Megyn Kelly Addresses the REAL Issue About the Epstein Files, and It Has Nothing to Do With Videos

Rep. Brandon Gill, a Republican from Texas, took self-proclaimed diversity expert Dr. Shaun Harper to task during a House Oversight Committee hearing late last month about the efficacy of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Harper serves as the Provost Professor in the Rossier School of Education, Marshall School of Business,...

President Trump has just been nominated (again) for a Nobel Peace Prize. This marks the third such nomination in recent weeks. Watch the moment here where Benjamin Netanyahu notifies President Trump of the nomination, something that seems to catch President Trump offguard: BREAKING: Prime Minister Netanyahu has officially nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. pic.twitter.com/Q9lWNnJGLm — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 7, 2025 Here’s a quick summary of how it all might play out: Netanyahu officially nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize (nomination deadline was January 2025), presenting the letter during a July 7 White House dinner . He praised Trump’s leadership in advancing peace and security, particularly highlighting his role in recent Middle East diplomacy . This marks at least the third major nomination of Trump, with previous ones from Pakistan (for India-Pakistan mediation) and U.S. lawmakers referencing his interventions in conflicts . Netanyahu credited Trump for facilitating a ceasefire in Gaza, backing strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, boosting Israel’s stance—and he underscored U.S.–Israel cooperation . Trump has also highlighted his own peace efforts, citing work in India-Pakistan and other global conflicts, claiming he “stopped a lot of fights” . If he did win, Trump would become the fifth U.S. president ever to receive the Nobel Peace Prize—following Roosevelt, Wilson, Carter, and Obama . The actual Nobel committee process is closed and independent; nominations are secret for 50 years, and the 2026 committee will deliberate next year, with the award announced in October . Sportsbooks currently give Trump modest odds (roughly 14 – 10.5 %) to win, suggesting some backing but no overwhelming expectation . Here’s more from CNN: When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House Monday for dinner, he came bearing what has become the ultimate host gift for President Donald Trump: a letter nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize. The award has become Trump’s ultimate fixation, one he says is well deserved for his efforts to end conflicts around the globe, including the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. A lasting resolution to that 21-month conflict will depend, in part, on Netanyahu’s willingness to accept a deal that stops the fighting entirely – something Trump planned to press him on during Monday’s dinner in the White House Blue Room. Before the meal was served, however, Netanyahu was quick to burnish Trump’s peace-making abilities, even as negotiators were still finalizing details of a ceasefire deal. “He’s forging peace, as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other,” Netanyahu said as he reached over the table to present Trump with his document. “So, I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize Committee; it’s nominating you for the Peace Prize, which is well deserved, and you should get it.” “Thank you very much. This I didn’t know. Wow,” Trump responded, seemingly touched. “Coming from you, in particular, this is very meaningful. Thank you very much, Bibi.” For Trump, a deal ending the war in Gaza would be another data point in both his effort to win the Nobel Prize and his long-running and highly difficult quest to cement peace in the Middle East as part of his legacy. “I’m stopping wars. I’m stopping wars. And I hate to see people killed,” Trump said Monday as the dinner was getting underway. What you might not know is the very twisted history of the Nobel Peace Prize. Check this out: A Prize Born of Dynamite and Guilt Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, made his fortune creating more powerful explosives used in warfare and industrialization. In 1888, a French newspaper accidentally published an obituary for Alfred instead of his deceased brother Ludvig. The headline read: “The Merchant of Death is Dead.” Horrified by the public perception of his legacy, Nobel rewrote his will and allocated most of his estate to fund five prizes—including one for Peace—perhaps as a form of posthumous redemption. Peace Prize Created by a War Profiteer The contradiction is obvious: the Peace Prize was created by a man who got rich off weapons technology. Nobel didn’t define “peace” clearly in his will, which left the door wide open for interpretation and political maneuvering. The Peace Prize is awarded not by the Swedish Nobel committees (as with the other Nobel Prizes), but by a Norwegian committee appointed by Norway’s Parliament—making it more politically driven from the outset. Rebranding the “Nobel” Name Over the years, the Nobel Foundation worked hard to elevate the image of Alfred Nobel, focusing on his philanthropy and vision of peace—while often downplaying or omitting his ties to warfare. This has been described as one of the earliest examples of reputation laundering, predating modern PR spin doctors. Critics say the Peace Prize became a tool to cleanse the legacy of a man who helped reshape modern warfare. Infamous or Controversial Winners Several recipients (and near-recipients) of the Peace Prize have sparked global backlash or suspicion, raising questions about the credibility, timing, and political motivations behind the award: Henry Kissinger (1973) Awarded for brokering a ceasefire in the Vietnam War, despite widespread accusations of war crimes in Southeast Asia. Comedian Tom Lehrer famously quipped: “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.” Yasser Arafat (1994) Shared the prize with Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin after the Oslo Accords. Arafat had long been accused of orchestrating acts of terrorism. His selection was condemned by critics who felt it legitimized decades of violence. Barack Obama (2009) Awarded just nine months into his presidency, before any major accomplishments. Even Obama admitted feeling unworthy, calling it more a “call to action.” His expanded drone strike program and involvement in military conflicts later led critics to call the award hollow or premature. Ethiopian PM Abiy Ahmed (2019) Hailed for a peace deal with Eritrea, only to later preside over a brutal civil war in Tigray involving atrocities and mass displacement. The committee faced intense criticism for awarding the prize before the long-term consequences of his leadership were clear. Bill Gates (Not Officially Awarded, But Frequently Rumored) Though never formally awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Bill Gates has been repeatedly mentioned as a potential candidate due to his philanthropic work through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, particularly in global health and vaccine distribution. However, persistent rumors have circulated that Gates actively lobbied for the award, including leveraging PR firms, think tanks, and media influence to frame his image as a global savior. Critics argue that Gates’ deep ties to pharmaceutical companies, controversial vaccine trials, and agricultural control in the developing world complicate his peace-building narrative. Some have compared these efforts to a modern-day campaign to “buy” a legacy or launder a public image, echoing how Alfred Nobel himself tried to reshape how he would be remembered. Other Oddities and Controversies Mahatma Gandhi, a global symbol of nonviolence, was nominated five times—but never won. The committee later admitted this was a grave oversight. The Prize has been withheld several times—such as during World War II or when suitable candidates couldn’t be agreed upon. The committee often gives the prize to organizations (such as the United Nations, the European Union, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) instead of individuals—sparking accusations of bureaucratic self-congratulation. Bottom Line The Nobel Peace Prize: Was born from guilt and image repair, Is often awarded in political contexts with subjective reasoning, Has honored people ranging from genuine peacemakers to divisive figures with bloody records, And remains one of the most prestigious yet controversial awards in the world.

The hits just keep coming from Pam Bondi today… It’s almost as if someone dared her to destroy her career in 24 hours or less! After everything we’ve already covered today (the missing 60 seconds of surveillance footage, the claim that no Epstein List ever existed, the conclusion that he definitely killed himself, the claim that no Epstein files will ever be released) Pam Bondi just stacked one more “L” onto the list. She was asked in this morning’s Cabinet Meeting if Jeffrey Epstein was a member of the intelligence community and she said she didn’t know but she’d have to “get back to you” on that. Well, she just got back: BREAKING: No credible evidence suggesting that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence agent, per Attorney General Pam Bondi. — Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 8, 2025 The only problem with that Pam, is that Alex Acosta completely disagrees with you. In 2019 he said quite clearly Epstein was intelligence and to leave him alone: When Pam Bondi lies about Epstein being an intelligence asset, call it out. pic.twitter.com/Jy2sPSq8gT — Chief Trumpster (@ChiefTrumpster) July 8, 2025 Who is Alex Acosta? He was the guy prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein back then and about to send him away for a long time: Who is Alex Acosta?Alex Acosta is an American attorney who served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and later as Secretary of Labor under President Donald Trump. His role in the Epstein case:As U.S. Attorney, Acosta was involved in overseeing a 2007–2008 plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that resulted in state-level charges and a custodial sentence. Intelligence-related comments:In discussions about the case, Acosta reportedly stated he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and that certain aspects of the situation were outside his jurisdiction. Respecting legal boundaries:When later asked for more details, Acosta declined to elaborate, citing Justice Department policies that limit discussion of internal or classified matters. Fox News confirmed Acosta’s quote back in 2019: Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer unloaded on Alexander Acosta on Wednesday, saying Trump’s labor secretary was peddling a “completely wrong” account of how Jeffrey Epstein escaped federal criminal penalties in 2008 in a cynical bid to “rewrite history.” In an extraordinary statement, Krischer pointed out that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Florida overseen by Acosta had drafted a “53-page indictment” against Epstein, suggesting the case against the politically connected financier was highly developed before it was abruptly and conspicuously aborted. Krischer’s remarks came hours after Acosta, in a nearly hourlong press conference, defended his actions and claimed Palm Beach state prosecutors were intent on going soft on Epstein. “Simply put, the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time,” Acosta said. “Prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable.” Acosta went on to argue that it was his office that secured jail time, restitution and registration as a sex offender. Krischer left no doubt that this assertion left him livid. “As the state attorney for Palm Beach County for 16 years [1993-2009], which included the entire period of the Epstein investigation, I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong,” Krischer began. “Federal prosecutors do not take a back seat to state prosecutors. That’s not how the system works in the real world.” After outlining his office’s efforts to subpoena witnesses and take evidence to a grand jury, Krischer said Acosta entered into “secret negotiations” with Epstein’s lawyers. “Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney’s Office produced a 53-page indictment that was abandoned after secret negotiations between Mr. Epstein’s lawyers and Mr. Acosta. The State Attorney’s Office was not a party to those meetings or negotiations, and definitely had no part in the federal non-prosecution agreement and the unusual confidentiality arrangement that kept everything hidden from the victims,” Krischer said. “No matter how my office resolved the state charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office always had the ability to file its own federal charges. “If Mr. Acosta was truly concerned with the state’s case and felt he had to rescue the matter, he would have moved forward with the 53-page indictment that his own office drafted.” Krischer concluded: “Instead, Mr. Acosta brokered a secret plea deal that resulted in a non-prosecution agreement in violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Mr. Acosta’s should not be allowed to rewrite history.” An explosive Daily Beast report Wednesday indicated that Acosta previously told Trump transition team members that he was told to back off the Epstein case. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,’” Acosta reportedly said. “So, there has been reporting to that effect,” Acosta said Wednesday. “And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact.” Here’s what the Washington Examiner printed back in 2019, where it seems pretty obvious Acosta was later told to clean up his story and whitewash it: Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta declined to answer Wednesday if he had ever been told that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset during his handling of the 2008 child sex abuse case against the jet-setting financier. Acosta, under fire for the non-prosecution agreement he’d made with Epstein’s attorneys and for the light 13-month jail stint that Epstein served more than a decade ago, told reporters at a press conference that he couldn’t answer questions about whether Epstein was allegedly tied to an intelligence agency in some way because he was prohibited from doing so due to Justice Department regulations. “So, there has been reporting to that effect. And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact,” Acosta said. “This was a case that was brought by our office. This was a case that was brought based on the facts,” said Acosta. “And I look at the reporting and others. I can’t address it directly because of our guidelines.” During the press conference, Acosta corrected what he said were other misconceptions or misstatements about his handling of the case and dismissed much of the reporting on the Epstein case as “just going down rabbit holes.” Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for Southern Florida, reached an agreement in 2008 with Epstein’s attorneys where Epstein was allowed to plead guilty to two state-level prostitution solicitation charges related to a 17-year-old girl. Epstein served just 13 months in a Palm Beach County jail, paid restitution to certain victims, and registered as a sex offender. The secret agreement was reportedly struck before investigators had even finished interviewing all the alleged victims, and it included protections for some of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators. The question about Epstein’s possible status as a potential intelligence asset was prompted by a report this week of comments from a few years ago by a former senior White House official who told the Daily Beast that Acosta said during interviews for the administration position he had been told during the 2008 case that Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Epstein faces new charges in the Southern District of New York, including allegedly “sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in Manhattan, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among other locations” between 2002 and 2005, according to a 14-page federal indictment. Epstein pleaded not guilty in federal court Monday. In a search of Epstein’s Manhattan mansion over the weekend, investigators say they also uncovered what appeared to large amounts of nude photographs, including some of underage girls.

In the last decade, Washington, D.C., has seen a spike in violent crimes as Democrats have taken control over the city. In 2023, D.C. had a homicide rate of 40.9 per 100,000 residents, which ranked 4th in the nation. President Trump has now floated an idea of potentially fixing this problem. During his recent Cabinet meeting at the White House, the 47th President hinted that the federal government could take over D.C. ABC News had more on Trump’s potential takeover of D.C.: President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested a federal takeover of New York City and Washington. The comments came when Trump, during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House, was asked about New York City’s upcoming mayoral election. Trump attacked Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, and ticked through the other contenders, including Eric Adams, Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa, though he declined to endorse anyone. “We’re not going to have — if a communist gets elected to run New York, it can never be the same. But we have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” Trump said. Trump didn’t elaborate on what authority that would be as he then turned his focus to the nation’s capital. “We could run D.C. We’re looking at D.C. We don’t want crime in D.C. We want the city to run well,” he said. He said his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, was working with Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser. Watch Trump say it below: President Trump floats a federal takeover of New York City, should Zohran Mamdani be elected mayor, and says the administration could test a takeover of Washington, D.C. “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to.” pic.twitter.com/sfz73MvWgO — The Recount (@therecount) July 8, 2025 This isn’t the first time Trump has called for a federal takeover of D.C.. Take a look: I listened to Trumps speech again and check out what he says here Trump Talks About a Federal Takeover of Washington DC & Says “This is Just a Large Real Estate Deal” “And I want to do a federal takeover of Washington DC, to stop and the crime and to make it great again,… pic.twitter.com/Eh8KuyhHm9 — MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) October 12, 2023 WTOP reported the reality on what steps Trump would need to make in order for the federal government to takeover D.C.: Trump can’t do it alone. Congress, with both houses controlled by Republicans, could absolutely vote to repeal the 1973 Home Rule Act. That would be a deeply controversial vote which would likely test the strength of the three-seat GOP majority in the House of Representatives. Local government officials have been quietly predicting some sort of executive order imposing stiffer criminal penalties or a crackdown on homeless encampments, but a full “ takeover” would still require an act of Congress. He could theoretically take over the Metropolitan Police Department — something that was considered during the 2020 mass protests over the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Justin Hansford, a professor at D.C.’s Howard University School of Law, said such a step would need some sort of “justifying emergency.” Trump’s perspective on what constitutes such an emergency, Hansford said, “would absolutely be challenged in court.”

This just in: the FBI has launched a criminal investigation into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and ex-FBI Director James Comey! The investigation is over possible crimes regarding the Russia collusion hoax, including lying to Congress. MAJOR BREAKING: FBI under Kash Patel and Dan Bongino launches criminal investigations into JOHN BRENNAN and JAMES COMEY, per Fox This is over potential wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia hoax probe, and making false statements to Congress. Show NO MERCY to these deep staters! pic.twitter.com/mwwtW1WPFm — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 8, 2025   Fox News reports former CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation. Their roles in the Trump-Russia probe are being examined as a potential “conspiracy.” pic.twitter.com/jGRlW535sk — TFTC (@TFTC21) July 8, 2025 It’s about time! Fox News exclusively reported on the details: Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital. CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital. The sources said that the referral was received and told Fox News Digital that a criminal investigation into Brennan was opened and is underway. DOJ sources declined to provide further details. It is unclear, at this point, if the investigation spans beyond his alleged false statements to Congress. As for Comey, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital that an investigation into the former director is underway, but could not share details of what specifically is being probed. The full scope of the criminal investigations into Brennan and Comey is unclear, but two sources described the FBI’s view of the duo’s interactions as a “conspiracy,” which could open up a wide range of potential prosecutorial options. Let us hope that these two men who (allegedly) blatantly lied in their testimonies before Congress and tried to interfere in our elections will be brought to justice. Let’s also hope this investigation actually leads somewhere and is not just a distraction to try to get everyone to stop talking about Epstein…

The wins just keep coming! Today, the Supreme Court gave President Trump the greenlight for a massive purge of the federal government! In an 8-1 ruling with only liberal Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson dissenting, SCOTUS overturned a ruling from a Clinton-appointed lower judge that blocked sweeping layoffs at over 20 federal agencies. Check it out: BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court Votes 8-1 to ALLOW President Trump to CUT the Federal Workforce in any department he chooses Justice Ketanji Jackson was the ONLY “No” vote. pic.twitter.com/wH3HhkuGg3 — The Patriot Oasis (@ThePatriotOasis) July 8, 2025 BREAKING: The Supreme Court sides with President Trump — allows SWEEPING federal workforce cuts, 8-1 The lazy, useless hacks in government are headed straight to the unemployment line MAJOR WIN! (And Jackson once again proves she shouldn’t be on the court.) pic.twitter.com/dxNglkClvG — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 8, 2025 AG Pam Bondi responded to the ruling: Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump’s authority over federal personnel — another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before. — Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 8, 2025 U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled to block widespread layoffs of federal employees in response to President Trump’s executive order back in February directing agencies to make plans to significantly cut their workforce. CBS News provided some background: Mr. Trump began taking steps to shrink the government shortly after he returned to the White House. The president created DOGE, a cost-cutting task force that had been led by Elon Musk, and his administration began taking steps to dismantle agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In February, Mr. Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to make plans to initiate “large-scale” reductions-in-force, the government’s term for layoffs. On the heels of the president’s directive, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management of Budget issued a memo directing agencies to submit plans for two phases of job cuts. Several department heads began executing their workforce cuts earlier this year, with thousands of federal employees losing their jobs. Other federal entities had planned to make significant reductions in the coming weeks and months. The reductions-in-force are separate from the mass terminations of probationary workers, who generally were in their positions for one or two years. But those firings, which took place in February, have also been the focus of lawsuits. In response to Mr. Trump’s executive order, labor unions, nonprofit groups and local governments sued nearly every federal agency to block the layoffs, arguing that the executive order exceeded the president’s authority and violated the separation of powers. The Department of Education was not part of the unions’ suit. A federal judge in San Francisco agreed to issue a temporary restraining order that prevented the Trump administration from moving forward with its existing reductions-in-force or planning any future layoffs as directed by Mr. Trump. The order also bars administration officials from enforcing any further orders by DOGE to cut programs or staff in connection to the president’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston extended that block in May, finding that the president can restructure federal agencies, but only after obtaining approval from Congress. Her injunction applies to 22 federal agencies, including the Cabinet-level Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and State, among others. Now, the Supreme Court has overturned that ruling. In other words, SCOTUS has given President Trump the clear go-ahead to ramp up efforts to clean out the swamp! The New York Times noted: The case represents a key test of the extent of President Trump’s power to reorganize the government without input from Congress. The justices’ order is technically only temporary, guiding how the administration can proceed while the challenge to Mr. Trump’s plans continues. But in practice, it means he is free to pursue his restructuring plans, even if judges later determine that they exceed presidential power. In a two-paragraph order, the justices wrote that they had concluded that “the government is likely to succeed on its argument” that President Trump’s executive order announcing plans to downsize the government was legal. The justices added that they had not expressed a view on the legality of specific layoffs or reorganizations by the Trump administration. It was the latest in a series of recent victories for the Trump administration before the Supreme Court on emergency requests related to the president’s efforts to rapidly reshape government. Hilariously, liberal Justice Sotomayor scolded Justice Jackson — the only dissent in the ruling — for, essentially, not understanding what she is even talking about. Take a look at this: OMG: Now a LIBERAL Supreme Court justice is trying to teach Justice Ketanji Jackson how this whole “judicial” thing works… Jackson is the ONLY dissent. Sotomayor has to remind Jackson, for some reason, that the case before them is NOT about what Jackson thought it was. My… https://t.co/XC1BkhrMs3 pic.twitter.com/FFGFz41Ous — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 8, 2025 OMG: Now a LIBERAL Supreme Court justice is trying to teach Justice Ketanji Jackson how this whole “judicial” thing works… Jackson is the ONLY dissent. Sotomayor has to remind Jackson, for some reason, that the case before them is NOT about what Jackson thought it was. My gosh. “The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.” “The relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law.’” How long do you think it will be until Justice Jackson is removed? Any bets?

Juliette Bryant, a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring, is accusing the U.S. government not just of covering up Epstein’s crimes — but of being complicit in them. Following the Trump-era DOJ’s announcement that [...] The post Epstein Survivor Juliette Bryant Says US Gov’t Was Complicit in Epstein’s Sex Trafficking and Cover-Up appeared first on The People's Voice.

Galway trio NewDad will release their second album Altar on September 19