Giuffre spent much of her adult life in courageous pursuit of accountability for the abuse she suffered, taking significant personal risk to expose a network of exploitation and in doing so helping to protect other women,” the letter read.

“It would be a profound injustice if the question of whether systems failed her in her final months were not examined with equivalent rigour.”

It said she may have been a victim of domestic violence in the lead up to her death, and cited a 2022 WA Ombudsman investigation that found 56% of women and children who died by suicide in the state had previously been identified as victims of domestic and family violence.

“Her public profile means there is an unusually detailed record of her final months – and what that record shows is deeply consistent with what our research tells us about how these deaths occur, and how they are too often overlooked.

“Conducted with full attention to the domestic and family violence context of her death, such an inquest has the potential to generate findings and recommendations that reach far beyond this one case and that could prevent future deaths.”

Keep reading

Brad Lander Declares Goal to ‘Vanquish Trump’s Fascism’ and ‘Abolish ICE’ in Victory Speech After Ousting NY Rep. Dan Goldman

Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander won the Democrat primary for New York’s 10th Congressional District on Tuesday, defeating two-term incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in a landslide.

Lander, a far-left Democrat, secured the nomination in the heavily blue district covering parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Speaking to supporters and the media at a Brooklyn victory event, Lander outlined aggressive priorities centered on opposing President Donald Trump and dismantling immigration enforcement.

“Solidarity is the force that we need to vanquish Trump’s fascism, to abolish ICE, and to stand up to the billionaires who are rigging our economy against us!” Landers declared.

Lander also vowed to resume direct action against ICE immediately, telling the crowd he would return to 26 Federal Plaza the following morning to continue protesting immigration enforcement operations there.

The candidate has a history of aggressive activism at the site, including prior arrests during protests.

Keep reading

Police officer charged with possessing objectionable publications can be named

One of the police officers charged with possessing objectionable publications after investigations arising from a rapid review of police information security controls, has appeared in court and can be named.

Earlier this month, police announced three officers had been charged after the rapid review in the wake of the McSkimming scandal.

On Wednesday, officer Matthew Rogers appeared at the Manukau District Court facing nine charges relating to alleged offending spanning from 2023 through to 2025.

The 59-year-old’s lawyer, Todd Simmonds KC, confirmed name suppression was not sought, and asked Rogers to be remanded without plea to reappear in court at a later date.

The second officer, who faces 11 charges of possessing objectionable publications, some of which depicted child exploitation, bestiality and rape, appeared in court on Wednesday afternoon.

He was also represented by Todd Simmonds KC, who sought interim name suppression to continue.

Judge Frances Eivers granted the interim application, remanded the officer at large and without plea until a court date in August.

Another Wellington officer has had an initial appearance.

Acting Deputy Commissioner Tim Anderson previously said the decision to prosecute police employees was a “serious but important step to take”, and it reflected the seriousness of the allegations uncovered during the investigations.

Anderson said three investigations remained ongoing as part of the rapid review.

In total, police investigated 22 cases connected to the rapid review. Of those, 12 have been resolved through disciplinary action or performance management processes.

Four people have resigned during the review process.

Keep reading

The American Way of War, War, War

That title of mine is certainly repetitive of me (me, me), but how can you not be repetitive in the distinctly repeated world of Donald J. Trump (Trumped, Trumped)? I mean, twice already and who really knows what’s to come?

Here’s the question nobody seems to be asking right now, though: What country will Donald Trump attack next? Yes, at the moment, he’s still wildly wound up in his Iran war/truce/peace/or you name it (tomorrow). Yesterday, it was, of course, Venezuela, and next week it might be Cuba or Greenland, or who on (or off) this planet knows where? And I haven’t even mentioned his military’s ongoing bombing runs in Somalia, which are barely noticed in the mainstream media here. And who knows what I’ve forgotten or what to expect in this increasingly bizarre world of ours from the president who swore repeatedly in his third election campaign that he would never, never, never go to… yes, of course, war?

Hey, only the other day, Secretary of War (a title which, of course, couldn’t be blunter in the age of You Know Who) Pete Hegseth warned that “what happens with the future of Cuba is in the hands of the president of the United States and the leadership of Cuba. No matter what, the Department of War is going to be prepared and postured for any possible contingency.”

Ah, yes, any possible contingency except one, of course: victory (which, since the Second World War, just hasn’t been in the American vocabulary) or, for that matter, peace. I mean what could possibly go wrong in a world that now, remarkably enough, has its first trillionaire, Donald Trump’s (sometimes) buddy Elon Musk? (On that, Senator Elizabeth Warren commented all too aptly: “I want to be clear: This is not just some fluke. It is a feature of a rigged economy.”)

What, in fact, could possibly go wrong on such a rigged planet? I’m sure Donald Trump and Elon Musk couldn’t imagine. What could go wrong on a world in which no American president ever seems to realize that wars are simply never to be won by this country, no matter its power and the ever-ballooning size of the Pentagon budget, now possibly heading for – ah, yes, talking about trillionaires! – $1.5 trillion yearly (and, no, that is not a typo), if Donald Trump has anything to say about it? And in Congress, mind you, that’s still referred to as “defense” spending.

Keep reading

Dozens of Dem Lawmakers Push to Make Sure Parents Can’t Tell If Kids’ TV Shows Push Transgender Ideology

Just how much say should a parent have when it comes to their child’s exposure to transgenderism and gender ideology?

President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission is taking a maximalist approach to answer the question about parental rights.

But if you were to ask dozens of Democratic lawmakers, the answer to the question is apparently, “As little as possible.”

Back in April, FCC Chair Brendan Carr began pushing for stricter — or at least more comprehensive — television ratings for children’s shows, to better inform parents about the shows’ contents as well as combat what is being called “ratings creep.”

“Years ago, Congress passed a law that empowers parents to decide the types of TV programs that are appropriate for their kids by standing up a TV show ratings system,” Carr posted in April. “But recently, parents have raised concerns with the industry’s approach — including with ratings creep.”

He added, “Specifically, they argue that New York & Hollywood programmers are promoting controversial issues in kids programming without providing any transparency or disclosures to parents.”

Fast forward to Tuesday, where Carr and his FCC received a scathing letter from House Democrats about this move to strengthen television ratings.

“We are deeply concerned that the questions you pose, such as whether programs should be rated differently because they discuss gender identity, indicate that you believe there is a role for the FCC to play in determining these ratings,” the letter read.

The Democrats attempted to frame Carr’s concern for parental rights as government overreach — and bigotry.

“The rating system is intended to address ‘sexual, violent, or other indecent material,’ and we reject the idea that the inclusion of transgender characters or topics is ‘sexual, violent, or
indecent,’” the letter stated.

“Programs should not have higher ratings or content warning simply because of the identity of the programs’ characters. Applying higher ratings or content warnings because of a character’s gender identity would be harmful to transgender people and transgender acceptance and would harken back to a time when politicians sought to censor television programming because they included minorities.”

Some 68 Democrats would go on to sign the letter that curiously claims, “We strongly believe that parents should decide what their children watch on television.”

(Wouldn’t more transparency help parents make better decisions?)

Keep reading

Netanyahu Cannot Have a Veto Over US Iran Diplomacy

On June 23, Israeli and Lebanese delegations began a new round of talks in Washington even as the U.S.-Iran memorandum entered its first serious test. The interim deal, signed on June 17, was meant to create 60 days of space for a final settlement: a halt in hostilities, a path toward safer navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, limited sanctions relief, and negotiations over the nuclear file. But the deal is now being tested by the very question it was supposed to contain. Can the United States pursue diplomacy with Iran while Israel insists that it must retain unrestricted freedom of military action in Lebanon?

That question should not be evaded. Israel has real security concerns about Iran’s nuclear capacity, its missile program, and the armed groups Tehran supports across the region. Israelis living near the Lebanese border have endured rocket fire and the threat of renewed war. A rushed agreement that merely freezes danger while leaving the machinery of escalation intact would not deserve American support. But serious security concerns do not create a right to veto another country’s diplomacy. They create a case for stronger verification, clearer consequences for violations, and more durable regional arrangements.

The June 17 memorandum is not a finished peace agreement. It is a fragile framework. Its text leaves the hardest questions for the next 60 days: the status of Iran’s enriched uranium, the future of enrichment, sanctions schedules, inspection arrangements, and the mechanisms that would enforce compliance. The United States has since issued a temporary sanctions waiver, while public statements from Washington and Tehran have already diverged over whether Iran agreed to long-term nuclear inspections. Those gaps are not a reason to abandon diplomacy. They are the reason diplomacy must be exacting.

This is where Netanyahu’s position matters. Israel is not a signatory to the U.S.-Iran memorandum, and it is entitled to press its case in Washington. Yet Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that Israeli forces must preserve freedom of action against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, even as the ceasefire there remains part of the wider regional de-escalation effort. That posture turns a legitimate debate over security into something more consequential: an assertion that any agreement limiting Israeli military discretion is, by definition, unacceptable.

The distinction is not semantic. Israel can demand that a final agreement address missile threats, weapons transfers, Hezbollah’s arsenal, and enforceable nuclear restrictions. It can seek rapid intelligence-sharing, inspection standards, and clear American commitments if Iran violates a deal. What it should not demand is a regional order built around the premise that Washington must keep military escalation available whenever Israeli leaders decide diplomacy has become too constraining. A security strategy can seek tougher terms without requiring permanent crisis as its operating condition.

Keep reading

Armed Self-Defense Incidents Show Why Second Amendment is Worth Safeguarding

For many supporters of the Second Amendment, it’s been easy in recent weeks to despair over the ways in which gun control advocates are successfully undermining the right to keep and bear arms. Virginia’s ban on future sales of standard-capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons is set to take effect on July 1, with state courts thus far appearing reluctant to intervene. New York and Connecticut became the latest states to pass “Glock bans,” which prohibit residents from buying one of the nation’s most widely available handgun brands.  

But not everything has been doom and gloom for lawful gun owners in other parts of the United States. The last few weeks have also featured some bright spots. In West Virginia, for example, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds may now enjoy their right to bear arms on equal footing with all other adults after legislation passed in April to expand the state’s permitless-carry protections finally went into effect. Down in Florida, meanwhile, state Attorney General James Uthmeier joined forces with Second Amendment advocacy groups, agreeing with them that the state’s mandatory three-day waiting period on gun purchases is unconstitutional and asking a federal court to strike down the law. And the Second Circuit struck down New York’s “vampire rule” in what is almost certainly a precursor to the Supreme Court’s imminent decision in Wolford v. Lopez regarding Hawaii’s version of the rule.

All of these are victories for the right to keep and bear arms, which Americans rely on to defend themselves and others far more often than many people realize. Even the notoriously anti-gun Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged that most studies on the issue find that between 500,000 and several million defensive gun uses occur every year in the United States. An extensive 2021 national survey conducted by a Georgetown professor further substantiated this reality, concluding that Americans used their firearms defensively an average of 1.2 million times a year.

Keep reading

Graham Platner Hit with Yet Another Controversy Over Graphic Reddit Comments

Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner is facing yet more scrutiny after archived social media posts surfaced containing graphic remarks, controversial political statements, and comments about military veterans.

The posts, recovered from Platner’s former Reddit account and reviewed by multiple outlets, remained accessible through internet archives despite efforts to remove much of his online activity. Among the material drawing attention was a response Platner posted in 2014 to an online discussion asking users to share offensive jokes.

Under the username P-Hustle, Platner responded to a Reddit prompt asking users to share “the most f*cked up, jaw-dropping, offensive joke you know?”

Platner replied with a joke that referenced incest, bestiality, and necrophilia.

“I was eating out my grandmother and it tasted like horse cum,” Platner wrote. “So that’s how she died…”

Additional archived posts showed Platner making sexually explicit remarks in various online discussions. In one thread, he wrote about associating the smell of portable toilets with masturbation. In another, he praised a drawing of male genitalia using graphic language.

One of the posts that generated significant attention dated back to 2013, when Platner weighed in on a discussion thread titled “shorts that prevent you from being raped.”

Responding to the post, Platner said:

Holy fuck, how about people just take some responsibility for themselves and not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to? Men and women, you make a choice to consume enough of a substance to lose your self control. So if you don’t want to be in a comprising situation, act like an adult for fucks sake.

The recovered comments extend beyond sexual content. Platner also discussed his political beliefs on the platform, including describing his path toward communism. Other posts expressed support for Hamas’s military tactics and included remarks directed at a recipient of the Purple Heart that critics viewed as hostile toward wounded veterans.

Separate reports have highlighted an account bearing a username similar to Platner’s on the messaging application Kik. The platform has previously faced criticism by child-protection advocates and anti-exploitation organizations over its use by online predators. The profile reportedly featured a photograph of a man identified as Platner wearing only a towel.

Platner’s campaign has faced repeated scrutiny over allegations involving his personal conduct and past relationships. Lyndsey Fifield, a former partner, accused Platner of physically aggressive behavior during their time together. According to her account, he allegedly gripped her with enough force to leave bruises, confined her to a room following a dispute, and forcibly removed her from a taxi by pulling her wrists.

Separate reports alleged that Platner exchanged sexually explicit communications with multiple women during the first years of his marriage. Questions also arose over a tattoo previously displayed on Platner’s body that featured the Totenkopf, a symbol historically associated with Nazi organizations. Platner later obscured the tattoo with new artwork.

Keep reading

Department of Interior Releases Never-Before-Seen Footage of Vandals at Reflecting Pool as Fake News Media in Denial

The Interior Department on Tuesday released surveillance footage showing two individuals “destroying and removing a piece of the lining and attempting destruction” of the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial, the Department says.

Deranged liberals have been tearing out the new American flag blue sealant that lines the bottom of the pool with the intention of giving the water a blue reflection. Several arrests were made over the weekend.

The vandals also inscribed “86 47,” calling for Trump’s death, on the grass of the National Mall and on the bottom of the Reflecting Pool in recent days.

Employees were seen erecting a fence around the Reflecting Pool on Tuesday as Trump says repairs are set to begin imminently.

Video provided to Fox News shows a male and a female reaching deep into the Reflecting Pool last Friday in what is allegedly an act of vandalism.

“In the video, you are seeing two suspects observed destroying and removing a piece of the lining and attempting destruction of the lining,” the Department of the Interior said in a statement.

“This incident took place on June 19, 2026, and we are investigating. Destroying, injuring, defacing or removing cultural or archeological resources is a federal crime.”

Keep reading