Norway’s royal family faces a double scandal as Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s son stands trial for rape, while newly released files reveal her name appeared up to 1,000 times in Jeffrey Epstein’s documents. When Timing Becomes the Story Marius Borg Høiby’s arrest delivered a calculated message from Oslo police. Hauling in the Crown Princess’s son mere hours before his rape trial suggests prosecutors believe he poses an active threat. The new charges paint a disturbing picture: assault, knife threats, and violating restraining orders meant to protect former partners. Police requested four weeks’ detention, citing clear reoffending risk. This arrest follows a pattern of escalating behavior throughout 2024, when Høiby faced multiple arrests before his August indictment. The timing strips away any illusion that royal proximity offers protection in Norway’s legal system. The Epstein Shadow Lengthens Friday’s document release dropped a bombshell on the Norwegian royal house. Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s name appears between 500 and 1,000 times in Jeffrey Epstein’s files, far exceeding the typical frequency of contact. The palace confirmed what the documents revealed: she stayed at his Palm Beach mansion in early 2013, facilitated by a mutual friend. Email exchanges between 2011 and 2014 show sustained contact, though the palace insists she never visited his infamous island. Saturday, Mette-Marit issued a statement calling her Epstein association “embarrassing” and “poor judgment,” echoing regrets she first expressed in 2019 when his crimes became impossible to ignore. Thirty-Eight Counts of Reckoning The indictment against Høiby reads like a catalog of domestic terror. Four alleged rapes between 2018 and November 2024 form the prosecution’s core. Beyond sexual assault, charges include abuse in close relationships, violence against multiple former partners, death threats, transporting 3.5 kilograms of marijuana, and traffic violations. Two former girlfriends hold restraining orders against him, orders he allegedly violated before Sunday’s arrest. His defense denies all sexual abuse charges and most violence allegations, acknowledging only lesser offenses. The trial runs through mid-March at the Oslo District Court, where prosecutors seek a maximum 16-year sentence. Høiby’s lawyers remain unreachable for comment, leaving his defense strategy unclear as proceedings begin. #BREAKING || Strip away the crown and read the charge sheet. Marius Borg Høiby—son of Mette-Marit—faces 32 offenses, including four counts of rape, alleged assaults on sleeping women over years, domestic abuse, violence, and repeated violations of restraining orders. In… pic.twitter.com/ut3xUDKY8U — State Cipher (@StateCipher) February 2, 2026 Royal Distance and Democratic Justice Crown Prince Haakon drew a hard line last week: neither he nor Mette-Marit would attend the trial or offer commentary. His reasoning cuts to the heart of Norway’s democratic principles. Høiby holds no royal title, carries no official duties, and enjoys no special legal status despite his mother’s crown. Haakon emphasized that his stepson faces the same rights and responsibilities as any Norwegian citizen, a stance that honors both judicial independence and public expectations. The Crown Prince expressed confidence that the trial would proceed fairly, suggesting faith in Norway’s legal system to handle the case without royal interference. This hands-off approach protects institutional integrity while acknowledging the obvious: family ties don’t erase when courtroom doors close. Pattern Recognition and Public Trust Multiple arrests throughout 2024 established Høiby as a repeat offender before his trial even started. Each incident added charges, each release preceded new allegations, building prosecutorial justification for detention. The pattern suggests either profound disregard for legal consequences or inability to control violent impulses toward intimate partners. Either interpretation terrifies when combined with rape allegations spanning six years. For Norway’s royals, already navigating Princess Märtha Louise’s controversial 2024 marriage to a self-proclaimed shaman and her commercial ventures, Høiby’s criminality compounds reputational damage. The convergence of his trial with Epstein revelations creates a crisis of association for one of Europe’s most beloved royal families. The Epstein Question Nobody Wants Appearing hundreds to 1,000 times in Epstein’s files demands explanation beyond “mutual friend introductions.” That volume of mentions suggests sustained interaction over years, as confirmed by the palace’s admission of contact during 2011-2014 and the documented 2013 Palm Beach stay. Mette-Marit’s 2019 regret statement followed Epstein’s arrest and subsequent death, a timeline suggesting reactive damage control rather than proactive conscience. Her Saturday statement attempts accountability, expressing sympathy for victims while taking responsibility for poor judgment. Yet questions persist: What drew a crown princess into Epstein’s orbit? What did those email exchanges contain? Why maintain contact across three years? The palace’s confirmation that she never visited his island offers narrow reassurance when the broader association remains deeply troubling. NEW: Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit name appears several hundred times in the Epstein files: "You always make me smile… Because you tickle my brain." – she wrote to Epstein pic.twitter.com/uG3X3dNOvn — Megatron (@Megatron_ron) January 31, 2026 Norway’s monarchy has built its popularity on accessibility and democratic values, positioning itself as the people’s royals rather than distant aristocrats. That image faces its severest test as Høiby’s trial unfolds alongside scrutiny of Epstein. The combination exposes uncomfortable truths about proximity to power, the judgment of those who wield it, and whether accountability applies equally when royal blood flows through family trees. Mette-Marit’s regrets ring hollow without a deeper explanation of what exactly required regret. Haakon’s principled distance protects the judicial process while sidestepping harder questions about family enabling. For Norwegian citizens watching their popular royals stumble through scandal, the real trial may be whether trust survives the verdict. Sources: Son of Norway’s crown princess arrested before his trial on rape and other charges – ABC News Son of Norway’s crown princess arrested on new allegations the day before his rape trial – CBS News Norwegian crown princess’ son detained ahead of rape trial – Euronews

A single Minneapolis store manager’s political refusal to serve Border Patrol has now put 7-Eleven’s access to a major federal payment program on the chopping block. Story Snapshot U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and federal agents were denied service at a Minneapolis-area Speedway store owned by 7-Eleven. A viral video captured a manager saying, “I don’t support ICE, and nobody here does,” as the agents left without buying fuel or store items. The Trump administration’s GSA sent a Feb. 5 letter demanding answers from 7-Eleven leadership and warning the incident could jeopardize SmartPay fleet-card acceptance. As of early February reporting, 7-Eleven had not publicly responded, and GSA’s review remained open-ended. What Happened at the Minneapolis Speedway—and Why It Matters On January 21, 2026, a confrontation at a Speedway gas station in Minneapolis quickly escalated from a routine stop into a national flashpoint. Reporting says Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and federal agents were denied service, and the group left without purchasing fuel or items. The moment spread after conservative activist Cam Higby posted video showing a manager making an overt political statement opposing ICE. The key issue is not a private citizen expressing an opinion; it is a business location allegedly refusing ordinary service to federal law enforcement while those agents are performing official duties. If the account is accurate, it raises practical questions about whether federal personnel can reliably obtain basic support—fuel, food, and lodging—when operating in hostile political environments. That reliability becomes even more important when federal vehicles must use designated payment systems. GSA’s Pressure Point: SmartPay Fleet Cards and Federal Access The General Services Administration is treating the incident as more than a local HR problem. In a Feb. 5 letter to 7-Eleven COO Doug Rosencrans, GSA Deputy Administrator Michael Lynch asked for details about any internal investigation, employee training, and company policy—especially policies that affect the use of GSA SmartPay fleet cards. The letter warned that 7-Eleven’s participation could be at risk if the situation is not addressed. SmartPay is a core part of how the federal government buys everyday operational necessities, including fuel for non-tactical vehicles. The reporting frames the potential consequence as a threat to 7-Eleven’s continued ability to accept SmartPay fleet cards used by agencies including the Department of Homeland Security. For taxpayers, the point is straightforward: if vendors want access to federal payment channels, the government expects consistent, nondiscriminatory service tied to mission needs. Minneapolis as a Pattern: Prior Business Refusals and Corporate Cleanups The Minneapolis episode is also being reported as part of a broader local pattern of anti-ICE activity that has spilled into commerce. Prior examples cited include a Hampton Inn in Lakeville removed from GSA’s approved lodging list after reportedly denying ICE stays, and a McDonald’s that displayed “ICE/CBP not welcome” signage before corporate intervention ordered it removed. These cases suggest corporate headquarters often steps in only after public exposure. That history matters because it explains why GSA is asking for more than a press statement. The federal government is looking for compliance mechanisms: training, written policy, investigation results, and clarity on whether political activism at the store level can block service to federal users. Without documented controls, “this was just one employee” becomes hard to verify, especially when multiple incidents in the same metro area are cited by the same outlets. What’s Confirmed, What’s Not, and Where the Story Stands Multiple reports align on the basic timeline: the late-January denial incident, the viral video posting on January 21, and the Feb. 5 GSA letter demanding answers. They also align on the central quote captured on video. What remains unresolved is how 7-Eleven’s corporate leadership will respond publicly, what GSA will determine after reviewing the company’s actions, and whether any national change in policy or training will be announced. There is also a verification limitation that matters for careful readers: outside of the reporting and the circulated video, there is no primary, independently published statement in the provided materials from GSA or 7-Eleven that closes the loop with final findings. Until that happens, the story remains an active compliance dispute—one with real stakes for federal operations and for a major retailer’s relationship with the government’s fleet purchasing system. Why Conservatives Are Watching: Rule of Law vs. Political Gatekeeping The immediate takeaway is institutional: when a business reportedly refuses service to federal immigration agents based on politics, the federal government has limited tools to respond besides contract and procurement leverage. GSA’s letter represents that leverage. Supporters of limited government still expect basic rule-of-law functions—like enforcing immigration statutes passed by Congress—to be carried out without being sabotaged by ad hoc “woke” gatekeeping at the cash register. Trump Admin Threatens to Pull MASSIVE Federal Contract From 7-Eleven After Radical Leftist Employee Denies Service to US Border Patrol | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim HᴏftStop threatening to do things! Do it! https://t.co/MNCumjsg88 — Johnny B (@JohnnyAmerica52) February 13, 2026 For 7-Eleven, the path forward is likely procedural: show documented training, clarify nondiscrimination rules for serving lawful customers, and confirm fleet-card acceptance policies across the chain. For the Trump administration, the broader question is consistency—whether federal procurement standards will be enforced in a way that ensures agencies can operate in Democrat-led cities where political opposition to immigration enforcement is intense. As of the latest reporting, the ball remains in 7-Eleven’s court. Sources: Trump administration threatens 7-Eleven partnership after federal agents denied service at Minneapolis store 7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case Trump administration warns 7-Eleven after Border Patrol’s Gregory Bovino refused service Shifting Gears: Trump Administration Launches High-Profile Worksite Enforcement Operations

Texas veterans who shed blood for America but lack a 100% disability rating may finally receive the property tax relief they deserve, as advocates push lawmakers to honor Purple Heart recipients with full exemptions regardless of bureaucratic paperwork. Honoring Sacrifice Over Bureaucracy Texas veterans advocacy groups are pushing state lawmakers to expand property tax exemptions to all Purple Heart recipients, regardless of their Veterans Affairs disability rating. Currently, only veterans with 100% VA disability ratings qualify for full property tax exemptions, leaving combat-wounded heroes who lack the paperwork without this crucial financial relief. Military Order of Purple Heart 598 is leading the charge, conducting surveys of veterans and civilians to demonstrate widespread support before submitting results to the Texas legislature. This initiative follows the failure of House Bill 1591, which sought broader exemptions for disabled veterans but did not advance. Financial Relief for Combat-Wounded Heroes The proposed exemption would save qualifying Purple Heart recipients thousands of dollars annually. Texas homeowners face a median property tax burden of $4,274, creating significant financial strain for veterans on fixed incomes. While Texas already offers partial exemptions for veterans with lower disability ratings and full exemptions for those rated 100% disabled, many Purple Heart recipients fall through the cracks. These are Americans who took enemy fire and came home wounded but whose injuries don’t meet the threshold for maximum disability compensation. Advocates argue this bureaucratic distinction ignores the fundamental sacrifice symbolized by the Purple Heart, awarded since 1782 for wounds received in combat. Economic Benefits Beyond Fairness Supporting veterans through property tax relief makes economic sense for Texas. Veterans in top states like Texas inject approximately $30 billion annually into local economies through disability compensation spending alone. This money circulates through communities, generating sales tax revenue and supporting jobs while veterans contribute to their local tax bases through everyday purchases. Real estate expert Alan Chang endorsed the proposal, stating he hopes it passes as “the least [government] can do” for wounded warriors. Texas’s existing veteran tax relief framework is already considered robust, but expanding it to all Purple Heart recipients would strengthen the state’s position as a veteran-friendly destination while acknowledging combat sacrifice over administrative ratings. Setting National Precedent for Veteran Support Texas’s proposed expansion could set a powerful precedent for other states with large veteran populations, including California and Florida. The advocacy emphasizes that Purple Heart recipients “shed blood” for their country and deserve recognition beyond paperwork-defined disability percentages. This common-sense approach prioritizes tangible sacrifice over bureaucratic thresholds, aligning with conservative principles of honoring military service and limiting government red tape. As the Military Order of Purple Heart 598 prepares to present survey data to lawmakers, the proposal represents more than tax relief—it’s about ensuring those who bore the visible scars of combat receive the respect and support they earned, regardless of how the VA categorizes their injuries administratively. Sources: Over 1 Million Veterans Get New Tax Benefit – Newsweek

A top advisor to NYC’s socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been exposed for deleted social media posts attacking “white civility” and “white politeness” after a confrontation on a commuter train, adding to a growing pattern of radical rhetoric from administration officials. Story Snapshot Drashti Brahmbhatt, advisor to NYC Mayor Mamdani, posted deleted tweets rejecting “white standards of politeness” after a 2021 train confrontation Brahmbhatt claimed an older white woman gave her “death glares” during a phone call, prompting her racially-charged response Mayor Mamdani has remained silent on the controversy despite defending other aides with similar radical posts The incident adds to a troubling pattern of Mamdani administration officials promoting divisive, anti-white rhetoric Another Radical Aide Exposed Drashti Brahmbhatt, an advisor to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, authored inflammatory tweets in November 2021 describing a confrontation with an “older white woman” on a Metro-North Railroad train. Brahmbhatt claimed the woman gave her “death glares” during a 40-minute phone call, though she insisted she spoke softly. The advisor then confronted the woman and proceeded to reject what she called “white standards of politeness” and “white civility” in posts that have since been deleted. These tweets surfaced on February 10, 2026, as Brahmbhatt served in Mamdani’s administration. “I don’t need to follow white standards of ‘politeness,’” Brahmbhatt insisted. https://t.co/YaBME2A26n — The National Pulse (@TheNatPulse) February 11, 2026 Pattern of Defending Extremist Views Brahmbhatt’s comments fit a disturbing pattern within Mamdani’s Democratic Socialists of America-aligned administration. The mayor previously defended other aides who made inflammatory statements, including one calling to “Impoverish the white middle class” and tenant official Cea Weaver, who tweeted that “homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy.” Mamdani’s platform included punitive taxes on “whiter neighborhoods,” and he has filled his administration with DSA supporters advocating police abolition and anti-Israel positions. His willingness to retain officials with such divisive views raises serious questions about his judgment and commitment to representing all New Yorkers. Silence Speaks Volumes Unlike previous controversies where Mamdani publicly defended his aides’ radical statements, the mayor has remained notably silent on Brahmbhatt’s resurfaced posts. This absence of comment occurs as his administration faces multiple scandals, including an aide linked to a fraud-accused law firm and the appointment of a former Rikers inmate as Corrections head. The mayor’s selective defense of controversial staffers suggests political calculations rather than principled leadership. His administration’s pattern of hiring individuals with extreme ideological views and racially divisive rhetoric demonstrates a prioritization of socialist loyalty over competence and unity. NEW from me Digging into more of the now-deleted X posts of top officials around Zohran Mamdani This is Drashti Brahmbhatt — a top advisor, who relayed this incredible story in November 2021 about "how terrible white women are" pic.twitter.com/7jsBxfwVw9 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) February 9, 2026 Erosion of Common Decency The incident highlights how identity politics and grievance culture corrode basic social norms that hold communities together. Brahmbhatt’s rejection of basic courtesy as “white standards” promotes a dangerous worldview that judges behavior through a racial lens rather than universal principles of respect. This divisive ideology, endorsed through Mamdani’s hiring practices and public defenses of similar rhetoric, threatens to fracture New York City along racial lines. The administration’s embrace of officials who openly express disdain for white Americans undermines the mayor’s ability to govern effectively for all residents, regardless of race or background, and represents government-sanctioned racial hostility that would be universally condemned if directed at any other group. Sources: Another Mamdani Aide Found Trashing ‘White Civility,’ ‘White Politeness,’ and ‘White Women Behavior’ Online Mamdani outraged after New York City Council employee detained by ICE Hochul and Mamdani hug it out over permitting reform NYC Mayor Mamdani calls for release of city employee detained by ICE Mamdani tenant tsar said home ownership is a tool of white supremacy in resurfaced tweet

A federal court picked a U.S. attorney for upstate New York—then the Trump Justice Department fired him within hours, igniting a fresh constitutional tug-of-war over who really controls federal prosecutions. Judges Appoint Kinsella, DOJ Fires Him Within Hours Federal judges appointed Donald Kinsella to run the U.S. attorney’s office in the Northern District of New York, a step courts can take when an interim appointment expires, and the Senate-confirmed slot remains vacant. Within hours, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Kinsella’s removal in a public social media statement, arguing that judges do not choose U.S. attorneys and that the Constitution assigns that authority to the president. The rapid reversal left the office’s leadership status unclear. The public nature of the dismissal added fuel to an already tense separation-of-powers fight. The administration’s position, as stated by Blanche, frames this as a straightforward Article II issue: prosecutors who represent the United States should be selected through the executive branch’s appointment power. Critics in the judiciary, however, have pointed to Congress’s vacancy statutes and limits on repeated “acting” appointments, saying those rules exist to prevent end-runs around Senate confirmation and to protect the legitimacy of prosecutions. The Sarcone Disqualification and the Letitia James Subpoenas The Kinsella episode sits atop an earlier controversy involving John Sarcone III, the Trump-aligned interim U.S. attorney who preceded him. A federal judge disqualified Sarcone after concluding the administration used a procedural approach to keep him in the role beyond the typical 120-day limit for interim service. That ruling also quashed subpoenas issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James that Sarcone had signed, a significant development because it created immediate legal risk for investigative steps taken under a disputed appointment. Judge Lorna Schofield’s written opinion captured the core judicial concern: when the executive branch “skirts restraints put in place by Congress” and then uses that power in politically sensitive investigations, it risks acting without lawful authority. The Justice Department has appealed Schofield’s decision, meaning the underlying dispute is not settled. For voters who care about constitutional structure, the key point is less about personalities and more about whether prosecutions—and subpoenas—can be undermined later if a court finds the appointing authority was invalid. A Wider Pattern: New Jersey and Virginia Rulings Raise the Stakes New York is not the only battleground. In New Jersey, an appeals court upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba after a dispute over extending an interim appointment. In the Eastern District of Virginia, a judge found Lindsey Halligan’s interim appointment unlawful under the Appointments Clause, then tossed indictments she obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Letitia James. Other districts, including Nevada and California, have experienced similar friction over interim leadership and the length of time “acting” officials can remain in place. What This Means for Accountability, Due Process, and Constitutional Limits The practical consequence of these clashes is instability—both inside U.S. attorney offices and for the public expecting consistent enforcement of federal law. When courts question a prosecutor’s legal authority, defendants can challenge indictments, targets can contest subpoenas, and cases can be delayed or dismissed. From a conservative, rule-of-law perspective, that is a serious problem: strong enforcement depends on a clean constitutional process. The administration’s appeals may clarify the lines, but until then, uncertainty can weaken public confidence and complicate legitimate investigations. US attorney in New York appointed by judges is quickly fired by White House | Just The News https://t.co/iPjJC38T4E — Angie (@angie_anson) February 12, 2026 The political overlay is impossible to ignore because some disputed actions have involved high-profile figures like Letitia James. Still, the research available here does not establish motive beyond what courts and officials have stated; it chiefly shows an institutional conflict over appointment authority and statutory limits. If the executive branch wants maximum control without legal risk, the durable path is Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. If courts keep finding appointment violations, future prosecutions could face continuing challenges—exactly the kind of procedural chaos that frustrates citizens who want equal justice applied consistently. Sources: US attorney appointed by federal judges in New York abruptly fired by the Trump administration. DOJ Fires Acting US Attorney in NY Who Judges appointees Battle over US attorneys continues after DOJ fires new prosecutor appointed by judges