The investigation into (former) Prince Andrew, who now goes by Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, is deepening. As part of the United Kingdom’s ongoing probe into the former British royal, it’s now being reported that detectives are planning to travel to the United States in order to speak with Virginia Giuffre’s family. This is notable for several reasons. Most obviously, Virginia Guiffre was one of the most outspoken Epstein victims before her death by “suicide” last year. She specifically accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her. Secondly, this most-recent development in the case reveals that the UK’s investigation of Andrew, which began as a misconduct probe, has expanded into far more serious allegations of sex trafficking. Here are the latest details: EXCLUSIVE from @Josiensor and @Fhamiltontimes Detectives investigating Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor are preparing to travel to the United States to interview the family of his accuser Virginia Giuffre Thames Valley police want to talk to relatives of Giuffre, who died in April… — Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) July 10, 2026 EXCLUSIVE from @Josiensor and @Fhamiltontimes Detectives investigating Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor are preparing to travel to the United States to interview the family of his accuser Virginia Giuffre Thames Valley police want to talk to relatives of Giuffre, who died in April last year, about her allegations of sexual assault against Andrew Andrew’s former role as a trade envoy is at the centre of Thames Valley’s investigation into alleged misconduct in public office after revelations in the mass dump of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier However, detectives have issued a wider appeal for information and are also assessing allegations that another woman was sent to the UK in 2010 by Epstein for a sexual encounter with Andrew at Royal Lodge. Andrew has always denied wrongdoing In 2022, Andrew paid a £12 million settlement to Giuffre, who claimed he sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17. Andrew denied wrongdoing and said he did not remember meeting Giuffre She killed herself in April last year aged 41. Her family were disappointed by the Met’s failure to carry out a full inquiry into her allegations, but believe that Thames Valley have been “very proactive” Thames Valley Police officers are reportedly set to visit the United States in the coming weeks to talk to Virginia Giuffre’s brother Sky Roberts and his wife, Amanda. The New York Post has more: Officers have already asked for case files and are likely to speak with Andrew’s former protection officers, the report said. But it will not be a formal interview as Sky and Amanda are not considered direct witnesses to the allegations. It’s not clear if Thames Valley police bosses have received permission from US authorities to carry out an interview. A spokesperson for the police force said it was following “all reasonable lines of inquiry,” without delving into the specifics. Andrew was initially investigated over long-running claims by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre that she was made to have sex with him three times — starting when she was 17 — on orders from the financier and his madam Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew was never charged and has always denied any wrongdoing – but paid her between $14 million and $16 million in an out-of-court settlement in February 2022. Sky News provided further coverage in this clip: BREAKING: Thames Valley Police plan to speak to Virginia Giuffre's family in relation to their ongoing investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Sky News understands.https://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233, and YouTube pic.twitter.com/EYVkcDVBm5 — Sky News (@SkyNews) July 10, 2026 What are your thoughts? TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Police Investigating Ex-Prince Andrew Plan U.S. Trip to Interview Virginia Giuffre’s Family appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Hunter Biden just scored a stunning seven-figure victory in federal court. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson awarded the former president’s son $1.7 million in punitive damages against former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, bringing a long and increasingly chaotic defamation fight to a brutal new stage. The decision was filed Friday, July 10: Hunter Biden wins $1.7 million in punitive damages against Patrick Byrne @edpettersson https://t.co/rvxNFjFnSI — Courthouse News (@CourthouseNews) July 11, 2026 There is one important distinction right up front: this was a default judgment, not a jury verdict. The court’s 25-page order granted judgment for Robert Hunter Biden, denied Byrne’s request to set aside the default, awarded $1 in nominal damages and added exactly $1.7 million in punitive damages. Wilson also ordered Byrne to pay $34,969.20 in previously imposed sanctions within 14 days. If Byrne misses that deadline, the sanctions rise by $1,000 for every additional day he does not pay. That escalating penalty is separate from the $1.7 million punitive award. The underlying accusation was enormous. Byrne had claimed Hunter Biden sought an $800 million bribe from Iran in exchange for using his connection to then-President Joe Biden to help release $8 billion in frozen Iranian funds and soften the United States’ posture in nuclear negotiations. Wilson found the evidence clear and convincing that those claims were false. The order says Byrne produced no documentary support, relied on layers of hearsay, claimed an alleged recording had been destroyed and gave an account contradicted by witness testimony, including testimony from an FBI agent who denied receiving the recording or telling Byrne to delete it. That is much more than a judge simply rubber-stamping a number because one side missed a deadline. At the same time, the procedural posture matters. Byrne did not present his case to a jury and lose after a full trial; the court entered default after determining that his repeated failures to appear, retain counsel and obey orders made normal litigation impossible. The legal team was blunt about what it believes should happen if the accusations are repeated: For three years, former CEO of Overstock, Patrick Byrne accused @HunterBiden of treason and linked him to a terrorist attack. Yesterday, a federal judge – Republican appointee – found that every one of those claims was fabricated. The Court described Mr. Byrne as not a credible… — Dick Harpootlian (@HarpootlianSC) July 11, 2026 That post came from Dick Harpootlian, one of Hunter Biden’s lawyers in the case. He called the judgment the floor rather than the ceiling and warned that another round of the same claims could bring Byrne back to court. Courthouse News reported that Wilson is a Ronald Reagan appointee and had already signaled in January that punitive damages were coming. At that hearing, the judge discussed a possible figure near $5 million before settling on the lower $1.7 million award in Friday’s order. The litigation had already gone badly off the rails by then. Byrne fired his lead attorney on the morning a jury trial was scheduled to begin in July 2025, did not personally appear and later failed to comply with orders involving new counsel, discovery, contact information and court appearances. The judge initially declined to enter default and gave Byrne another opportunity to defend the case on the merits. The order says Byrne used that reprieve to keep delaying while continuing to repeat the disputed accusations publicly. Hunter Biden’s lawyers hailed the ruling as complete vindication. Byrne’s most recent would-be attorney did not provide Courthouse News with an immediate response, and Byrne had not posted a public response to the judgment as of publication. That missing response is important. The order contains the court’s findings and Biden’s legal victory; it does not tell us what Byrne plans to do next or whether he will appeal. Online, the seven-figure award quickly became the number driving the story: MAJOR BREAKING: Hunter Biden has been awarded $1.7 MILLION in a defamation lawsuit against Trump adviser Patrick Byrne, who falsely accused him of seeking an $800 million bribe from Iran in exchange for influencing U.S. policy. Lies have consequences. After years of reckless… — Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) July 11, 2026 The case began in November 2023, when Hunter Biden accused Byrne of repeatedly publishing a bribery story he said Byrne knew was false. CBS News reported at the time that the lawsuit centered on Byrne’s claim that Biden had contacted Iran with an offer to help unfreeze billions of dollars in exchange for a massive payment. The complaint alleged Byrne made the accusation in a June 2023 interview and promoted it again after the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. Biden argued that the later posts did more than accuse him of corruption. He said they created the implication that his alleged conduct helped enable the release of funds connected to the attack, effectively tying him to treasonous and terrorist-linked behavior. Byrne denied acting with actual malice and maintained that he believed the story based on information he said came through an Iranian official. The court later concluded there were glaring reasons to doubt that account and found that the evidence developed in discovery supported falsity and actual malice. The original lawsuit sought only $1 in nominal damages on the defamation-per-se claim, leaving punitive damages as the real financial battleground. That strategy is exactly how the final judgment reached $1.7 million even though Biden did not seek ordinary compensatory damages for emotional or reputational harm. Whatever anyone thinks of Hunter Biden, this one is not ambiguous: he won, Byrne lost, and the court put a very expensive number on the result. If Byrne believed he had proof for an $800 million Iran-bribery allegation, the courtroom was the place to present it. Refusing to meaningfully participate instead left him with a default judgment, a punitive award and sanctions that can now grow by the day. The next move belongs to Byrne. Until an appeal is filed or another court intervenes, the operative result is $1,700,001 in damages plus the separate sanctions bill. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post BREAKING: Hunter Biden Scores Stunning $1.7 Million Court Victory appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is in open revolt over a federal election-monitoring plan headed straight for his state. President Trump’s Justice Department is sending monitors into key jurisdictions for the 2026 primaries, and Walz is suddenly talking as if neutral eyes inside polling places are a threat to democracy. There is one enormous problem with that performance: Minnesota welcomed Justice Department election monitors under administrations of both parties for years. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon laid out the new deployment herself. The Civil Rights Division has identified jurisdictions across six states, and she says this is only the beginning. This @theJusticeDept has identified several jurisdictions across 6 states & is sending election monitors for the upcoming primary election. This is just the beginning as the @CivilRights Division continues identifying more “hotspots” to monitor, ensuring fair and free elections! pic.twitter.com/TOtrCoJ4DF — AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) July 10, 2026 The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division explains that its attorneys and staff monitor polling places to assess compliance with federal voting-rights laws. In jurisdictions where federal observers are authorized, those observers document what they witness and report it back to the department. Federal election monitoring long predates President Trump. Democrat administrations also sent personnel into jurisdictions across the country as part of voting-rights enforcement. The department says its teams watch for compliance issues involving access to the ballot, discrimination, language assistance and accommodations for voters with disabilities. Division staff may also stay in contact with state and local election officials while they are in the field. In plain English, these monitors observe and document. They do not replace Minnesota election officials, run polling places or count the state’s ballots, which makes Walz’s rhetoric sound considerably more dramatic than the actual federal role. Walz nevertheless compared the Justice Department to a fox guarding a henhouse and accused the administration of political interference. Trump’s DOJ monitoring elections is like a fox monitoring a henhouse. We cannot allow our right to vote to be undermined by political interference. Every state must administer their elections free from unlawful federal intrusion. https://t.co/hKD4KSTfFU — Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) July 10, 2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune reported that monitors are expected in Minnesota for the August 11 primary, with an even larger federal monitoring effort planned for the November general election. The deployment is part of a six-state operation covering 15 jurisdictions. Dhillon said the goals include increasing voter confidence and watching for barriers involving language access and voters with disabilities. Those are ordinary Civil Rights Division concerns, not evidence that Washington intends to seize control of Minnesota’s election machinery. The paper also reported that Minnesota’s own secretary of state’s office acknowledged federal monitors have been sent into the state before. That history matters because Walz is presenting the current plan as a shocking departure from normal practice. It is fair for any governor to demand that federal officials stay within the law. But it is also fair for Americans to ask why a monitoring system tolerated in 2004, 2020, 2022 and 2024 has suddenly become intolerable when the Trump administration is the one using it. Dhillon answered Walz with receipts. According to the Civil Rights chief, Minnesota welcomed 47 Justice Department monitors across six districts during those four election cycles. Then she put the obvious question directly to the governor: what changed, and what is there to hide? Hi @GovTimWalz — MN welcomed 47 DOJ election monitors across six districts in 2004, 2020, 2022, & 2024. Now, however, you refuse to comply w/federal legal requests re elections. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in MN — what is there to hide? https://t.co/pFlL28Ecxt — AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) July 10, 2026 The monitor fight is unfolding alongside a broader election-integrity push. CBS News reported that Dhillon sent letters to election officials across the country reminding them that federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The letters warned that officials could face criminal exposure if they knowingly keep ineligible noncitizens on state voter lists or help them obtain and cast ballots. A Justice Department spokesperson described the request as an effort to secure voluntary, timely compliance with existing federal obligations. Several Democrat election officials pushed back and insisted their systems already prevent ineligible voting. The administration, meanwhile, has continued pressing states for voter-roll information and stronger proof that only eligible citizens remain registered. That context explains the political temperature. A handful of attorneys inside polling locations is only the visible piece of a much larger fight over whether state officials will accept aggressive federal scrutiny before control of Congress is decided. Walz can call the monitors foxes. He can accuse President Trump of plotting to rig an election by watching it more closely. But the numbers in Dhillon’s response are brutal: 47 monitors, six Minnesota districts and four previous election cycles. If federal observation was legitimate then, Minnesota voters deserve a much better explanation for why it is supposedly dangerous now. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post JUST IN: Tim Walz ERUPTS Over President Trump’s Latest Election Integrity Move! appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

One of the biggest prosecutions to come out of January 6 is now permanently closed. U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted the Justice Department’s unopposed motion to dismiss the case against Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola with prejudice. That last phrase matters. No pause, no delay, and no future administration gets another shot at this prosecution. The case is over. The ruling came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the four men’s judgments on May 21. The appeals court sent the matter back so the trial court could consider the government’s request for permanent dismissal. Three of the defendants, Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl, had been convicted of seditious conspiracy and other offenses. Pezzola was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted on several other counts. The first wave of reporting captured the sheer size of what just happened. Judge Drops All Charges Against Proud Boys A federal judge just dismissed the convictions of four Proud Boys members found guilty in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach—including seditious conspiracy and other serious charges like assaulting officers and destroying property. U.S…. — The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) July 11, 2026 The legal mechanics are laid out in Judge Kelly’s seven-page memorandum. The Justice Department moved on April 14 to have the appeals court vacate the judgments. Prosecutors said continuing the cases was not in the interests of justice and pointed to President Trump’s January 2025 clemency order. The appeals court granted that request before briefing in the defendants’ appeals had even begun. Once the case returned to Kelly, the Justice Department asked him to dismiss it with prejudice under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Kelly explained that charging and dismissal decisions sit at the core of the Executive Branch’s constitutional authority. A judge may guard against harassment of a defendant, but he cannot force prosecutors to keep a case alive simply because he disagrees with their decision. There was no harassment concern here. The defendants did not oppose dismissal, and the government asked for the strongest possible finality. The judge also rejected the idea of dismissing without prejudice. Leaving the door cracked for a future president to revive the prosecution years from now would collide with the very protection Rule 48(a) is supposed to provide. That is the constitutional point Democrats cannot wave away. Courts decide cases the Executive prosecutes. They do not get to commandeer the Justice Department and become prosecutors themselves. Kelly was equally clear about something else: he did not personally agree with the administration’s decision. His memorandum called the events at the Capitol perilous and said nobody should mistake his ruling for an endorsement of abandoning the prosecution. But a judge’s personal view is not the law. The separation of powers is. The path to Friday’s ruling began the day President Trump returned to office. President Trump pardoned former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio and commuted the sentences of Nordean, Biggs, Rehl, and Pezzola. His proclamation also directed the attorney general to pursue dismissal with prejudice of pending January 6 indictments. That distinction is important. Tarrio received a pardon, while the other four initially received commutations that ended their prison terms but did not erase their convictions. The court process that followed went further. The judgments were vacated, and now the underlying case has been dismissed permanently. Tarrio posted the newly filed order and celebrated the outcome.

President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security is exploring a major shift in how America carries out deportations: a government-owned air fleet that could launch around the clock and on short notice. The paperwork is real, and so are the numbers. DHS is asking aviation companies how they would operate and maintain a nine-aircraft fleet built around seven Boeing 737-700s or equivalent planes and two C-37B or equivalent Gulfstream 650ER jets. No contract has been awarded yet. The July 8 filing is a Sources Sought notice, which means the government is testing the market and gathering industry capabilities before deciding how to proceed. But the operational concept is far more detailed than a political talking point. One of the first posts to surface the plan laid out the fleet and its round-the-clock mission. DHS Plans Government-Owned Deportation Fleet for 24/7 Operations The Department of Homeland Security is seeking a contractor to operate its own round-the-clock deportation airline, including two Gulfstream 650ER jets and seven Boeing 737s. The fleet will handle removal flights,… pic.twitter.com/qxfzgKGAUU — GunTreasure (@GunTreasure) July 11, 2026 According to the official SAM.gov notice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to identify contractors capable of supporting a government-owned, contractor-operated fleet. That arrangement would put ownership of the planes with the federal government while a private aviation contractor handles flight operations, maintenance, logistics, training, mission support, modernization, and long-term sustainment. The proposed fleet would not be limited to routine removal flights. DHS lists deportations, voluntary repatriation, high-risk charter missions, crisis-response deployments, medical evacuations, and transportation of senior officials for continuity and diplomatic duties. The contractor could be required to support missions inside and outside the continental United States, including remote, primitive, and austere locations. Operations may run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with little warning before wheels-up. DHS is also leaving the basing structure open. The eventual operator may use one main base, several main bases, or a hub-and-spoke system with forward operating locations. Industry responses are due July 22. The filing stops at market research, while giving aviation companies a precise picture of the capability the government wants to measure. The aircraft mix says plenty on its own. Seven 737-class planes would provide the passenger capacity needed for large removal and repatriation missions. Two long-range Gulfstream-class aircraft would give DHS a smaller, faster option for missions that do not require a full narrow-body jet. Bloomberg Law reported that DHS began asking aviation companies this week to describe how they would run and maintain the fleet. The report emphasized that deportation flights are only part of the mission set. Emergency response and movement of senior officials are built into the same plan, giving the department a standing aviation capability instead of a single-purpose charter arrangement. Bloomberg also highlighted the scale of the proposed operation: two Gulfstream equivalents, seven 737 equivalents, and the ability to fly around the clock. That combination points to an air operation designed for sustained use rather than an occasional overflow mission. In practical terms, the department is shopping for an operator that can keep the aircraft mission-ready. Buying seats mission by mission is a different model entirely. The word “airline” gets attention. The more important word may be “control.” When a department owns the aircraft, it is less dependent on whether a charter carrier has a plane, crew, and schedule available at the exact moment a mission is ready. Aviation observers are already digging into the unusual mix of aircraft and missions. ICE Air: US Government Moves Forward With Deportation “Airline” Concept, But The Details Are Oddhttps://t.co/bTHLXnnP01 — Ben Schlappig (@OneMileataTime) July 11, 2026 ICE’s official removal statistics page explains how the agency handles aviation today. Enforcement and Removal Operations coordinates removals through charter aircraft and commercial airlines, along with ground transportation at ports of entry and the northern and southern borders. High-profile removals can involve scheduled charters, special high-risk charters, or escorted travel on commercial flights. ICE says those operations require coordination among detention officers, field offices, immigration courts, foreign governments, flight crews, and receiving authorities. Most removals occur after a final order or another lawful process establishes that the person has no legal basis to remain. A dedicated fleet would not replace that legal process. It would change the transportation capacity available after the process is complete and a removal mission is ready to move. That distinction gets lost in the shouting over immigration. The administration can hire more agents, expand detention space, negotiate with foreign governments, and win every courtroom fight. None of it gets a removable alien to a receiving country without an aircraft, a crew, maintenance support, and a flight plan. Transportation rarely wins headlines. It can still become the bottleneck that decides whether a policy exists on paper or in the real world. For decades, Washington treated immigration enforcement as a temporary problem to be managed through scattered contracts and limited capacity. The new notice asks what it would take to build permanent federal infrastructure for the mission. The left will call that extreme because the left calls almost every functioning border-enforcement tool extreme. Most Americans will see something more basic: if the government orders people removed under the law, it should have a reliable way to carry out those orders. DHS has not launched the fleet yet. It has put the industry on notice that a nine-aircraft, 24/7 operation is on the drawing board. That is how a campaign promise starts turning into durable capacity. Photo: Patrick Cardinal via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0. The post President Trump’s DHS Just Put A 24/7 Deportation Air Fleet On The Drawing Board appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.