Tag: donald trump

Epstein victim who Trump ‘spent hours with’ is NAMED in bombshell unredacted email

Jeffrey Epstein claimed Donald Trump spent hours at his house with Virginia Giuffre, the Daily Mail has learned.

The pedophile financier named Trump multiple times in emails to Ghislaine Maxwell and the author Michael Wolff over a period of 15 years, according to the messages released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

In an email dated April 2, 2011, Epstein wrote to Trump discussing a victim whom the Democrats redacted from their release.

But the Daily Mail has obtained the unredacted email which reveals he was referring to Virginia Giuffre – who stated in her memoir that Trump never did anything wrong.

Epstein said to Maxwell: ‘i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. virignia [sic] spent hours at my house with him, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there.’

Maxwell replied: ‘I have been thinking about that…’ 

The context of their exchange is not clear. Around three years earlier, Epstein was jailed in Florida after pleading guilty to solicitation of prostitution with a minor.

Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year, was recruited by Maxwell while employed as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000. She was 16 years old.

The communications were released on Wednesday after Democrats subpoenaed Epstein’s estate earlier this year.

Trump did not send or receive any of the emails, and he has not been charged with any crime in relation to Epstein or Maxwell.

Keep reading

Colombian President Orders Halt to Intelligence Sharing With US Over Drug Boat Strikes

Colombian President Gustavo Petro said Nov. 11 that his nation’s security forces will stop intelligence sharing with the United States in response to U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean.

Petro stated on X that he had instructed the Colombian public security forces at all levels to suspend cooperation with U.S. agencies until the U.S. military ceases its strikes on vessels in the Caribbean.

“Such a measure will be maintained as long as the missile attack on boats in the Caribbean persists. The fight against drugs must be subordinated to the human rights of the Caribbean people,” he stated.

The White House has not publicly commented on Petro’s announcement. The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.

Since September, according to posts by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and other media reports, the U.S. military has carried out at least 19 strikes against vessels alleged to be transporting illegal drugs to the United States, actions that have drawn condemnation from Venezuela and Colombia. At least 76 suspected drug traffickers have been killed in these strikes, according to reports.

Tensions rose between the United States and Colombia after U.S. President Donald Trump accused Petro of encouraging illegal drug production in Colombia, which Petro and the Colombian government have strongly denied.

Keep reading

USS Gerald R. Ford and Strike Group Arrive to the Caribbean, as Venezuela’s Maduro Makes a Desperate Plea for Latin American Nations To ‘Unite for Peace’

The US military firepower concentrated off the coast of Venezuela, already massive, has increased dramatically.

Oh, how the times have humbled Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro!

When the US was struggling under feeble Joe Biden, an emboldened Maduro banged his war drums non-stop, credibly threatening to invade neighboring Guyana and seize its oil-rich Essequibo province.

But the first year of Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House and the subsequent siege of Venezuela with the largest military detachment since the Cold War led the ‘tyrant of Caracas’ to cynically become a self-professed ‘advocate for peace’.

So, Yesterday (10), Maduro was in Colombia for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), to make a desperate plea for unity of Latin American countries.

But today, the largest aircraft carrier in the world, USS Gerald R. Ford, and its entire strike group have arrived in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM).

Pressure is building.

Latin Times reported:

“Venezuela’s authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro called on Latin American countries to ‘proclaim the unconditional defense of our America as a peace zone’ as the U.S. continues its military campaign in the region.

[…] ‘The union of America is not a rhetorical gesture, but the condition of our liberty and key to our dignity’, Maduro said during a passage of the lengthy letter.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Lets Government Continue to Withhold Funding From SNAP

The Trump administration may, for the time being, continue not to fully fund the food stamp program until Congress appropriates new funds, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late on Nov. 11.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamp program, provides financial assistance for food purchases to about 42 million people.

The court extended until 11:59 p.m. on Nov. 13 an administrative stay it granted on Nov. 7 that blocked lower court decisions that ordered the Trump administration to redirect about $4 billion in tariff revenue to SNAP on top of $4.6 billion it already used from a contingency fund. An administrative stay gives members of a court more time to consider an urgent matter.

The new unsigned order in Rollins v. Rhode Island Council of Churches did not provide reasons for the decision.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she would have denied the extension and the federal government’s emergency application. She did not explain her dissent.

Jackson on Nov. 7 had placed a temporary hold on the adverse lower court orders until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a written explanation outlining why it denied the administration’s appeal of those rulings. That explanation was released on Nov. 10, prompting the administration to request that Jackson extend her stay.

Keep reading

Venezuela Mobilizes Military Forces in Response to US Presence in Region

Following the U.S. Senate rejecting a resolution to block U.S. military actions against Venezuela, and the Pentagon confirming that the largest U.S. aircraft carrier is heading to Latin America, Venezuela is countering with its own two-day military mobilization.

Venezuelan Defense Minister General Vladimir Padrino López announced a large-scale military mobilization during a news conference on Tuesday, calling it a defensive response to perceived threats from the United States.

“Almost 200,000 troops have been deployed throughout the national territory for this exercise, and I must say that this is not at the expense of the daily deployment carried out by the Strategic Operational Command,” Padrino López stated in the televised address.

Venezuela’s ministry of defense also posted about the exercise on social media.

The address, broadcast on state-run Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), outlined the expansion of President Nicolás Maduro’s “Independence Plan 200,” a civic-military strategy to combine conventional armed forces and police, as well as other security bodies, in the name of national defense.

Padrino López’s remarks took place amid a backdrop of expanded U.S. military activity in the Caribbean Sea, such as the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, the largest U.S. aircraft carrier, and associated naval and aerial assets. Trump also authorized the CIA to operate covertly in Venezuela, he confirmed last month.

Keep reading

Trump Pardons Mountain Runner Michelino Sunseri, Who Was Prosecuted for Using an Unapproved Trail

“In an unbelievable twist that even Hollywood couldn’t write,” mountain runner Michelino Sunseri announced on Facebook yesterday, “I woke up this morning to find out I’ve been given a PRESIDENTIAL PARDON from Donald J. Trump.” Thus ends what Sunseri facetiously described as “the trail trial of the century”—his prosecution for taking an unauthorized route while ascending and descending Grand Teton in record time last year.

Sunseri’s case attracted attention as an example of overcriminalization—in particular, the ways that general statutes authorizing criminal penalties interact with a sprawling federal regulatory code to entrap people who break the law without realizing it. That description pretty clearly applied to Sunseri, who provided the evidence that led to his prosecution by posting a map of his 13-mile Grand Teton route on social media.

On his way down, Sunseri briefly took a quarter-mile path known as “the old climber’s trail” that had been used by six of seven previous Grand Teton record holders. As Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox noted in March, “tour guides who charge hefty sums frequently lead hikers up the same route,” which WyoFile described as “a historic trail so well-used that it’s become a skinny singletrack.”

The National Park Service (NPS) nevertheless considered that trail “closed,” although it notified the public of that designation only via two small and ambiguous signs that could easily have been misinterpreted. As the NPS saw it, Sunseri therefore had violated 36 CFR 21(b), which says a park superintendent “may restrict hiking or pedestrian use to a designated trail or walkway system.” It adds that “leaving a trail or walkway to shortcut between portions of the same trail or walkway, or to shortcut to an adjacent trail or walkway in violation of designated restrictions is prohibited.”

The regulation says nothing about criminal penalties, which are separately authorized by 16 USC 551. That law says violations of “rules and regulations” governing the use of public and national forests “shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.”

By authorizing prosecution for agency-defined offenses, Congress has created a bewildering situation in which the average American cannot reasonably be expected to know when he is committing a federal crime. The Code of Federal Regulations is so vast and obscure that even experts can only guess at the number of criminal penalties it authorizes—at least 300,000, they think.

“Many of these regulatory crimes are ‘strict liability’ offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime,” Trump noted in a May 9 executive order. “This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it.”

Trump said federal prosecutors generally should eschew criminal charges for regulatory violations based on strict liability and focus on cases where the evidence suggests the defendant knowingly broke the rules. Trump also instructed federal agencies to “explicitly describe” conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes.

After Trump issued that order, the NPS, which initially recommended Sunseri’s prosecution, reconsidered, saying a plea deal offered by the government, which included a five-year ban from Grand Teton National Park as well as a fine, amounted to “an overcriminalization based on the gravity of the offense.” But federal prosecutors in Wyoming, where that park is located, were undeterred. They proceeded with a two-day bench trial that ended on May 21.

After U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie Hambrick found Sunseri guilty in September, prosecutors offered to drop the case in exchange for 60 hours of community service. The U.S. Attorney’s Office described that retreat as “an evolution of what is right,” saying the decision “was made to preserve prosecutive and judicial resources while upholding the best interests of the public and the justice system.”

Hambrick was irked, telling Ed Bushnell, one of Sunseri’s attorneys: “It’s an interesting message you send to the public. If you whine and cry hard enough, you get your way.” But she said she would not decide whether to accept the belated deal until after a hearing on November 18.

Trump’s pardon obviates the need for that hearing. And contrary to Hambrick’s take, it sends a positive message—unlike his pardons for Capitol rioters, corrupt public officials who abused their powers for personal gain, allies in his fight to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, or other supporters with dubious cases for clemency. Sunseri’s pardon is consistent with Trump’s avowed concern about overcriminalization, which was also reflected in his May 28 pardons for two Florida diving instructors who were convicted of federal felonies after they freed sharks they mistakenly thought had been caught illegally.

Keep reading

Nothing says ‘Veterans Day’ than military families in a food line

According to reports at Military.com, which as a staple covers the daily lives and military families living on and off bases across the United States, thousands of military families are seeking food assistance due to the government shutdown, which is the longest in American history.

The shutdown reached a breakthrough on Monday night, as the Senate voted on a compromise bill to reopen the government. The measure must go now to the Republican controlled House and faces an uncertain future there.

In the meantime, it’s Veterans Day, which is typically marked by parades and school-based tributes throughout the country, but on military bases, apparently, it is passing amid consternation and stress, as servicemembers and their families face a month without pay.

The impact of the longest government shutdown in history, which as of Monday surpassed 40 days but potentially could reopen this week due to Senate Democrats reaching across the aisle, is hitting military families in every branch, state and pay grade.

Families that live paycheck to paycheck are asking for food, gas and diapers. National Guard and Reserve troops are struggling because canceled drills mean no pay. Nonprofits are shipping emergency groceries to keep cupboards from going empty. A previous Military.com report warned that troops may soon miss paychecks if the shutdown is not resolved.

Keep reading

Dick Cheney’s ghost has a playbook for war in Venezuela

Former Vice President Richard Cheney, who died a few days ago at the age of 84, gave a speech to a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2002 in which the most noteworthy line was, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

The speech was essentially the kickoff of the intense campaign by the George W. Bush administration to sell a war in Iraq, which it would launch the following March. The campaign had to be intense, because it was selling a war of aggression — the first major offensive war that the United States would initiate in over a century. That war will forever be a major part of Cheney’s legacy.

The Donald Trump administration’s escalation of confrontation with Venezuela displays disturbing parallels with the run-up to the Iraq War. In some respects where the stories appear to differ, the circumstances involving Trump and Venezuela are even more alarming than was the case with Iraq.

One similarity involves corruption of the relationship between intelligence and policy. Instead of policymakers using intelligence as an input to their decisions, they have tried to use scraps of intelligence publicly to make a case for a predetermined policy. This part of the story of the Iraq War I have recounted in detail elsewhere.

Cheney’s speech to the VFW preceded and in effect pre-empted work by the intelligence community on a classified estimate, which would become notorious in its own right, about Iraqi weapons programs. When Bob Graham, who died last year and in 2002 was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, became one of the few members of Congress to bother to read that estimate, he was so taken aback by how far short the intelligence community’s judgments were from what the administration was saying publicly that he voted against the resolution authorizing the war.

The Trump administration is using the same tactic of preemptive messaging from the top, regardless of what the intelligence agencies may be saying about Venezuela, that the Bush administration used regarding Iraq. Trump’s declarations about the regime of Nicolás Maduro have a definitive tone similar to Cheney’s “no doubt” formulation about Iraqi weapons programs.

Besides weapons of mass destruction, the other big issue that the Bush administration attempted to pin on Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime — capitalizing on the American public’s furor over terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks — was a supposed “alliance” between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. No such alliance existed, and the administration’s assertions on that subject were contrary to the intelligence community’s judgments.

The parallel with the current situation regarding Venezuela is especially clear, given the Trump administration’s assertions about the relationship between Maduro’s regime and certain gangs or drug cartels, which the administration equates with terrorist groups. Trump has declared that the gang most often mentioned, Tren de Aragua, is “operating under the control of” Maduro. This assertion is contradicted by the intelligence community’s judgments, as incorporated in a memorandum that is now available in redacted form.

The Bush administration not only disregarded intelligence judgments that did not support its case for war but also actively tried to discredit those judgments, and Cheney’s office was a part of this. For example, the policymakers tried to make life difficult for a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, who, as a result of field research he performed for the intelligence community, was able to refute an administration assertion about Iraq buying uranium in Africa. The difficulties imposed on Wilson involved the career-ending outing of his wife, who was an intelligence officer under cover. Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted and sentenced to prison for obstructing justice and lying under oath in connection with that affair.

Cheney unsuccessfully lobbied President Bush to pardon Libby. But in a further connection to the present, Trump pardoned Libby in 2018.

Keep reading

Will the Taiwan Issue Stay Quiet During Trump’s Term?

President Trump professed to be extremely pleased with the results of his recent summit meeting with Xi Jinping in South Korea.  Indeed, with his typical hyperbole, he rated it “a 12 out of 10.” Trump expressed special satisfaction with the conclusion of new trade agreements that significantly eased bilateral economic tensions between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  In what amounted to a casual comment, he also stated that he had received a pledge from Xi that the PRC would not take any military action to change Taiwan’s political status during the remainder of Trump’s term.  Interestingly, neither the U.S. nor PRC documents summarizing the summit indicated that the Taiwan issue was discussed at all – a very surprising omission given the usual importance of the topic.

More-neutral observers were less overwhelmed by the summit’s results.  Critics contended that the economic agreements amounted to little more than a temporary cease fire in the tariff wars that had raged between the two countries since Trump took office in January 2025.  The new steps largely restored the status quo ante, with tariff rates mostly returning to the levels that existed before all the recent posturing and blustering by Washington and Beijing.

Trump’s comments about his alleged pledge from Xi are more interesting and potentially much more significant.  If such a substantive “understanding” now exists between Beijing and Washington that the PRC will not take any military actions to change Taiwan’s political status, it would ease tensions in an especially volatile and dangerous global geostrategic hotspot.  There are, however, some reasons to doubt Trump’s rosy interpretation.  For one thing, the alleged pledge would be a sharp change in Beijing’s rhetoric and conduct for the past several years.

The PRC sought to strangle Taiwan in the global diplomatic arena throughout the 8-year tenure of former Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen.  In response to vigorous lobbying campaigns by Beijing that combined roughly equal amounts of bribery and threats, 10 of the 22 small nations that still maintained diplomatic relations with Taipei when Tsai took office in 2016 switched ties to Beijing.  The attempted intimidation, coercion, and isolation of Taiwan occurred not only on the diplomatic front, however.  Beijing also sharply increased the number and scope of its military exercises in the vicinity of Taiwan.

Both trends have grown more pronounced under Tsai’s successor, Lai Ching-te (William Lai) since he took office in May 2024.  The PRC’s menacing military maneuvers are especially noticeable.   Beijing dislikes Lai even more intensely than it did Tsai.  She was a member of the “light green” (more restrained and pragmatic) faction of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).  Lai unsubtly favors the goal of formal independence that the “deep green” faction pursues.  His confrontational course seems aimed at securing eventual international recognition of Taiwan’s (currently de facto) independence and a firm commitment from the United States and its allies to defend Taiwan from PRC coercion.

Lai also is waging a bitter internal political war with the more moderate Kuomintang Party, which favors a decidedly softer, less confrontational policy for dealing with Beijing.  The DPP and its rival have both adopted highly questionable tactics to undermine the other.  It is an increasingly tense political environment with Lai holding the presidency but a KMT-led coalition controlling the legislative branch. In July, 2025, voters rejected an effort by Lai to purge targeted opposition legislators through an unprecedented recall vote.

Keep reading

America First? For DC swamp, it’s always ‘War First’

The Washington establishment’s long war against reality has led our country into one disastrous foreign intervention after another.

From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same. They tell us that a country is a threat to America, or more broadly, a threat to American democratic principles. Thus, they say the mission to topple a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom and prosperity to foreign lands. The warmongers will even insist it’s not a choice, but that it’s imperative to wage war.

These “War First” ideologues across Washington have recycled their experiments in regime change for decades, with only instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment to show for it. But no matter their recent failures, they promise that the next regime change will work, that the next country in the crosshairs will soon be a beacon of human freedom and aspiration. If anyone questions this narrative, they are warned of some hypothetical alternative that is always worse, but never real. It’s a geopolitical game of: Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.

We are assured that only drug smugglers are the target of U.S. operations in the Caribbean, but these assurances don’t reflect the growing reality in the region — that is, unless the U.S. plans to attack small drug boats with the overwhelming power of an aircraft carrier, which is perhaps akin to killing a housefly with a steamroller. But with over 10,000 U.S. troops, eight warships, a Virginia-class submarine, and a dozen F-35s already in the Caribbean, and now the USS Gerald Ford Strike Group surging toward the region, the stage is clearly being set for something larger.

It is the height of arrogance to think we can forcibly remove the dictatorship in Venezuela and expect anything different than history has already shown. Liberty cannot be imposed at the point of a foreign bayonet.

Overthrowing Maduro risks creating more instability, not less. The breakdown of state authority may create a power vacuum that even the drug cartels themselves may fill. A generation of purges within the ranks of the Venezuelan military makes them a wild card in the event of an actual war, and we cannot assume they will fold and happily serve a new government preferred by the United States. Think of the anarchy that followed our wars in the Middle East. Do we really want to risk creating similar conditions in our own backyard?

There are assumptions made that, if the U.S. does pursue regime change, it would be an overwhelming victory. But what if an airstrikes-only strategy doesn’t push Maduro out? What if the country is split or spirals into civil war? Will we have to escalate further and further until Maduro is toppled?

Keep reading