Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro was placed under house arrest for an alleged attempted coup meant to keep him in office after his 2022 electoral defeat, NPR reported. This decision comes as President Donald Trump imposed a 50% tariff on the nation over its handling of Bolsonaro's case.
Bolsonaro was put under restrictions on what he could say publicly after his defeat. However, the 70-year-old allegedly used his three sons, who hold elected office, to amplify his message to the people, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes said in his decision Monday.
The former president allegedly said "good afternoon, Copacabana, good afternoon my Brazil, a hug to everyone, this is for our freedom" through the cell phone of one of his sons during a protest in Rio de Janeiro. Attorneys for Bolsonaro said that this message could not "be regarded as ignoring precautionary measures or as a criminal act," but the judge disagreed.
Attorneys for Bolsonaro have promised to appeal his conviction. Meanwhile, Trump is using the power of the American government in pursuit of justice for Bolsonaro, including the tariff leveled against the South American nation as part of his trade war and other sanctions.
The Trump administration believes the case against Bolsonaro is dubious. When the Treasury Department announced sanctions against Brazil, it claimed that de Moraeas imposed "arbitrary" pre-trial detentions and used his authority to stifle the free speech of his political enemies, according to Fox News.
"Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies. De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions—including against former President Jair Bolsonaro," Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in the notice.
"Today’s action makes clear that Treasury will continue to hold accountable those who threaten U.S. interests and the freedoms of our citizens," Bessent added. In addition to the hefty tariffs, the sanctions imposed on the judge included freezing any assets in the U.S. held by de Morae in a 50% or more share, including property.
Moreover, the Treasury Department warned that any entity or person who engages in activities or completes transactions with de Morae in violation of the sanctions may also be subject to the sanctions. Trump was able to impose sanctions based on an executive order he issued in his first term, combating "serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world," which "constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States."
Passed in 2017, Executive Order 13818 added to the existing 2016 Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, giving the president the right to declare sanctions against entities that violated those rights. The use of this was already in the works, as last month the White House was rumored to be working with the Brazilian ex-president's son, Eduardo.
The Brazilian Supreme Court's case against Bolsonaro accused him of orchestrating a coup attempt through criticism of the voting system and an effort to get top military officials on board with his plan, including a riot at the nation's capital. The court even alleged that there was a plan to assassinate a Supreme Court judge and Bolsonaro's successor.
Predictably, the left has drawn strong parallels between Bolsonaro and Trump. According to a CNN report in 2023, many claimed that Bolsonaro's rhetoric about election rigging and the ensuing riot mirrored the Jan. 6, 2021, incursion at the U.S. Capitol.
Leftist news outlets called the Jan. 6 riot an "insurrection" that Trump incited by giving a speech and then waiting at the White House while it unfolded, a claim which has since been debunked in court. Bolsonaro was not even in Brazil during the riot, but both were roundly criticized for these events, which took place allegedly at their behest.
Then-President Joe Biden took to X, formerly Twitter, to denounce such actions. "I condemn the assault on democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power in Brazil. Brazil’s democratic institutions have our full support, and the will of the Brazilian people must not be undermined," Biden wrote at the time.
It's difficult to separate fact from fiction in the U.S., let alone in a foreign country. However, Trump's defense of Bolsonaro and the actions against him speak volumes, especially since Trump has been vindicated in defending himself against his own witch hunt.
The Supreme Court has signaled that it may end the practice of race-based redistricting, which has helped Democrats pad their margins in the House of Representatives for decades.
In an order Friday, the court expanded the scope of a case on the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana. The justices asked the parties to submit briefs on "whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution."
Although considered critical to democracy by some, the Voting Rights Act is controversial because it forces states to consider race in order to protect the voting power of minorities.
Under certain circumstances, Section 2 of the law requires minority groups to receive their own districts, where they are essentially guaranteed to elect candidates of their choice.
While some majority-minority districts have Republican representatives, race-based redistricting tends to benefit primarily Democrats.
The current dispute over Louisiana's districts has been brewing for years. Challengers successfully struck down the state's original map as discriminatory because it allowed blacks - who make up a third of the state's population - to elect a candidate of their choice in one district out of six.
Louisiana's new map, which has two black-majority districts, was challenged by "non-African American voters" who say it constitutes a racial gerrymander. A federal court agreed, finding the map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but the Supreme Court allowed the map to be used for 2024's elections.
The Supreme Court was originally expected to resolve the case this year, but in June, the justices said they would hear new arguments next term before making their decision.
In a similar fight out of Alabama, the Supreme Court surprisingly upheld Section 2's protections, forcing the state to draw a second black-majority district for the 2024 cycle. Even still, some of the justices signaled at the time that race-based redistricting cannot be a permanent solution to discrimination.
As Brett Kavanaugh then noted, "even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under §2 for some period of time, the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”
By expanding the Louisiana case, the justices may have given their strongest hint yet that they believe race-based redistricting should end.
The Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, when the court effectively ended a requirement for some states and localities to get federal "pre-clearance" before changing their voting procedures. The court found that the formula used to determine which states were covered by the provision was no longer appropriate decades after Jim Crow ended.
Critics of race-based redistricting see it as almost a form of affirmative action applied to elections. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has chafed at the notion that the Voting Rights Act requires proportional representation of minority groups in Congress, saying this interpretation turns the law into "nothing more than a racial entitlement... wherever different racial groups consistently prefer different candidates."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has signed an order launching a grand jury investigation into the beginnings of the Democrats' 'Russiagate" conspiracy against then-candidate Donald Trump, a scheme that carried through the entirety of his first presidency, during the four years before his second term, and even today has some extremist adherents.
It was a conspiracy theory launched by Hillary Clinton's campaign, and apparently aided by Barack Obama and his minions, including the CIA and FBI, that somehow Trump's 2016 campaign was colluding with Russia on the election outcome, when no such evidence existed.
It was started, apparently, because Clinton wanted to distract voters who may have concerns about her own scandal, that of putting national secrets on an unsecured and private computer server in her home.
Fox News confirms Bondi told her staff to "act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard."
That document concerned the "alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.
"Bondi ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings, and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury to secure a potential indictment, according to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News Digital and a source familiar with the investigation," the report said.
Social media confirmed, "This is MASSIVE!. … Some sources are mentioning James Clapper and John Brennan could be the first to be charged."
The evidence being presented likely will include information from a memo called "Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing 'Russian and criminal actors did not impact' the 2016 president election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure."
The essence is that while the intel community concluded Russia had essentially no impact on the election, because of the conspiracists, that briefing was rewritten to somehow conclude that there was an impact, and it was Trump's fault.
The goal allegedly was to undermine Trump, a duly elected president, and his term in office.
"Former President Barack Obama and his intelligence officials allegedly promoted a 'contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't,'" Gabbard said during a press briefing of the intelligence.
The report noted, "Among the declassified material was a meeting record revealing how Obama allegedly requested his deputies prepare an intelligence assessment in December 2016, after Trump had won the election, that detailed the 'tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.'"
Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration from rapidly deporting migrants who entered the country legally through humanitarian programs, pending a final ruling on a lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and other civic groups.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has been trying to get as many illegal immigrants back on their own soil as possible, which requires expedited deportations because of the millions his predecessor, Joe Biden, let in.
The case has shown a contrast between two vastly differing views on immigration.
Trump and conservatives want the border to be respected and laws to be followed. Having millions of illegal immigrants and temporary migrants in the country is causing chaos and costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
They ask how illegal immigrants can have rights to be in the country, and if they don't, they favor getting them out ASAP.
On the other hand, Democrats believe migrants should have the same rights as citizens even though they broke the law to come into the U.S.
However, even migrants who entered through these humanitarian programs would have entered the country illegally by crossing the border if the programs didn't exist.
Trump ended the humanitarian migration program for those coming from some Latin American countries--namely Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela--and the Supreme Court upheld his right to do so. The end of CHNV parole means that migrants who entered under that program are now illegal immigrants, and the Trump administration has every right to deport them.
The Trump DOJ was apparently summoning migrants to court and dismissing charges against them, with ICE agents outside the courtroom waiting to detain them for deportation.
Cobb's rationale for the order was snotty and partisan--no surprise coming from a Biden appointee.
"This case's underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules. Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that -- as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers -- may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape," Cobb wrote.
What about a system of rules that doesn't just legalize mass illegal migration rather than try to stop it?
Trump wants to see the mass chaos of immigration under Biden brought back under control so that we are not overrun by potentially billions of migrants who want to leave their countries of origin for what they see as the Promised Land--the U.S.
Democrats prefer the chaos because it gives them more leverage to expand social programs and eventually, gain enough new voters to ensure they remain in power forever.
In a revealing interview with Newsmax, former President Donald Trump articulated his mixed feelings about pardoning musician Sean "Diddy" Combs, emphasizing the complexity added by Combs' past critical comments towards him.
Despite a recent conviction on lesser charges of prostitution, Trump finds previous hostile remarks from Combs complicating the pardoning decision, the Guardian reported.
During his chat with Rob Finnerty on Friday, Trump deliberated openly about the potential of pardoning Combs, who could face up to 20 years in prison.
A federal court found Combs guilty in July on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. While he was acquitted on the more serious accusations of sex-trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, the lesser counts still carry severe penalties.
Combs, now awaiting sentencing scheduled for October 3, is currently detained at the only federal lockup in New York City.
His legal team has requested his release on a $50 million bond during the waiting period, asserting his entitlement to better conditions before final sentencing.
Trump revisited Combs' unfavorable comments from the past as a crucial factor in his pardon deliberation. Previously, Combs had made harsh remarks about Trump's presidency, including a 2017 comment to the Daily Beast where he expressed indifference towards Trump, and a 2020 statement to Charlamagne tha God advocating the banishment of "White men like Trump."
"It's hard, you know? We're human beings. And we don't like to have things cloud our judgment," Trump stated, acknowledging how past interactions have soured, complicating his feelings towards issuing a pardon.
The transformation from acquaintances to adversaries has clearly left a mark on Trump, hinting at personal hurt influencing his decision-making process.
Trump's presidency featured several controversial pardons, particularly for political allies, which some critics argue undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
Moreover, his administration faced scrutiny over the decision not to release additional documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case, highlighting the complex dynamics at play within the justice system. Ghislaine Maxwell, linked to Epstein, was also mentioned by Trump as a potential pardon candidate, further stirring the controversial nature of such decisions.
These elements provide context to the political and personal intricacies involved in Trump's consideration of pardoning Combs.
As the sentencing date approaches for Combs, the outcome of this high-profile case could influence future interactions between political figures and the criminal justice system.
Whether Trump decides to pardon Combs or not, it will reflect on the former president’s legacy and potentially set precedents for how personal and political biases are navigated in legal decisions.
The ongoing situation, laden with legal and personal drama, continues to garner significant media and public attention, emphasizing the importance of transparency and fairness in the exercise of presidential pardon powers.
President Donald Trump and members of his administration have faced fierce backlash from MAGA circles regarding their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein situation and determining that it's more or less a nothingburger.
While President Trump spent weeks downplaying the situation, according to the New York Post, he's now ready "to release everything" related to the disgraced, deceased, convicted child sex-trafficking monster.
The president's insistance on released everything the government still has on Epstein comes in the wake of an interesting interview involving Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Epstein's convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Rumors have circulated regarding a potential deal for Maxwell, possibly involving a pardon or commutation, although more information is not available.
In an interview with Rob Finnerty of Newsmax, President Trump explained what he believes took place in the sit-down, multi-day interview between Blanche and Maxwell.
"I think [Blanche] probably wanted to know, you know, just to get a feeling of it, because we’d like to release everything, but we don’t want people to get hurt that shouldn’t be hurt," Trump said.
"I want to release everything," the president declared. "I just don’t want people to get hurt."
The president noted that he hadn't spoken to Blanche about Maxwell but insisted that his administration is trying to ensure that people don't "get hurt."
“Todd went in and I think he just wants to make sure that innocent people aren’t hurt," Trump told Finnerty.
Trump was also asked about the rumors regarding a potential pardon for Maxwell, to which he said he hadn't been asked about, though he added that he has the "power" to do so.
"I’m allowed to do it, but nobody’s asked me to do it," Trump said. "I know nothing about it. I don’t know anything about the case, but I know I have the right to do it."
Trump was also asked about rumors that he is possibly considering a pardon for convicted rapper Sean "Diddy" Combs.
"Well, he was essentially, I guess, sort of half innocent," Trump said.
He also recounted his prior relationship with Diddy.
“Probably – eh, you know, I was very friendly with him. I got along with him great, and seemed like a nice guy. I didn’t know him well, but when I ran for office he was very hostile,” Trump said.
“It’s hard, you know, like, we’re human beings, and we don’t like to have things cloud our judgment, right? But when you knew someone and you were fine, and then you run for office, and he made some terrible statements – so, I don’t know, it’s more difficult,” the president continued.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is calling the Russia-collusion narrative against President Donald Trump "the single greatest hoax" in American history, and that "it meets the criminal elements of an insurrection."
"The Russia-collusion hoax against President Trump remains the single greatest hoax and the greatest assault on our democracy in the history of this country," Miller said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
"It was a coup, and I'm using that term literally."
"It was a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government. A coup carried out by the intelligence apparatus of this country, by the Deep State, by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party. The new information that has been revealed by the director of national intelligence and by the FBI eliminates any scintilla of doubt about the intention, the premeditation, the planning and orchestration of this conspiracy.
"It meets all of the criminal elements of a seditious conspiracy against the United States, it meets the criminal elements of an insurrection, it meets the criminal elements of a conspiracy against the government, and the criminal elements of a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their civil rights under color of law. One egregious felony after another."
"Because it is a conspiracy, every single individual actor is now part of that conspiracy. So that includes [John] Brennan and [James] Clapper and [James] Comey and Hillary [Clinton] and [Adam] Schiff and everybody else who knowingly and willfully perpetrated this plot, this coup, this conspiracy, this scheme against President Trump and the government of the United States, and now is the time and the hour and the moment for accountability so that we can reclaim this democracy."
Miller noted: "The cost is incalculable of having the entire security apparatus of this country focusing on the hoax instead of the real national security threats facing America. Lie after lie after lie that was told to the American people."
"The charlatans that engaged in this conduct are beneath contempt. They are without dignity and they are beyond redemption. What they have done, you can't even measure."
Miller confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe's assertion that there is no statute of limitations in this case.
He concluded if we have a country where we allow Deep Staters to fabricate evidence to go after their political enemies, "It will never stop, it will never desist."
"We can't have that. There must be consequences."
The last several weeks have been replete with revelations about the efforts of prior administrations to undermine Donald Trump, both while a candidate and as president.
Now, several veterans of Trump’s first term in the White House have stepped forward to claim that they were informed by Google that they had been under investigation by the Biden FBI, a disclosure the company was previously prevented by court order from making, as Fox News reports.
Details of the scrutiny faced by members of Trump’s first administration emerged on Friday in a post on X from Dan Scavino, who now serves as White House deputy chief of staff.
Scavino explained that he had been “proudly and patriotically serving in the first Trump White House” but, upon departing in January 2021, was targeted by what he called “Biden lawfare.”
The high-level Trump aide noted that five weeks before returning to the White House for the president’s second term, he received a troubling email from tech giant Google.
That message said, “Google received and responded to legal process issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation compelling the release of information related to your Google account.”
It continued, “A court order previously prohibited Google from notifying you of the legal process… .”
Scavino made the situation public last week, in an effort to underscore what he said was a “small taste of the INSANITY that many of us went through – right here in the United States of America. LAWFARE at its finest. A Complete and Total Disgrace!!!!”
Soon after Scavino recounted the story on X, current FBI Director Kash Patel posted in response, writing, “I got one of those too… .”
Another former -- and current -- Trump official, Jeff Clark, chimed in as well, saying that he also received the notification from Google, noting, “Indeed, a whole [former special counsel] Jack Smith team was assigned to go through my emails after there was a privilege review.”
Clark lamented the expansive scope of the probe, adding, “But that group of lawyers ignored my religious pastor privilege, and other privileges and basically shipped all they could to Jack Smith.
Echoing the financial and personal ramifications of Democrat lawfare of which so many Trump allies -- such as Carter Page -- in recent years have complained, Clark added, “But it still cost me tens of thousands to try to protect my communications” and blasted “thugs with law degrees” who ignored the fact that “medical records and other private communications had nothing to do with the 2020 election. They were no one’s business.”
With so many now calling for accountability for perpetrators of the Russia collusion hoax and the related lawfare to which Scavino and others have brought renewed attention, the pressure is on the Justice Department to produce results, and it remains to be seen whether any indictments are on the horizon.
For now, however, some of those victimized during the Biden years can perhaps take a small degree of solace in the recent announcement that the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, has launched a probe of Jack Smith for potential violations of the Hatch Act, a statute designed to limit political activities of federal employees.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision restricting ICE from targeting individuals for investigation based on job, appearance, or spoken language.
The decision means that ICE agents are required to have specific probable cause instead of a general suspicion about an individual's citizenship.
This decision backs a decision by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong blocking ICE from making arrests based on the aforementioned factors.
The panel wrote, "We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue — apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location and type of work, even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop."
This decision will kneecap much of ICE's workplace raid operations, as targeting specific job sites is an effective tactic to find illegal immigrants. However, ICE isn't taking this decision lying down and plans for more workplace raids are steaming ahead.
The lawsuit was mostly based on a statement from a Los Angeles deputy immigration commander that ICE was targeting "certain types of businesses, including carwashes, because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize and seek work at these locations."
As part of ICE's extensive raids in southern California, agents have been raiding Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and in one highly publicized case, a marijuana farm in Ventura County that employed minors alongside sexual predators.
ICE's mission is an important one, but not to the leftist judges like Judge Frimpong, who was appointed by President Biden, and the judges on the notoriously leftist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
They would rather make ICE's job harder and defend illegal immigrants and the abusive business owners exploiting cheap labor and endangering minors.
Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is sending money to illegal immigrants, hailed the decision as a victory, saying, "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now."
Of course, this ruling won't truly stop Trump's aggressive deportation operations, but it still demonstrates the damage that leftist judges can do by blocking the will of the American people.
For the most part, the White House has been quiet about this particular case, which will go back to a lower court for another hearing in September.
White House aide Stephen Miller took to X to say, "The ruling has just been issued. A communist judge in LA has ordered ICE to report directly to her and radical left NGOs — not the president. This is another act of insurrection against the United States and its sovereign people."
Leftist district judges still hold a lot of power to obstruct the Trump agenda but it seems likely that should this case advance to the Supreme Court, conservative justices will likely nuke this faulty ruling that has effectively declared certain areas as "safe zones" for illegal immigrants.
President Donald Trump's offhand remark about Jeffrey Epstein "stealing" Virginia Giuffre from his Mar-a-Lago resort has ignited fresh outrage and speculation, the Daily Mail reported.
Trump's comment this week, claiming Epstein poached Giuffre from the spa there two decades ago, drew sharp rebukes from her family, revived conspiracy theories, and spotlighted her 2016 deposition where she cleared him of any misconduct.
Back in the summer of 2000, Giuffre, then 16, held a job as a locker room attendant at the Mar-a-Lago spa in Palm Beach, Florida.
Her father, Sky Roberts, worked as a maintenance man at the club, and the two occasionally crossed paths with Trump, though Giuffre described no close friendship between them.
That same year, Ghislaine Maxwell approached Giuffre and recruited her as a masseuse for Epstein, marking the start of troubling allegations.
Giuffre later claimed Maxwell and Epstein coerced her into serving as a sexual companion, arranging encounters with Epstein and his associates around the world when she was 17 and 18.
Among those she accused was Prince Andrew, though he and others denied the claims and challenged her reliability.
In 2022, Prince Andrew reached a settlement with Giuffre for an undisclosed amount, including a sizable donation to her organization supporting survivors.
Photographs from 1997 show Epstein and Trump together at Mar-a-Lago, and another from February 2000 captures Trump, his then-girlfriend Melania Knauss, Epstein, and Maxwell at the club.
In November 2016, during a libel suit against Maxwell—who had dismissed Giuffre's accusations as falsehoods—Giuffre testified under oath about her limited encounters with Trump.
"I worked for Donald Trump and I’ve met him probably a few times," Giuffre said, specifying the meetings occurred at Mar-a-Lago.
She added that her father knew Trump casually, noting, "My Dad and him, I wouldn’t say they were friends, but my Dad knew him and they would talk... when they saw each other."
Giuffre emphasized no impropriety, stating, "Donald Trump never flirted with me," and affirmed, "True that he didn’t partake in any sex with us."
She clarified further: "I didn’t physically see him have sex with any of the girls, so I can’t say who he had sex with in his whole life or not, but I just know it wasn’t with me when I was with other girls."
Giuffre also said she never witnessed Trump and Epstein together, basing any notion of their friendship on Epstein's own words.
Tragedy struck when Giuffre died by suicide in April 2025, amplifying the sensitivity around her story.
On July 29, 2025, aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters, "I think she worked at the spa, I think so, I think that was one of the people, he stole her, and by the way she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained Trump was answering a query, not initiating the topic, and stressed, "The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees."
Giuffre's family expressed shock, saying, "It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been 'stolen' from Mar-a-Lago."
They demanded clarity, adding, "We and the public are asking for answers; survivors demand this."
Sky Roberts rejected the phrasing, stating, "She wasn’t stolen, she was preyed upon at his property, at President Trump’s property," and noted, "Stolen seems very impersonal. It feels very much like an object, and the survivors are not objects, women are not objects."