Demands to Release Full Video of Deadly US Boat Strike Grow After Congressional Briefing

Calls mounted Thursday for the Trump administration to release the full video of a September US airstrike on a boat allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea following a briefing between Pentagon officials and select lawmakers that left some Democrats with more questions than answers.

“I am deeply disturbed by what I saw this morning,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after the briefing. “The Department of Defense has no choice but to release the complete, unedited footage of the September 2 strike, as the president has agreed to do.”

Reed’s remarks came after Adm. Frank Bradley and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine briefed some members of the Senate and House Armed Services and Intelligence committees on the so-called “double-tap” strike, in which nine people were killed in the initial bombing and two survivors clinging to the burning wreckage of the vessel were slain in second attack.

Lawmakers who attended the briefing said that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly did not give an order to “kill everyone” aboard the boat. However, legal experts and congressional critics contend that the strikes are inherently illegal under international law.

“This did not reduce my concerns at all – or anyone else’s,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who attended the briefing, told the New Republic’s Greg Sargent in response to the findings regarding Hegseth’s actions. “This is a big, big problem, and we need a full investigation.”

“I think that video should be public,” Smith added.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Orders Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts Unsealed

A federal judge issued an order that transcripts from grand jury proceedings in Florida that took place 20 years ago, relating to a criminal investigation into deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, be unsealed.

In his order on Friday, U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith explained that the “specific language” of the Epstein Files Transparency Act “trumps Rule 6’s prohibition on disclosure,” according to ABC News.

President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November. In a post on Truth Social, Trump predicted that “perhaps the truth” would come out about Democrats such as former President Bill Clinton, Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and their associations with Epstein.

“The Act applies to unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,” Smith said. “Consequently, the later-enacted and specific language of the Act trumps Rule 6’s prohibition on disclosure. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that United States’ Expedited Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts and Modify Protective Order … is GRANTED.”

Keep reading

“I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” – President Trump Signs Epstein Files Transparency Act, Says The Truth About Epstein’s Democrat Affiliates “Will Soon be Revealed”

President Trump has signed the Epstein Files Transparency act into law to release all files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the House overwhelmingly voted for the bill, with only one Republican defector, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), voting against the bill, citing privacy concerns for victims of Epstein.

The Senate later approved the bill by unanimous consent.

The President called on Congress to pass the bill on  Tuesday, stating, “We have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown.’”

President Trump released a statement on Wednesday, slamming the Democrats and highlighting Jeffrey Epstein’s support for Democrats and his affiliation with prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, and Larry Summers.

Fox reports, “Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Wednesday that she would comply with the law after it was signed, which directs the Justice Department to release the files online in a searchable format within 30 days.”

“Do not forget — The Biden Administration did not turn over a SINGLE file or page related to Democrat Epstein, nor did they ever even speak about him,” Trump said.

“For years our Great Nation has had to endure RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, IMPEACHMENT HOAX #1, IMPEACHMENT HOAX #2, and many other Democrat created Witch Hunts and Scams, all of which have been so terrible and divisive for our Country, and have been done to confuse, deflect, and distract from the GREAT JOB that Republicans, and the Trump Administration, are doing,” the President continued. “This latest Hoax will backfire on the Democrats just as all of the rest have! Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!“

Keep reading

Senate Passes Epstein Files Transparency Act by Unanimous Consent – Bill Now Heads to Trump’s Desk

The Senate has officially passed the Epstein Transparency Act to compel the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files. 

The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent as soon as it is transmitted from the House at the request of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Schumer thinks this will help the Democrats, but we are expecting some high-profile Democrats to be named in the files.

No Senators objected to his request.

Keep reading

As Mass Chat Surveillance Nears Approval, President von der Leyen is Accused of Transparency Violations Over Deleted Messages

As EU lawmakers push ahead with Chat Control 2.0, a proposal that would compel messaging platforms to scan private conversations, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is once again being called out for sidestepping the very transparency rules meant to keep officials accountable.

The contrast is hard to ignore: while European citizens face the prospect of mass surveillance, von der Leyen continues to ignore the laws and conduct her own communications away from public view.

The latest case involves a message sent by French President Emmanuel Macron in early 2024, during a politically sensitive phase of trade negotiations with Mercosur.

Macron’s message, sent via Signal, reportedly voiced serious reservations about the deal.

When a journalist requested access under EU transparency laws, the Commission first ignored the request for over a year. It then claimed the message could not be retrieved, citing Signal’s disappearing messages setting, which automatically deletes texts after a set time.

This justification has prompted the European Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, to launch a formal inquiry. Her office has requested documentation outlining the Commission’s policies on mobile messaging and message retention, and plans to meet with officials to clarify how the request was handled.

This isn’t the first time von der Leyen’s messaging habits have raised concerns. In the case known as “Pfizergate,” she was criticized for failing to preserve texts exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during Covid vaccine negotiations.

The Commission refused to release the messages, and it later emerged they had been deleted. The New York Times took the matter to court and won, with the European General Court ruling that the Commission had wrongly withheld information of public interest.

Despite these past controversies, little appears to have changed. The Commission claims that messages like Macron’s had no administrative or legal impact and therefore didn’t need to be archived.

Officials have also pointed to concerns over phone storage and security as reasons for using auto-deleting features. These arguments seem increasingly weak in 2025, especially when applied to discussions between heads of state.

The journalist behind the Macron request argues that such deletion practices make it nearly impossible to monitor how decisions are made at the highest level.

Keep reading

State of Utah: Charlie Kirk autopsy report will not be made public by medical examiner’s office

Unlike other states, Utah doesn’t have county coroners. Instead, a state Office of the Medical Examiner performs required autopsies and issues those reports.

But autopsy reports are not public documents under Utah state law and may not be released to the public: They can only be released to the following: next-of-kin, law enforcement, a legal representative and a physician who attended the deceased person.

When asked by Crossroads Report today, the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner said they could not even confirm whether an autopsy was being performed on Charlie Kirk.

“We are not able to make any comment about any cases that have been worked on, past or present,” said Danielle Conlon, a spokesperson for the office.

Keep reading

Military Officials Describe UFO Sightings, Demand Government Transparency

Several former and current U.S. military officials described sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) to Congress on Sept. 9 and called on the Pentagon to be more transparent about its disclosures on the phenomenon.

During a House Oversight subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, titled “Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection,” several past and present Department of Defense officials testified that they had witnessed UFOs—which the Pentagon now refers to as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP)—while serving in the military.

The hearing also featured a new, never-before-seen video of an alleged UFO recorded near the coast of Yemen in October 2024.

Air Force veteran Dylan Borland told lawmakers that he encountered “sustained reprisals” and retaliation from the Pentagon after whistleblowing about an alleged UFO he saw while working at a military base in 2012.

“I saw an approximately 100-foot equilateral triangle take off from near the NASA hangar on the base. The craft interferes with my telephone, did not have any sound, and the material it was made of appeared fluid or dynamic,” Borland said.

“I was under the triangular craft for a few minutes, and then it rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in seconds, displaying zero kinetic disturbance, sound, or wind displacement.”

Keep reading

Indiana U. professor supports transparency unless it applies to people like him

A new Indiana law requiring public university professors to post their syllabi online “threatens academic freedom,” according to an Indiana University Bloomington professor who is involved in government transparency efforts.

The law, included in a budget passed in May, “almost certainly will have a chilling effect on professors,” according to Professor Gerry Lanosga.

Beginning this school year, professors must post their syllabi online for not just students to see, but the entire public, which includes the taxpayers who actually fund the operations of the university. 

Yet for Professor Lanosga (pictured), this amounts to “surveillance,” according to comments he gave the student newspaper. He also joked “Maybe the impact on posting them to the public is that students may read it more.”

The media studies professor said he has nothing to hide, even though he opposes the law.

“It isn’t inherently bad — faculty don’t have anything to hide in their syllabi and people will comply with the law,” Lanosga said. “But what is the rationale? What are the motives? It hasn’t been made clear,” he told the Indiana Daily Student.

The rationale is that public university professors are supposed to serve, well, the public. They are paid by taxpayers to teach classes and conduct research. The secondary principle is that the work of public employees should be generally available to the public. 

Lanosga should know this since he specifically lists “freedom of information” as an interest on his faculty bio, he won the “Investigative Reporters and Editors’ Freedom of Information Medal,” and serves on the board of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. 

Instructors have some flexibility to reveal certain information just to enrolled students, according to the student newspaper. A good law leaves some room for exceptions.

But in general, the work of public professors should be free and open to the taxpayers. There are other benefits as well – perhaps prospective high school students want to know what they will learn in a political science, chemistry, or economics class if they attend IU.

Keep reading

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Misses Financial Disclosure Deadline After Extension, Omits Fiancé’s Finances

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) must be too busy flying first class to worry about following financial transparency rules.

AOC skipped filing her mandatory 2024 financial disclosure documents and instead requested a 90-day extension past the May due date.

Despite being given extra time, the far-left Congresswoman missed the second date as well and, according to an exclusive from The New York Post, finally filed the documents a week late.

Absent from her disclosure, however, was any sign of her partner of more than a decade, fiancé Riley Roberts.

Although AOC calls Roberts her “spouse” for perks, she has excluded him from disclosures.

Per The Post:

Ocasio-Cortez, 35, came under fire from the House Ethics Committee last month for calling Roberts, 37, her “spouse” on some ethics forms to receive perks such as travel and gala access, but leaving him off financial disclosures so she doesn’t have to disclose his assets.

“There is a reason Congress requires financial disclosures to include the spouses of members of Congress,” Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, interim vp of policy and government affairs at the Project On Government Oversight, told The Post.

“If spousal disclosures were not required, it would be all-too easy to exploit that loophole and simply transfer any conflicted or problematic assets or financial activity into the spouse’s name.

“If her fiancée is going to avail himself of some of the perks and privileges of being the spouse of a member of Congress, he should surely have to likewise comply with the less convenient parts,” he said.

Keep reading

There’s Probably No ‘Smoking Gun’ in the JFK or Epstein Cases. We Should Be Allowed To Look Anyway.

The CIA’s coverup about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is unraveling. Despite the agency denying that it knew anything about assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before the murder, newly declassified documents shed light on the links between Oswald, a Cuban guerrilla group known as the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), and CIA case officer George Joannides.

Several months before the assassination, Oswald had offered to work for the DRE, a CIA proxy overseen by Joannides. Years later, Joannides—operating under a fake name—became the CIA’s liaison to Congress during a congressional investigation into the assassination. The documents add to a pile of evidence that the CIA had been following Oswald for years and deliberately covered it up afterward.

Oswald “really wasn’t alone, he had the CIA looking over his shoulder for four years,” said Jefferson Morley, a historian who has long pushed for opening the Joannides files, in an interview with The Washington Post.

Decades of dogged investigative work have poked plenty of holes in the official story around Kennedy’s assassination. But they haven’t produced a smoking gun, a single document that demonstrates what the CIA wanted out of Oswald or what knowledge it had about his fatal plans. And that smoking gun may never turn up; Morley and others speculated to the Post that Joannides was running an “off-the-books” operation through the DRE.

The same is likely to be true about another case that’s in the news this week: that of the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. After he died in custody in 2019, calls have grown for the government to release the “Epstein client list.” As I argued several months ago, such a list likely doesn’t exist. What does exist is a scattered patchwork of evidence about the people Epstein associated with and leads waiting to be followed up on.

To be clear, the official story on Epstein has some troubling inconsistencies. Last week, the Department of Justice and FBI released a memo stating that they found “no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.” But it has been publicly reported that Epstein attempted to extort tech tycoon Bill Gates over Gates’ (legal) extramarital affair.

The Trump administration has not exactly inspired confidence in its transparency or diligence. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in February that bombshell information was “sitting on my desk,” then released a heavily redacted set of documents labeled “Epstein Files: Phase 1,” most of which were already public. Last week, the Department of Justice claimed it would release “raw” surveillance footage from Epstein’s prison wing on the night he died, then published a sloppily compiled video clip with a minute of footage missing.

President Donald Trump himself told his followers on Saturday not to “waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.” (It was a change in tune from last year, when Republican politicians attacked the Democratic administration for not pursuing the Epstein case enough.)

Government coverups rarely involve compiling one document that lays out all the wrongdoing in detail—such as the CIA’s “family jewels” in the 1960s—and hiding it from the public. It makes far more sense for officials to keep the wrongdoing from being put to paper in the first place. Conspirators make informal plans off the record. Internal investigators turn a blind eye to evidence that they think might lead to inconvenient places.

Epstein was only arrested in 2019, after all, because reporting by Julie Brown in the Miami Herald and a lawsuit by victim Virginia Giuffre forced the federal government to reopen the case. Authorities had originally struck a plea deal with Epstein in 2007 that gave him a short prison term along with immunity for any co-conspirators who might come to light.

Keep reading