72.2 F
San Francisco
Monday, July 13, 2026
Home Blog Page 736

What Does the Missing Epstein Footage Show?

Reginald Edward
-
0
What Does the Missing Epstein Footage Show?

Key Takeaways:

  • A one-minute clip from Jeffrey Epstein’s jail cell was recently uncovered.
  • That minute directly challenges former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s claim.
  • The footage appeared in 33,000 pages of records from a Congressional committee.
  • Social media users went wild over what the video might reveal.

Missing Epstein Footage Found

In August 2019, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell. Since then, many people have questioned how he died. They focused on surveillance tapes from outside his cell. In July, the FBI released hours of video. Yet, observers saw something odd. A one-minute block—11:59 p.m. to midnight on August 10—was missing.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi said the footage was taped over each night. She claimed the cameras stopped recording for that minute. However, new documents tell a different story. On September 2, the House Oversight Committee released 33,000 pages of records about Epstein. In that pile of files, investigators found the missing Epstein footage.

The discovery came in material reviewed by The Guardian’s reporter Richard Luscombe. He noted the newly found video contradicts Pam Bondi’s explanation. In fact, it shows cameras never stopped rolling. Instead, someone simply left out that minute when the FBI first shared footage.

What the Missing Epstein Footage Shows

When the missing Epstein footage was finally seen, it raised fresh questions. The clip shows guards pacing near Epstein’s cell. They speak to each other and check their phones. At one point, they glance toward the camera. Yet they do not enter the cell block. The brief scene ends right before midnight.

Some experts point out the guards’ actions look routine. They suggest the minute does not prove foul play. However, conspiracy theorists see it otherwise. They claim the timing is too curious. After all, Epstein’s cell phone camera recorded other minutes without a problem. Why would that particular minute vanish?

Attorneys and commentators quickly reacted online. One lawyer noted that the original FBI clip had been cut from two separate segments. He said the agency had used editing software to stitch them together. That editing choice, he argued, contradicts the idea of a nightly tape-over. Instead, it hints at human error or worse.

Others on social media urged lawmakers to call Pam Bondi to testify. They demanded to know why she claimed the minute did not exist. Some asked for her to face penalties if she misled the public. Meanwhile, news outlets began focusing on how this one minute could reshape the public’s view of what really happened.

Why the Missing Epstein Footage Matters

Transparency in criminal investigations builds trust in justice. For many, the missing Epstein footage symbolized a cover-up. When that minute turned up, people felt vindicated in their doubts. They argued this proves the system can fail, even at its highest levels.

Moreover, the episode highlights how small gaps can fuel big theories. A single missing minute sparked endless online chatter. People connected it to old rumors about powerful friends of Epstein. In turn, the videos stoked fears about who holds real power in the system.

Finally, the case shows the importance of oversight committees. Without their work, the missing Epstein footage might have stayed hidden. The release of those 33,000 pages exposed more than just video. It shed light on how government reviews can miss key facts.

What Happens Next?

Now that the missing Epstein footage is public, the calls for answers will grow louder. Congress might hold hearings where officials explain what happened. Investigators may look into why the minute was left out at first.

Pam Bondi could face questions under oath. Lawmakers may also recommend rules to prevent tape gaps in the future. Correctional centers could tighten camera checks and require backups. That way, no critical moment ever goes unrecorded again.

Until then, people will keep watching social media for new takes. Some will see the clip as proof of a cover-up. Others will argue it is just a routine guard check. Either way, the missing Epstein footage has reignited a debate about justice and truth.

FAQs

What exactly was missing from the jail video?

A one-minute segment from 11:59 p.m. to midnight on August 10, 2019, was absent when the FBI first released the surveillance video.

Why did Pam Bondi say the minute was missing?

She claimed that the system overwrote footage every night, erasing that minute as part of routine tape-over.

How did the minute resurface?

The House Oversight Committee released thousands of pages of records. Investigators discovered the minute hiding among those documents.

Does the footage show anything suspicious?

The clip shows guards pacing near Epstein’s cell. Some believe their behavior looks odd, while others call it routine procedure.

Will Federal Troops Storm Chicago Streets?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Will Federal Troops Storm Chicago Streets?

Key Takeaways:

  • President Trump vowed to send federal troops into Chicago amid his anti-immigration push.
  • Rep. Delia Ramirez led Democrats in condemning the plan at a press conference.
  • Data shows Chicago’s violent crime, homicides, and shootings have dropped significantly.
  • Lawmakers promise legal challenges, new bills, and grassroots action to stop troop deployments.

Will Federal Troops Storm Chicago Streets?

President Trump announced plans to deploy federal troops to Chicago this week. His move follows similar actions in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Critics say he is using fear of crime to distract from budget cuts. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders vow to fight the deployment through courts, new laws, and community organizing.

Why Trump Targets Chicago

Chicago is the nation’s third-largest city and a frequent target of President Trump’s crime warnings. He claimed violent crime is surging, though data tells a different story. His administration also plans to send 200 Homeland Security agents and use a nearby naval base. Trump frames these steps as part of a broader anti-immigration crackdown.

However, a recent report found that 65 percent of those arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement have no criminal convictions. Moreover, 93 percent face no violent crime charges. Critics argue this undermines Trump’s claim that his agents focus on dangerous offenders.

Democrats Fight Against Federal Troops Plan

At a press conference, Rep. Delia Ramirez rallied lawmakers to condemn the use of federal troops in American cities. She represents parts of Chicago and spoke passionately about funding issues.

“We have less than 30 days to pass a budget,” she said. “Instead of sending federal troops and terrorizing our neighborhoods, the president should fund our schools, healthcare, and safety rooted in opportunity.”

Rep. Jonathan Jackson joined her warning that Mr. Trump is signaling a dangerous threat: the possibility of turning federal troops on U.S. citizens. Meanwhile, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced bills to give Washington, D.C., full control over its National Guard and police. She also renewed her call for D.C. statehood, arguing that only statehood can protect residents from such federal overreach.

Crime Data vs Troop Threats

Despite the president’s warnings, crime in Chicago has actually fallen. Violent crime rates dropped 22 percent this year. Homicides are down more than 33 percent, and shootings plunged by 38 percent. These improvements result from community programs and local law enforcement partnerships.

In contrast, Trump often cites isolated incidents to build a narrative of chaos. However, experts stress that slashing social services often leads to more crime, not less. With Democrats pointing to rising poverty rates and health care gaps, they argue that real safety comes from investing in people, not from the threat of armed forces.

Past Deployments and Legal Rulings

This is not the first time Mr. Trump sent troops into U.S. cities. In June, he federalized the Washington, D.C., police force and deployed the National Guard. He claimed he wanted to clear “slums” and uproot homelessness. Reports soon emerged of illegal searches and harsh charges against local residents.

In Los Angeles, the president sent Marines and Guard members months ago. A federal judge later ruled that use of federal troops there was illegal. Still, about 300 Guard soldiers remain in L.A. to support ICE actions and manage protests.

Legal challenges delayed deployments in some cities. Now, Democrats fear Mr. Trump will ignore court orders and continue sending federal troops to intimidate peaceful communities.

What’s Next for Chicago and Other Cities?

Democrats are gearing up on several fronts. First, they promise to file lawsuits. They will argue that only governors can deploy National Guard troops under state control. Second, they will press Congress to block funding for unauthorized federal deployments.

On the ground, community groups plan protests and public forums. They aim to shine a spotlight on real safety needs—like affordable housing, youth programs, and food assistance. Organizers believe that showing solidarity across cities could build enough pressure to halt any federal troop action.

Moreover, progressive lawmakers want broader reform. They push for bills that protect cities from federal interference. Some propose limiting presidential authority to deploy troops domestically unless Congress declares an emergency. Others seek stronger oversight of ICE operations and more protections for immigrants without criminal records.

Ultimately, the fight over federal troops in Chicago reflects a deeper debate. Is public safety best served by armed officers patrolling U.S. streets? Or should communities invest in jobs, education, and health care for long-term peace? For now, Democrats vow to do everything they can—legally and politically—to stop what they see as an authoritarian threat.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do Chicago leaders want instead of federal troops?

They call for more funding for social services, schools, housing, and healthcare to boost safety.

How have crime rates in Chicago changed this year?

Violent crime fell by 22 percent, homicides dropped 33 percent, and shootings declined by 38 percent.

Can the president deploy federal troops in any city?

The president can order some federal agents, but sending National Guard troops usually requires state approval or an emergency declaration.

What steps are Democrats taking to block the deployment?

They plan lawsuits, new bills to limit presidential power, congressional budget actions, and community protests.

Why Did Fox News Cut Away From the Epstein Files Conference?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why Did Fox News Cut Away From the Epstein Files Conference?

Key Takeaways

• Major networks aired a press conference where Jeffrey Epstein’s victims demanded release of the Epstein files.
• Fox News cut away when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.
• CNN and MSNBC provided full coverage, while Fox chose counter-programming.
• Critics on social media accused Fox News of shielding the Trump administration.
• The move raises questions about media bias and transparency.

Fox News and the Epstein Files Press Conference

On Wednesday, major cable channels showed a powerful event in Washington, D.C. Victims of Jeffrey Epstein urged the Department of Justice to release all the Epstein files. Yet Fox News abruptly stopped the live feed. This left many viewers puzzled and critics angry.

What Happened During the Press Conference?

Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and their advocates called on top U.S. agencies—including the FBI, CIA, and DOJ—to open their files. They said the hidden documents could reveal how Epstein escaped full justice. For over half an hour, speakers shared gut-wrenching stories. They demanded full transparency and accountability.

During this time, viewers on CNN and MSNBC watched every moment. Meanwhile, Fox News host Dana Perino offered brief updates. Then the drama unfolded.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Speaks Out on Epstein Files

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene took the stage. She blasted the Trump administration for keeping the Epstein files secret. She named specific agencies and said the public deserves the truth. As soon as she finished her first sentence, Fox News cut away.

Perino said, “So Marjorie Taylor Greene continues speaking at this press conference about the Epstein files, the Epstein victims, as well—a highlight on them today.” Then she shifted gear. Without warning, the network moved to a report on Chicago’s mayor. This switch shocked many.

How Fox News Handled the Coverage

Rather than show Greene’s full remarks, Fox News pivoted. The network claimed it had other breaking news. However, no major event was happening at that moment. Instead, Fox News aired a segment attacking Chicago’s mayor. Critics said this was deliberate counter-programming.

This decision meant millions of Fox News viewers missed vital testimony. While other outlets replayed clips of Greene’s speech, Fox stayed silent on the Epstein files. Later in the day, Fox did not return to the presser.

Reactions from Other Networks

CNN and MSNBC kept the live feed rolling. Both networks gave the Epstein files demand top billing. They aired experts who explained its importance. These analysts noted that hidden documents could expose high-level wrongdoing. By staying on air, CNN and MSNBC showed they saw this as a major story.

On the BBC’s U.S. feed, anchors also covered the full event. They described how each victim spoke with courage. This global coverage contrasted sharply with Fox News’s stance.

Voices Rising on Social Media

As soon as Fox News cut away, viewers noticed. On Twitter, now called X, posts piled up. Media Matters senior fellow Matthew Gertz wrote that Fox was providing “counter-programming featuring a Trump appointee.” Conservative journalist Jack Hunter said Fox did not cover it “because Trump is president and wants it to go away.”

Deadline reporter Ted Johnson posted screenshots comparing CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Fox News screens. Most showed the press conference. Fox’s screen had a different story. One outraged viewer called Fox’s move “an absolute disgrace.” Another said the network was “taking orders from the White House.”

Why the Epstein Files Matter

The Epstein files could contain messages, flight logs, and internal memos. Victims argue these papers might reveal other powerful figures linked to Epstein. They want to know who helped him evade justice. Without these files, they say, Epstein’s full network remains hidden. The DOJ holds thousands of documents. However, many remain sealed.

By demanding the release of the Epstein files, victims seek closure. They hope these records will lead to fresh investigations. Moreover, they want future safeguards so predators cannot exploit gaps in the legal system.

What This Means for Transparency

Media coverage shapes public pressure. When major networks air an event fully, it boosts demand for change. In this case, CNN and MSNBC coverage kept the issue alive all day. Their audiences saw the survivors speak out. Their stories could reach more ears and eyes.

In contrast, Fox News’s choice to cut away may dampen public curiosity among its viewers. If audiences don’t see the call for the Epstein files, they may not push their officials to act. This split in coverage highlights deep divides in how networks serve information.

Looking Ahead

Now, the spotlight returns to the DOJ. Will it release the Epstein files? Public pressure is rising. Victims plan more events if the files stay hidden. Likewise, legislators in Congress could demand action. Transparency advocates vow to keep the issue in the headlines.

Meanwhile, media critics will watch Fox News closely. If the network airs the full event later, it could claim a correction. But if Fox stays silent, viewers wondering about the Epstein files may seek news elsewhere.

In the end, it’s a test of power. Victims want justice. The DOJ holds the key. And news outlets decide what the public sees.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly are the Epstein files?

The Epstein files are government records related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case. They include emails, flight logs, and internal agency notes. Victims say these papers could expose more people linked to Epstein.

Why did Fox News cut away during the press conference?

Fox News said it had other breaking news. However, critics argue the network chose to avoid coverage when Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed the Trump administration. They call it a case of political bias.

Will the DOJ release the Epstein files?

The DOJ has so far kept many documents sealed. Pressure is growing from victims, lawmakers, and the public. Yet the agency has not announced plans to make the files public.

How can the public demand the Epstein files?

People can contact their representatives in Congress. They can also support advocacy groups calling for transparency. Sharing the victims’ stories on social media may boost awareness and pressure the DOJ to act.

Is Trump Trying to Shake Up the NYC Mayor Race?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Is Trump Trying to Shake Up the NYC Mayor Race?

Key Takeaways:

  • Trump advisors are weighing job offers for Eric Adams and Curtis Sliwa.
  • The moves aim to reshape the path for Andrew Cuomo.
  • Polls show Adams in fourth place in the NYC mayor race.
  • The plan is seen as a bold intervention by the White House.

NYC mayor race faces Trump’s bold intervention

In a surprising twist, President Trump’s team is exploring ways to influence the NYC mayor race. They have discussed offering top city candidates jobs in his administration. Chief among them is Mayor Eric Adams. They also eye Republican contender Curtis Sliwa. If true, these offers could clear the field for former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

How Trump’s offer could change the NYC mayor race

First, a high-profile offer went to Mayor Eric Adams. Trump’s advisors considered appointing him to a role at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. An anonymous insider told Politico about the plan. Yet, Adams quickly denied it. He said he will stay in the race and lead New York for four more years.

Second, Trump’s team sees value in sidelining Adams. Polls show him slipping to fourth place. By removing Adams, Trump might boost Cuomo’s path to victory. After all, Cuomo once ruled as governor of New York. He still holds sway with many voters.

Why Trump’s plan matters

Moreover, insiders say they want to help Cuomo over Democrat front-runner Zohran Mamdani. Trump and Cuomo go back more than forty years. They share social circles and political ties. Thus, a job offer feels like a friendly deal. It could pull Adams and other rivals aside.

In addition, the administration is looking at another target. They have discussed a job for Curtis Sliwa. Sliwa is the only major Republican left in the race. By offering him a federal role, Trump could weaken the GOP ticket and shape the final match-up.

What advisors are saying

John Catsimatidis, a billionaire donor, spoke with Trump about the race. He told the Times that Trump feels “very concerned.” Catsimatidis added that the race could shift within days. He described the mayor’s contest as “for all the tea in China.” That phrase shows how much Trump values this battle.

On social media, Zohran Mamdani fired back. He posted that the report proves Trump backs Cuomo. He accused opponents of using “backroom deals” to block new leadership. He vowed that voters want a fresh start on November 4.

Adams’ denial and city reaction

Mayor Adams remains firm. His spokeswoman said he plans to stay on for another term. She noted Adams has dedicated his career to New York. She insists he will finish the job he started.

Still, people in the city talk about this bold move. Some see it as a bribe. Others call it creative politics. Either way, it shows how high the stakes are in the NYC mayor race.

Behind the talks

Sources tell The Times talks are “in several directions.” Nothing is final. Both candidates have good reasons to refuse. Adams wants to serve New Yorkers. Sliwa wants a shot at City Hall. Yet the lure of a federal job may tempt a few.

Trump’s ties with Cuomo

Trump and Cuomo have a long history. They’ve met at charity balls and social events. Yet Cuomo fell from grace in 2021. He resigned amid harassment claims. Now Trump seems ready to give him another boost.

Cuomo conceded his primary loss to Mamdani. He backed Mamdani at that time. But with an open field in the general election, Trump’s team sees a chance to swing support back to Cuomo.

Sliwa’s stance

Curtis Sliwa has not confirmed any job talks. He remains the GOP standard-bearer. Sliwa says he will fight on until Election Day. Trump’s camp might still whisper options to lure him away.

Political fallout and voter outlook

Critics say this plan could shake voter trust. They argue it sends the signal that elections are up for sale. However, supporters see it as smart strategy. They claim every campaign uses behind-the-scenes deals.

For New Yorkers, it’s another drama in a heated race. Some feel excited. Others feel frustrated. Yet they all agree: the November vote just got more interesting.

Impact on election strategies

Candidates must now adjust their plans. Adams has to reassure voters of his commitment. Mamdani will use the news to rally his base. Cuomo could gain momentum if rivals bow out. Sliwa will fight to stay relevant.

Meanwhile, Trump’s role in a local contest raises questions. Can a president really reshape a city’s election? So far, the answer seems to be yes. But voters hold the final cards.

Possible outcomes

If Adams accepts, he drops from the race and wins a federal role. Cuomo faces fewer rivals and boosts his lead. If Sliwa accepts, the GOP slot narrows to a weaker field. Mamdani may then face Cuomo alone. Or, both offers could fail. The race stays crowded and unpredictable.

What comes next

As talks continue, New Yorkers watch closely. Poll numbers may shift overnight. Campaigns will refocus their messages. And Trump will keep a close eye on city hall. After all, this race could set a new standard for outside intervention.

In the end, one thing is sure: the NYC mayor race has turned into a national spectacle. It shows how local contests can have big stakes. Now, all eyes turn to November 4 to see which plan will win.

FAQs

What is the main goal of Trump’s plan?

Trump’s team wants to remove top rivals, like Eric Adams and Curtis Sliwa, to clear the way for Andrew Cuomo.

How did Eric Adams respond to the job offer rumor?

Adams denied the reports and said he will stay in the NYC mayor race to serve another term.

Why would Trump back Cuomo over Mamdani?

Trump and Cuomo have known each other for decades, and Trump sees Cuomo as more favorable than socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani.

Could Curtis Sliwa actually get a federal job?

Talks are unofficial, and Sliwa has not confirmed any offer. He says he plans to stay in the race until Election Day.

Can a New York Disaster Teach a Lesson?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Can a New York Disaster Teach a Lesson?

Key Takeaways

  • Donald Trump Jr. warned New Yorkers that only a serious crisis might stop extreme politics.
  • He described Zohran Mamdani’s views as a rise of “communism” in the city.
  • Trump Jr. claimed Democrats ignore most voters in favor of a small, radical group.
  • He argued New York must “hit rock bottom” to learn not to elect far-left leaders.

Can a New York Disaster Teach a Lesson? Donald Trump Jr. told Fox News that New York City might need a big crisis to force voters away from candidates like Zohran Mamdani. He said the city’s shift toward very left ideas feels like a move to communism. Also, he warned that Democrats now serve a tiny slice of extreme supporters instead of the wider public. In his view, only a major disaster will wake New Yorkers up.

Trump Jr.’s Warning to New Yorkers

Donald Trump Jr. spoke to Fox News after The New York Times said advisors to his father eyed positions for rivals Eric Adams and Curtis Sliwa. They hope those deals would clear the way for Andrew Cuomo to challenge Mamdani. Trump Jr. said that plan shows how desperate the party is.

He said he once fled what he calls the “People’s Republic of New York” for Florida. Then he added that Mamdani’s ideas feel like a real rise of communism. Trump Jr. claimed voters in New York need to see the cost of extreme policies before they act.

Why a New York Disaster Matters

According to Trump Jr., the Democratic Party now backs only about ten percent of voters. Moreover, he sees that group as so far left that normal people feel ignored. He argued that until regular folks face huge problems, they won’t push back. In other words, a New York disaster could show the harm of extreme ideas and teach a lesson.

He used a simple comparison. He said addiction often forces you to hit rock bottom before you seek help. In the same way, only a big crisis will stop voters from picking radical leaders. He insisted that voters will learn quickly once things fall apart.

Mamdani and the “Rise of Communism”

Trump Jr. didn’t like mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s policies. He said they look like pure communism in practice. For example, Mamdani supports big spending on housing and limits for police. To Trump Jr., these ideas ignore basic economics and public safety.

Also, Trump Jr. argued that Democrats now chase extreme narratives to please that ten percent. He said they let extreme supporters push them left, even if most voters disagree. He blamed what he called “Trump derangement syndrome” for making Democrats act in fear.

What Happens if the Warning Is Ignored?

If no one warns about extreme politics, the city might keep sliding toward radical ideas. Trump Jr. thinks that will threaten businesses, safety, and basic services. He said New Yorkers will pay higher taxes and see less order on the streets.

Furthermore, he claimed that once a real disaster hits—like a budget collapse or crime wave—people will regret their choices. Then they will turn away from candidates like Mamdani. For him, this shows that only a New York disaster can end the trend.

How Voters Might React

Voters often learn from real problems, not warnings. Yet many New Yorkers already feel worried about crime and the cost of living. If a serious crisis arrives, they might blame far-left leaders. Then they could vote for more moderate or conservative candidates.

However, some people feel warnings about disaster are too harsh. They say leaders should solve problems now, not wait for collapse. Others worry that talking about disaster spreads panic. Still, Trump Jr. insisted that a tough lesson is the only real teacher.

Looking Ahead in New York Politics

The mayoral race in New York is heating up. Candidates from all sides talk about safety, housing, and taxes. Donald Trump Jr.’s comments add tension by warning voters about extreme ideas. Meanwhile, advisors to ex-Governor Cuomo weigh their options.

Although Trump Jr.’s voice is outside New York’s political scene, his family name carries weight for some voters. His warning about a New York disaster shakes up the conversation. Now, both Democrats and Republicans must address whether drastic change is coming.

Conclusion

Donald Trump Jr. shared a bold view: only a big crisis will stop extreme candidates like Zohran Mamdani in New York. He compared the city’s shift to far-left ideas with a slide into communism. He argued that until New Yorkers hit rock bottom, they won’t reject radical policies. Whether voters heed this warning or not remains to be seen.

FAQs

What exactly did Donald Trump Jr. say about a New York disaster?

He said New York City may need a major crisis to teach voters not to support far-left candidates. He compared the shift to extreme policies with rising communism.

Why does he link Mamdani’s ideas to communism?

Trump Jr. sees strong spending on social programs and limits on police as core elements of socialism or communism. He warns these ideas ignore everyday needs.

Could a real disaster really change voter choices?

History shows that big problems can shift public opinion. If a city faces a crisis, voters often blame leaders and switch support to more moderate candidates.

How are other political leaders reacting to his warning?

Some critics say his comments stoke fear and distract from solving problems. Others believe his warning highlights serious risks in extreme policies.

Is the Fox News Lawsuit Changing Cable TV?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Is the Fox News Lawsuit Changing Cable TV?

Key Takeaways

• Newsmax filed a Fox News lawsuit accusing Fox of anti-competitive deals.
• The case is in its early phase and Fox has not yet responded.
• Observers and rivals on social media reacted with glee and jokes.
• Newsmax relies on text messages and emails from the Dominion defamation fight.
• The dispute could reshape how cable companies carry right-wing networks.

Fox News lawsuit shakes up cable giants

A small but growing cable network has taken on a much larger rival. Newsmax filed a Fox News lawsuit this week. It claims Fox made secret deals to stay in basic cable packages. As a result, Newsmax is shoved to expensive tiers or left out. Although the case is new, it has already stirred big debates. Meanwhile, both networks face past suits over election claims.

What Newsmax says in the Fox News lawsuit

Newsmax argues that Fox News used unfair tactics to keep its spot on basic cable.

• Secret agreements: Newsmax says Fox paid cable companies to block rival channels.
• Tier placement: These deals meant Fox stayed in basic bundles. Newsmax got premium lanes.
• Lost viewers: Newsmax claims it missed thousands of potential viewers.
• Evidence: The suit cites text messages and emails from the Dominion case.
• Legal basis: Newsmax seeks damages and a chance to join basic cable packages.

Moreover, Newsmax insists these actions hurt competition. It wants cable providers to stop such deals. It also seeks compensation for viewers it never reached. Although Fox has not yet answered the complaint, insiders expect a firm denial soon.

Media reactions to the Fox News lawsuit

Analysts, journalists, and political players wasted no time sharing opinions. Many who lean left cheered the lawsuit. They see it as a rare battle inside conservative media. National security lawyer Mark Zaid quipped, “It’s like watching cannibals eat their neighboring cannibal tribes.” Meanwhile, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote, “I love when my enemies go to war with each other.”

In fact, the Lincoln Project simply posted a popcorn emoji to mock the feud. Media reporter Matthew Keys noted that Newsmax used the same texts and emails that surfaced in the Dominion defamation fight. Former Washington Post editor Lois Romano added, “When they start eating their own, you know the culture is broken.”

These reactions highlight how the Fox News lawsuit has become a spectacle. People on both sides of the aisle are watching. They see a high-stakes drama that could tilt the balance in cable news.

Possible outcomes of the Fox News lawsuit

Although this lawsuit has just begun, it could end in various ways:

• Settlement: Both parties might agree to terms behind closed doors. Fox could pay Newsmax and adjust deals.
• Court victory for Newsmax: A win could force cable companies to carry Newsmax in basic packages.
• Dismissal: A judge might throw out the case if the claims lack legal merit.
• Lengthy trial: The suit could drag on for years, causing high legal costs.

If Newsmax wins, cable bundles would change. More viewers might see Newsmax in simple packages. That would boost its ads and subscriber count. However, if Fox wins or settles quietly, the status quo may stay the same.

Why the Fox News lawsuit matters to viewers

This lawsuit extends beyond corporate rivalry. It could shape how people find news on cable TV. For many households, basic packages are the main way to watch cable news.

Firstly, tiers decide who watches which channel. Basic bundles reach more viewers. Premium lanes cost extra and reach fewer homes. Therefore, a spot in basic cable means more eyeballs and ad money. For Newsmax, inclusion could mean a major audience jump.

Secondly, this dispute shows how media giants protect their turf. Cable fees and deals often hide behind non-disclosure clauses. As a result, viewers may not know why a channel is missing or placed low. The Fox News lawsuit could bring more transparency.

Additionally, viewers may see new menu options if Newsmax succeeds. Cable companies might offer tiered bundles with clearer choices. That could give consumers more control over what they pay for.

Finally, this legal fight comes after both networks faced election fraud lawsuits. It highlights how right-wing media is under pressure from various legal fronts. Consequently, cable viewers might notice changes in programming and network availability.

Key players in the lawsuit

• Newsmax: A veteran of election coverage, known for promoting conservative voices.
• Fox News: The top right-wing cable network, facing rival pressure.
• Cable companies: Gatekeepers who negotiate deals with networks.
• Dominion: The voting-machine company whose suit revealed key emails and texts.
• Media analysts: Observers who comment on the lawsuit’s impact.

These players all hold stakes in how cable news distributes content. Their moves will shape the final outcome of the Fox News lawsuit.

Looking ahead

As the Fox News lawsuit moves forward, expect more heated commentary. Hearings may uncover more private messages and contracts. If so, both networks could face reputational hits. Cable companies might also change how they offer news bundles.

However, legal battles take time. The lawsuit could stall without major updates for months. In the meantime, viewers can follow public filings and press statements. They may also notice shifts in how their cable provider displays news channels.

Conclusion

The Fox News lawsuit marks a rare clash inside the conservative media world. Newsmax accuses Fox of secret deals that block fair competition. Although the case is young, it has already sparked jokes and serious debate. For cable viewers, the dispute could change which networks appear in basic bundles. As the lawsuit unfolds, it may bring more transparency to how channels win their spots. Meanwhile, legal experts and TV fans will watch closely for every new turn.

Frequently Asked Questions

How could the Fox News lawsuit affect my cable bill?

If Newsmax wins, cable companies might reorganize news bundles. That could change package prices. However, any shift depends on negotiations or court rulings, so bills may not change immediately.

What evidence does Newsmax use in its Fox News lawsuit?

Newsmax cites text messages and emails shared during the Dominion defamation case. These messages allegedly show Fox making exclusive deals with cable providers.

Can Fox News dismiss the lawsuit quickly?

Fox News could seek to dismiss the case early by arguing legal flaws. If a judge agrees, the lawsuit might end soon. Otherwise, it’ll proceed through discovery and possible trial.

Will this lawsuit reveal more cable deal secrets?

Possibly. If the case reaches discovery, private contracts may become public. That could shed light on how networks secure spots in basic cable packages.

Is Trump Mishandling the Epstein Files?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Is Trump Mishandling the Epstein Files?

Key Takeaways

• A GOP strategist warns Trump against fighting victims of sexual crimes.
• Survivors held a press conference demanding the release of Epstein files.
• Trump labeled the Epstein files a “Democrat hoax” in the Oval Office.
• A DOJ memo denies extra file release and contradicts Trump’s claims.

Survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein stood outside the U.S. Capitol. They shared painful stories and urged Congress to release detailed records. Moments later, President Trump called those calls a “Democrat hoax.” A GOP strategist on CNN said Trump is breaking a key rule: never pick a fight with victims. This fight centers on the Epstein files—and it could hurt Trump more than he expects.

Why the Epstein Files Matter Now

The Epstein files refer to secret documents about Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Many survivors hope those records will expose new facts about abusers. They believe releasing files will show who helped Epstein. Also, they want justice and change. Therefore, every move by Trump or the Justice Department puts the Epstein files at the center of a heated political battle.

What Happened at the Capitol Press Conference?

Survivors gathered just steps from Congress. Each shared a personal story of assault and survival. They called for lawmakers to open the records. One woman said her life changed because of missing files. Another said the truth would help stop future abuse. In addition, they asked Congress to demand those hidden files now. Their unity showed how powerful victims can be when they speak together.

Trump’s Oval Office Response

Soon after the press conference, Trump met reporters in the Oval Office. He argued the Epstein files are just another political trick. He said, “It’s a Democrat hoax that won’t go away.” By calling the files a hoax, Trump distanced himself from the victims. He also signaled he will not release more documents. Overall, his words clashed with earlier promises he made on the campaign trail.

Advisor’s Warning to Trump

Brad Todd, a GOP strategist, spoke with CNN’s Kasie Hunt on The Arena. Hunt asked what advice he would give the president. Todd replied: “One of the cardinal rules of politics is you don’t fight someone who is a victim of sexual abuse.” He added that many politicians have suffered lasting harm after making that mistake. Moreover, Todd said this fight over the Epstein files could be especially damaging. He warned Trump that the public sides with victims in these cases.

DOJ Memo vs. Trump’s Promises

Last July, the Department of Justice issued a memo. It said they would not release more files on Epstein’s case. It also concluded that Epstein died by suicide. That directly contradicts Trump’s claim that Epstein was murdered. The memo further stated there is “no basis” to disclose more records. Yet, Trump had promised to release those files after winning the election. Thus, the DOJ memo both stalled the release and highlighted Trump’s flip-flop.

How Survivors Could Change the Game

Todd believes victims will shift the political physics around this issue. In fact, high-profile cases have led to big policy changes before. When survivors speak in public, they draw wide attention and sympathy. Similarly, they put pressure on lawmakers and officials. As a result, the DOJ may feel forced to act differently than it planned. Moreover, if the public blames Trump for blocking files, his support could dip.

Public Opinion and Political Risk

Polling shows that most voters side with victims in abuse cases. Furthermore, people often lose respect for leaders who dismiss survivors. When a president labels victims’ demands a hoax, it can backfire. Therefore, Trump’s fight over the Epstein files risks alienating moderate voters. It could even hurt his standing within his own party. In addition, Republicans who once supported him might speak out.

Lessons from Past Political Battles

History shows that mixing politics with personal tragedy is risky. Politicians who attack victims often face long-term damage. For example, past leaders lost elections after dismissing survivors. Moreover, the media tends to spotlight those stories, keeping them alive. Thus, Trump’s critics predict this fight will linger, especially as the release date for files nears.

What Happens Next?

Congress could vote to force the release of the Epstein files. Some lawmakers have already introduced measures to demand transparency. Meanwhile, survivors will keep telling their stories in public. They plan more events to maintain attention. Also, activists may file lawsuits seeking court orders to unseal records. As all this unfolds, Trump will have to decide: continue the fight or back down.

Why the Epstein Files Are a Test

This battle tests more than just file release. It tests public trust in the Justice Department. It tests Trump’s promise-keeping and political judgment. Finally, it tests whether victims can reshape how the government handles abuse cases. Ultimately, the outcome will show how much power survivors hold when they speak out.

Looking Ahead

As the debate heats up, watch for new developments. Will the DOJ hold firm, or will pressure force a change? Will Trump double down or change course to avoid backlash? Most of all, survivors’ voices will remain central. Their courage in demanding the Epstein files could lead to real change.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the Epstein files?

They are records related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, including court documents and investigation reports. Survivors and activists want them unsealed to reveal new information.

Why did Trump call the files a hoax?

In a meeting with reporters, Trump labeled the calls to release the files a “Democrat hoax.” He aimed to frame the issue as political drama against him.

What did the DOJ memo say about Epstein’s death?

The memo stated that Epstein died by suicide, contradicting Trump’s previous claims that Epstein was murdered.

How might releasing the files change the political landscape?

Unsealing the files could expose new names and details. It could shift public opinion, increase pressure on officials, and influence voter views on Trump and his administration.

Did Marjorie Taylor Greene Hurt Trump with Epstein Bill?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Did Marjorie Taylor Greene Hurt Trump with Epstein Bill?

Key takeaways:

  • Marjorie Taylor Greene joined a bipartisan push for the Epstein Files Transparency Bill.
  • The bill would force the White House to release all Jeffrey Epstein files.
  • Survivors of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell spoke at the news conference.
  • MAGA supporters called the move a smear on President Trump.
  • The backlash highlights growing tension in the GOP over Epstein’s legacy.

Why is Marjorie Taylor Greene in the Epstein Bill fight?

Marjorie Taylor Greene surprised many by showing up at a news conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Bill. This bill aims to make the White House hand over every file on Jeffrey Epstein. So far, the Trump administration has kept most of those files secret. President Trump has tried to distance himself from the Epstein scandal. Therefore, Greene’s appearance raised eyebrows among her fellow Republicans. She joined Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to push for more openness.

Also, several survivors of crimes linked to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell spoke at the event. They shared their stories and asked for more truth. By standing with them, Greene said she wanted justice for survivors. Yet, many in her party saw her move as an attack on Trump. They believed the timing and setting aimed to tie Trump to Epstein again. As a result, the MAGA base erupted in anger.

MAGA Backlash and Social Media Outcry

Right after the event, MAGA influencers and groups flooded social media with harsh words. They called Marjorie Taylor Greene a traitor. They argued she joined Democrats and a famous #MeToo lawyer to smear President Trump. Some posts even demanded her expulsion from Congress. Others used crude insults. One influencer said Greene used Trump to get ahead in her career. Then, when she lost Trump’s support for a Senate or governor run, she turned against him.

This anger showed how tightly the GOP base sticks to Trump. Even calling for file release was painted as an assault on him. Many felt any hint of Trump being linked to Epstein was off limits. Consequently, they saw Greene’s move as a step too far.

Greene’s Defense and Focus on Survivors

Despite the firestorm, Marjorie Taylor Greene stood her ground. She argued this fight is bigger than politics. She said survivors deserve the full truth. In her view, hiding files only protects the powerful. Therefore, she teamed up with colleagues across the aisle. Greene stressed that survivors’ voices must come first. Then, she pointed out that full disclosure can prevent future abuses.

Moreover, Greene noted that pushing transparency aligns with her past calls for open government. She said she has long demanded more access to classified files on other topics. Thus, this work on Epstein files seemed a natural extension of her efforts. She added that lawmakers must hold all institutions to the same standard.

Implications for the GOP and Trump Circle

This split reveals growing fault lines in the Republican Party. On one side sits the far-right MAGA faithful who see any criticism of Trump as betrayal. On the other side stands a smaller group willing to question the former president. Marjorie Taylor Greene now finds herself between those camps. Therefore, her move could inspire other Republicans to push for tougher oversight of Trump-era records.

However, the backlash also shows the power of Trump’s brand within the party. Many GOP members fear losing support if they challenge him. So far, nobody besides Greene has joined Khanna or Massie on the bill. That limits its reach in a GOP-controlled House. Yet, it also highlights that some members care more about principle than party loyalty.

In the days after the press conference, some moderate Republicans hinted at support for limited transparency. They said they might back a version of the bill that redacts sensitive national security details. At the same time, conservative hardliners warned that any cooperation with Democrats would cost them primary support. Thus, the Epstein Files bill has become a test of Republican unity and courage.

Looking Ahead for the Epstein Files Transparency Bill

The next step is a formal vote in the House Judiciary Committee. There, members will debate how much of the files should be public. Then, the full House could vote on the bill. If it passes, the White House would face a deadline to release the documents. Yet, the Trump administration could still fight the move in court.

Meanwhile, public pressure is growing. Several news outlets have uncovered alarming details in Epstein’s network. Some families of survivors have sent letters to Congress. They say more light on the case could help convict others involved. Therefore, if Greene and her allies keep pushing, the bill could gain momentum.

Moreover, the story may draw more Republicans out of Trump’s shadow. After all, many voters want answers about Epstein. They want to know why top officials kept files hidden. Hence, lawmakers might find support for a transparency measure that stops short of full disclosure. In contrast, a partisan fight could kill the bill before it reaches the floor.

Yet, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bold move has at least sparked debate. It has forced her party to discuss a topic they preferred to ignore. Whether that leads to real change or just more arguments remains to be seen. For now, the Epstein Files Transparency Bill stands as a symbol of the clash between loyalty and truth in modern politics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Epstein Files Transparency Bill?

It is a proposed law that would require the White House to release all documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case. The aim is to shed light on how top officials handled the investigation.

Why did Marjorie Taylor Greene join the effort?

Marjorie Taylor Greene said she wanted justice for survivors and believed in open government. She felt that revealing the files would help prevent future abuses.

How did MAGA supporters react?

Many MAGA influencers saw Greene’s move as an attack on President Trump. They called her a traitor and demanded her expulsion from Congress.

What could happen next with the bill?

The bill will face a committee vote before the full House considers it. If it passes, the White House might challenge it in court or negotiate redactions.

Could Lisa Cook Lose Her Fed Seat?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Could Lisa Cook Lose Her Fed Seat?

Key Takeaways:

  • Senators Mike Rounds and Thom Tillis refuse a confirmation hearing soon.
  • President Trump accused Fed Governor Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud.
  • Cook has sued to block her removal and denies wrongdoing.
  • The dispute risks fueling a partisan rift at the Federal Reserve.

Why Are Senators Holding Off on Lisa Cook’s Fate?

Senators Mike Rounds and Thom Tillis have hit pause on any hearing to replace Lisa Cook. They said they won’t act until Cook’s legal fight ends. Rounds, a member of the Banking Committee, pointed out that Cook still serves on the board. He noted she hasn’t had her day in court. Likewise, Tillis said he won’t consider a new nominee until the courts decide if Trump can fire her. In other words, they won’t schedule a hearing while Cook’s lawsuit is pending.

How the Mortgage Claim Could Impact Lisa Cook

President Trump’s team claimed Lisa Cook lied about her home status to get better mortgage terms. They said she listed two properties as primary residences. Then she told her lender a Cambridge condo was a second home. According to the administration, that move let her secure a cheaper loan. Later, they argued she reported it as an investment property to federal reports. However, Cook’s lawyer says none of this is new. He notes the Senate knew about the homes during her 2022 confirmation. He insists her record already faced full vetting back then. Moreover, he says no evidence ever showed fraud.

What Comes Next for the Federal Reserve

With Senators stalled, Lisa Cook remains on the board for now. The court will decide if the president can fire a Fed governor “for cause.” If the court rules against Cook, Trump could push for a hearing. On the other hand, if she wins, she stays in her post until her term ends. Meanwhile, the Fed may lack a full seven-member board. That could make votes on interest rates tighter. Markets might feel uneasy if the board splits along party lines. Many experts warn against letting political fights influence the Fed’s decisions.

Stephen Miran: The Other Nominee in Limbo

President Trump also wants to name Stephen Miran to the Fed board. Tillis said he has questions about Miran’s short stay. He asked if Trump has a longer plan for him. For example, will Miran fill a full term once another slot opens? Tillis admitted he needs more clarity before moving forward. Thus, both Cook’s case and Miran’s nomination could stall. In turn, the Fed may stay below its ideal member count for months.

Why This Matters

The Federal Reserve shapes interest rates that affect every part of life. Lower rates can make borrowing cheaper for families and businesses. Higher rates can cool down rising prices. If the board divides on party lines, it could slow Fed actions. Also, any delay in confirming a full roster may push decisions further into the future. Given how fast the economy can change, the Fed needs all voices heard. That is why many see a prompt resolution as vital to stability.

An Unusual Showdown

It is rare for a president to try ousting a Fed governor. Typically, governors serve fixed terms to shield them from politics. The U.S. central bank relies on bipartisan support to stay credible. By targeting Cook, Trump risks drawing the Fed into election fights. Rounds and Tillis worry that this could undermine its independence. Tillis even said he has no interest in moves that let the White House control the Fed. Instead, he wants the courts to spell out the rules on removal.

What’s at Stake for Lisa Cook

If the court sides with the administration, Cook could lose her job. Yet her term officially runs for years to come. Winning in court would let her finish that time without threat. Still, the drama may harm her ability to shape policy. Members might hesitate to work with someone under a removal cloud. Public confidence in her role could suffer, too. On the flip side, a victory could strengthen her standing. It would signal that Fed governors enjoy real job security.

The Path Forward

For now, Lisa Cook stays on the board. The courts will hear her case soon. Senators Rounds and Tillis have made clear they will not schedule a hearing until it ends. After the courts decide, the Senate may move quickly. Yet it might still wait, depending on political tides. In the meantime, the Fed must keep steering the economy with one member in limbo. Observers say this saga underscores the need for strong, independent monetary policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a Fed governor do?

A Federal Reserve governor helps set policies on interest rates and banking rules. They vote on changes that affect loans, inflation, and the U.S. economy.

Why did Trump accuse Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud?

Trump’s team said Cook misrepresented property statuses to get better mortgage terms. They claim she labeled a condo as a second home but later reported it as an investment.

How long can Lisa Cook stay on the Fed board?

Cook’s term lasts several years unless removed “for cause.” Her lawsuit asks the court to decide if claims against her meet that standard.

Could this fight change how the Fed works?

Yes. If political leaders push too hard, it might erode the Fed’s independent role. Delays in confirming members can also slow key decisions on rates and financial rules.

Will Trump Send Federal Troops in Chicago?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Will Trump Send Federal Troops in Chicago?

Key takeaways:

  • President Trump has repeatedly threatened to send federal troops in Chicago to fight crime.
  • Governor J.B. Pritzker warned Trump to “do not come” and criticized his mental fitness.
  • Senator Ted Cruz attacked Pritzker’s crime policies and even mocked his weight.
  • Pritzker snapped back, referencing Cruz’s Cancun getaway during a Texas crisis.
  • Despite threats, Chicago’s crime rate has fallen, outpacing many states.

Will Trump Send Federal Troops in Chicago?

President Trump keeps insisting he may dispatch federal troops in Chicago. He argues that crime is out of control. Yet Chicago’s crime rate has actually dropped. In response, Governor J.B. Pritzker has told Trump to back off. Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz has jumped into the fray with his own barbs. This clash raises serious questions about politics, public safety, and the president’s power.

Why Are Federal Troops in Chicago Being Considered?

Trump says crime is shooting up and he needs to step in. He points to violent incidents and claims local leaders have failed. Therefore, he threatens to send federal troops in Chicago to restore order. This idea follows his decision to deploy troops in Washington, D.C., during protests. However, many critics note that crime in Chicago is down this year.

Moreover, other states that sent forces to help Trump in D.C. actually have higher crime rates at home. So the call for federal troops in Chicago seems driven more by politics than data. Residents wonder if soldiers and National Guard units will patrol their neighborhoods. Yet local officials argue that extra law enforcement won’t fix underlying issues.

Pritzker’s Bold Pushback

Governor J.B. Pritzker, a progressive in his second term, has grown more outspoken. He told Trump, “Do not come” to Chicago. He also questioned the president’s mental health, warning that threats without plan are reckless. During speeches, the billionaire heir to the Hyatt fortune warned that federal troops could heighten tensions. He insists local police and community programs deliver better results.

On social media, Pritzker mocked Senator Cruz’s recent remarks. He posted about Cruz’s Cancun trip during Texas’s deadly freeze, writing that he’d never get between Cruz and a vacation. This jab highlighted what Pritzker sees as Cruz’s hypocrisy. Still, Pritzker aims to focus on policy, arguing that root causes—like poverty and lack of mental health support—matter more than military muscle.

Cruz’s Sharp Attack

Senator Ted Cruz took aim at Pritzker during a Newsmax interview. He called Pritzker a “disgusting, racist bigot” and accused him of neglecting the Latino community while attacking the president. He added, “I don’t want to get between J.B. Pritzker and the Domino’s pizza line.” Then he warned that Pritzker’s open-door approach welcomes cartels, MS-13, and the Tren de Aragua gang.

Cruz’s tone was combative. He suggested that federal troops in Chicago would help secure borders and streets alike. He claimed Pritzker’s lenient crime laws let dangerous traffickers roam. However, his comments focused more on insults than solutions. By mocking Pritzker’s weight and policies, Cruz tried to shift attention from Trump’s real threat of deploying troops in Chicago.

Crime Data vs. Threats

Despite the heated debate, crime in Chicago has fallen. Violent crimes dropped more than ten percent this year. Homicides, while still too high, are lower than in many cities that never saw threats of federal forces. Chicago police officers say community outreach and data-driven policing made a real difference.

In contrast, some states that sent troops to D.C. saw their own crime rates rise. So critics argue that sending federal troops in Chicago won’t fix crime. They worry soldiers lack training for community policing and could inflame tensions. Furthermore, local leaders insist that social programs, better schools, and mental health care will yield longer-term safety.

What Happens Next?

For now, Trump’s plan to send federal troops in Chicago remains a threat. He may use it as a campaign promise to show toughness on crime. Yet any real deployment would face legal hurdles. Governors control their own National Guard unless they agree to federal orders. Plus local resistance is strong. Chicago’s mayor and Pritzker have said they will block unauthorized troops.

Still, the debate highlights deeper divides. Trump’s critics see his talk as political theater. His supporters view it as needed action. Meanwhile, Pritzker and Cruz will likely keep trading barbs. As election season ramps up, expect more loud exchanges and fierce claims about public safety.

Frequently Asked Questions

What legal power does Trump have to send troops to Chicago?

The president can federalize the National Guard only with a state governor’s consent or under special circumstances. Courts often limit such deployments if they overreach state control.

How low is crime in Chicago compared to past years?

Overall violent crime in Chicago has dropped by around ten percent this year. Homicides are still concerning but remain lower than in many other major U.S. cities.

Why did Pritzker mock Cruz’s Cancun trip?

Pritzker referenced Cruz’s vacation during Texas’s deep freeze crisis. He used it to highlight what he sees as Cruz’s hypocrisy in criticizing others while fleeing an emergency.

Could federal troops actually help reduce crime in Chicago?

Experts warn that military forces lack the training for local community policing. They may deter some violence but fail to address root causes like poverty and mental health issues.

Can political disputes impact real public safety?

Yes. Heated rhetoric may distract from effective solutions. When leaders focus on insults, they risk delaying policies that support education, housing, and social services—key factors in reducing crime.

1...735736737...2,514Page 736 of 2,514

Explore

Trending

Follow us

© All Rights Reserved, Newspaper Theme.