This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently, in the Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization case, confirmed that U.S. victims of Palestinian terrorism can sue over their injuries, and for damages, and it's already being used to seek justice.
It's the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that has lifted its abatement, or pause, on actions against the PLO by 70 people who were hurt, or are survivors of those who were killed, by that very terrorism. The order overturned a district court's dismissal of the case and ordered the dispute back into district court for consideration of the claims.
In the Fuld case, a group of U.S. citizens injured by PLO terrorism, or the estates and survivors of victims who were murdered, sued the PLO as well as the Palestinian Authority, back in 2004.
The PLO runs Palestine's foreign affairs, and the PA is an interim governing body for parts of the Gaza Strip.
They have more recently been in the news over the Hamas terror attack on Israel in 2003 in which some 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered, often in horrific fashion, and hundreds more were kidnapped.
In the 2004 case, the plaintiffs sought damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act and a jury found the defendants liable for six attacks and awarded $218.5 million in damages, automatically tripled to $655.5 million under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA. Then Congress in 2019 adopted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which deems the defendants have consented to jurisdiction in U.S. courts "if they engaged in certain conduct after the law's enactment: either making payments to families of deceased terrorists or designees of imprisoned terrorists who harmed U.S. nationals, or conducting various activities within the United States (with some exceptions for UN-related activities)."
When the court found defendants had, in fact, made qualifying payments, the 2nd Circuit then claimed the case violated due process.
The Supreme Court reversed, ordering that the law does not violate due process.
The result is that the 10th Circuit withdrew its pause on the new case.
A report from Courthousenews explains the case is on behalf of 70 surviving family members of people killed in a 2014 synagogue attack in Israel.
The report explained it was on Nov. 18, 2014, when two members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP, "killed U.S. citizens and Rabbis Kalman Levine, Aryeh Kupinsky and Moshe Twersky during morning prayers at the Congregation Bnei Torah synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem. Police sergeant Zidan Saif and Rabbi Abraham Goldberg were also among the six people killed in the attack."
The attackers were killed by police, but celebrated as heroes by Palestinian officials.
The relatives sued the PLO and PA in 2021, charging violations of the U.S. law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
"The families claimed the defendant groups used a 'pay for slay' scheme to incentivize people to carry out terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in exchange for compensation to their families. Congress has declared both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PFLP terrorist groups," the report said.
The district judge in the case, Biden-appointee Gordon Gallagher, had dismissed the families' complaint, and the 10th Circuit then stepped in and paused action pending the Fuld decision, which now is precedent.
After pleading guilty to the murders of four college students, Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger will spend the rest of his days in prison, but the question remains why he did it.
Kohberger had maintained his innocence throughout a highly publicized pre-trial battle before suddenly pleading guilty to avoid facing the death penalty.
The stunning reversal came weeks before Kohberger was scheduled to face trial for the brutal quadruple murders of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin in November 2022.
While a motive is not necessary for a conviction, prosecutors often use motives to persuade the jury. In this case, they had none.
“We will not represent that he intended to commit all of the murders that he did that night, but we know that that is what resulted,” Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said following Kohberger's plea.
The motive will likely never be known, a painful reality for the families of the victims, who are already divided over the guilty plea that ensures he won't face the death penalty.
Jack Baylis, a childhood friend of Kohberger's, said the criminology student may have developed a morbid fascination that led him to kill.
"I think he did it to see what it felt like, to experience it. If he wanted to write a paper about what killers feel and why they kill, to be accurate, you have to experience it yourself to truly understand it," Baylis told the Idaho Statesman. "To get into the mind of a killer, you have to be a killer, would be my guess."
Kohberger - chillingly - continued to attend classes at Washington State University after the killings, as if nothing ever happened.
"I just can’t even begin to get inside the head of somebody who could do something like that, and then attend class like it’s business as usual," Ben Roberts, 33, a former criminology student at Washington State University said. "That’s just completely alien to me."
At the time of the murders, Kohberger was living in Pullman, Washington, only minutes from the crime scene in Moscow, Idaho. According to prosecutors, in the early morning of November 13, 2022, Kohberger entered the off-campus home through a glass sliding door around and proceeded to kill the four victims, three of whom were sleeping. He left two survivors, one of whom saw a man with "bushy eyebrows."
Investigators found DNA on a knife sheath near one of the victims' bodies. The DNA was later identified as Kohberger's after it was linked to a Q-tip discarded outside of his family home in Pennsylvania, but the murder weapon was never found.
His cellphone pinged cell towers near the victims' home 23 times between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. in the months before the killings - and surveillance footage also showed Kohberger's white car speeding away from the neighborhood after the murders.
Prosecutors said Kohberger's background as a student in criminology likely played a role in the methodic planning that went into the murders. In the days after the killings, he meticulously cleaned his car and apartment, leaving nothing for investigators.
"The defendant has studied crime," Thompson told the court. "In fact, he did a detailed paper on crime scene processing when he was working on his Ph.D., and he had that knowledge skill set."
Kohberger will be sentenced on July 23 to four life sentences without parole.
A federal court has ruled that the Trump administration must continue funding Planned Parenthood.
Judge Indira Talwani blocked for 14 days a provision in President Trump's megabill that would strip Medicaid funding from the largest abortion provider in America.
Planned Parenthood furiously denies using federal money for abortion, which is illegal under the Hyde Amendment.
But the organization is notoriously opaque, and the fact that money is fungible has led critics to say that Planned Parenthood's federal funding subsidizes abortion indirectly.
The "Big, Beautiful Bill" attempts to address that concern by rescinding all Medicaid funding for non-abortion services at Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for one year.
Although Planned Parenthood is never named in the law, the organization says it is being singled out for retaliation since it applies to only to abortion nonprofits that receive over $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements, a threshold that excludes most smaller abortion providers.
“The Trump Administration is ending the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion – a commonsense position that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with," the White House said in response to the judge's ruling.
Planned Parenthood sued, accusing the Trump administration of trying to cripple its services over its abortion advocacy, which Planned Parenthood insists is "wholly outside the Medicaid program."
Even still, Planned Parenthood conceded that without this funding, many abortion clinics could be forced to close down.
"Many Planned Parenthood Members will be required to lay off staff and curtail services, with serious adverse consequences for the many patients served at those centers even if they do not use Medicaid to access services. Worse still, Members may be forced to shutter a substantial number of their health centers nationwide, many of which are in rural or underserved areas without alternative providers,” the lawsuit reads.
On the same day the lawsuit was filed, Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, ordered the Trump administration to take "all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood Federation. of America and its members."
The judge's intervention has put on hold what was hailed by many in the pro-life movement as a historic victory.
Planned Parenthood said the fight is "just beginning."
"We're grateful that the court acted swiftly to block this unconstitutional law attacking Planned Parenthood providers and patients... The fight is just beginning, and we look forward to our day in court!" Planned Parenthood said in a statement.
Zohran Mamdani's SAT score has been made public, exposing his background to further scrutiny as he faces accusations of lying about his race.
The reporting adds another layer to an affirmative action scandal that could overwhelm his upstart campaign to be mayor of New York.
The Ugandan-born radical received a 2140 out of 2400 on the standardized test, which was below the median for Columbia University students at the time when he applied for admission, according to journalist Christopher Rufo. The bombshell is sure to raise questions about whether Mamdani tried to compensate for a below-average application when he ticked the box for "African American."
"African American" was popularized by black civil rights leader Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, and the term is widely understood to describe black people descended from former slaves.
Mamdani was born in Uganda, a country in East Africa, but has Indian heritage on both sides of his family. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a professor at Columbia.
The New York Times reported that Zohran Mamdani identified as "African American" when he applied to the school. Although he was rejected by Columbia in the end, his critics say he created a false impression about his race to score points with university admissions.
The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in 2023, but it was widely practiced in 2009 when Mamdani applied to Columbia. At the time, the median Columbia student scored between 2110 and 2300 on the Math, Critical Reading and Writing sections of the SAT.
Mamdani's score of 2140 was on the low end for Columbia and likely above the median for black students, according to Christopher Rufo.
Mamdani's history is coming under a microscope after he won the Democratic primary in New York's mayoral election.
New York mayor Eric Adams, a black Democrat who is seeking re-election as an independent, has accused Mamdani of exploiting African-Americans' painful history for personal gain.
“The African American identity is not a checkbox of convenience. It’s a history, a struggle and a lived experience. For someone to exploit that for personal gain is deeply offensive,” Adams said last week.
Mamdani has responded to his critics with word games, insisting he is “an American who was born in Africa," and also suggesting his identity is just too complex to be labeled.
"Even though these boxes are constraining," Mamdani said, "I wanted my college application to reflect who I was."
In addition to checking the "African American" box, Mamdani specified "Ugandan" on the application and also signified he has "Asian" heritage.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Australian government had cited it's "Online Safety Act" in demanding that X censor the criticism of the transgender agenda by Canadian campaigner Chris "Billboard Chris" Elston.
But that censorship scheme now has been struck down by a tribunal.
It was an Administrative Review Tribunal that ruled in favor of Elston, who in February 2024 had gone online to criticize the appointment of Teddy Cook to a United Nations post.
Cook has been described by the Daily Mail as a transgender member of a new United Nations panel that's drafting global health rules who has "a kinky track record in everything from bestiality to bondage, drugs and nudism."
"Teddy Cook, a female-to-male trans Australian activist, started work this month on the World Health Organization's 20-expert body, drafting care guidelines for trans and non-binary people," the report said. It explained Cook calls herself a "professional queer…"
ADF International, which worked on Elston's case, said the tribunal decision strikes the government order attempting to censor him.
Elston's offense apparently was to not just criticize Cook, but refer to her with biologically accurate pronouns.
His post then was claimed by Australia's eSafety commissioner to be "cyber abuse."
"Both X and Elston challenged the order, arguing that the censorship was a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. Elston's legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International, in conjunction with the Human Rights Law Alliance in Australia. The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne held a week-long hearing on the case commencing March 31, 2025," ADF International reported.
The commissioner made the wrong decision, the ruling found.
"This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship. In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders. Today, free speech has prevailed," Paule Coleman, of the ADF International, said.
"This is a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian—and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech."
Elston said, "I'm grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed. This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression. My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers. With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us. My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship."
The Christian Institute said the decision was by Damien O'Donovan, deputy president of the tribunal.
Elston had said, online, "This woman (yes, she's female) is part of a panel of 20 'experts' hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for 'transpeople.' People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards."
Cook, of Australia, complained.
O'Donovan noted Elston "classifies a person as either a man or a woman" by referencing their biological sex at birth.
"I am satisfied that he believes doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children. I am satisfied that he knows that his practice in this regard is offensive to people who identify as transgender," the ruling said.
But he said Australian Parliament was not trying to control debate on issues with its "cyber-abuse" law and that there was no evidence an ordinary person would think Elston "intended the post to have an effect of causing serious harm."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A ruling from U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph in Wisconsin has rejected Judge Hannah Dugan's claim for absolute immunity for her actions in stopping her own court hearing, diverting ICE agents away from the adjacent hallway, sending them on an errand and then escorting a criminal illegal alien out of the courthouse through a nonpublic jury door.
The decision from the case that charges Dugan with federal crimes said, "Judges are not immune from criminal prosecution for acts wholly outside their official roles as judges."
She explains, "The indictment alleges Dugan violated two federal statutes, 18U.S.C. §§ 1071 and 1505, and cites the respective statutory language for both. Whether Dugan violated these statutes as the government accuses, or whether she was merely performing her judicial duties as Dugan asserts, these are questions for a jury that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
"I recommend Dugan's motion to dismiss on Tenth Amendment grounds be denied."
Further, the ruling found Dugan's attempt to obtain the dismissal of her indictment on constitutional avoidance grounds is "misplaced."
"It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts. This, however, is not a civil case. And review of the case law does not show an extension of this established doctrine to the criminal context."
Applying established principles of immunity to Dugan's case, the ruling determined: "Does judicial immunity shield Dugan from prosecution because the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties? The answer is no. …There is no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts."
Dugan had argued as a state court judge acting within the scope of her official duties, prosecution is barred, she also is protected by the Tenth Amendment and the canon of constitutional avoidance.
She wrongly cited the Supreme Court's ruling granted President Donald Trump differing levels of immunity based on official actions.
"While Dugan asserts that Trump simply extended to the president the same immunity from prosecution that judges already have, this argument makes a leap too far. Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts."
A grand jury accused Dugan of knowingly concealing a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. She is charged in Count Two with obstruction of the United States Department of Homeland Security's removal proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
The episode happened on April 18, when, according to the records, "Dugan knowingly concealed E.F.R., a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued under the provisions of the law of the United States, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of E.F.R., after notice and knowledge of the fact that a warrant and process had been issued for the apprehension of E.F.R., in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071; Count Two On or about April 18, 2025, Dugan did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before a department and agency of the United States, namely the administrative arrest of E.F.R. for purposes of removal proceedings conducted by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by committing affirmative acts to assist E.F.R. to evade arrest, including: a) confronting members of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Task Force and falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.; b) upon learning that they had an administrative warrant for E.F.R.'s arrest, directing all identified members of the ICE Task Force to leave…"
WND reported when a video showed Dugan's actions, sending two federal agents waiting to take an illegal into custody packing.
A report at the Gateway Pundit described how the video shows Dugan "angrily confronting ICE agents in the courthouse."
Dugan later was arrested by the FBI for obstructing federal law enforcement.
She then claimed that everything she did was part of her judicial duty, so she is totally immune to any prosecution.
Dugan has been relieved of her duties and is facing trial.
WND previously has reported Dugan could face sentencing of up to six years in jail and $350,000 in fines if convicted.
The White House now claims no client list was left behind by late financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News reported. This contradicts previous remarks Attorney General Pam Bondi made earlier this year.
Reporters inquired about the shifting narrative during a news conference on Monday. According to a memo from the FBI and the Department of Justice that day, a review of the case was completed over the weekend and revealed no client list exists for Epstein.
This contradicts remarks Bondi made in February about a list of people who may have patronized Epstein's island of ill repute. "It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that," the attorney general claimed at the time.
REPORTER: Will you really be releasing the Epstein files?
Pam Bondi: "It's sitting on my desk right now to review.”
IT’S HAPPENING pic.twitter.com/35THYYN9Fk
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 21, 2025
With such starkly conflicting information coming out of President Donald Trump's administration, reporters were not about to let White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt off the hook. Fox News' Peter Doocy quoted Bondi and asked Leavitt about her remarks in light of the recent memo.
"She was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper, in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, that's what the attorney general was referring to, and I'll let her speak for that," Leavitt claimed. She said the agencies held back evidence that was explicit.
"There was material they did not release because, frankly, it was incredibly graphic, and it contained child pornography, which is not something that's appropriate for public consumption," Leavitt said. This comes after Bondi had already promised to release the files.
Shortly after Trump took office, Bondi met with several influencers and presented them with binders supposedly containing information about the Epstein case. There was nothing new, which was disappointing at the time. However, those same people invited for the photo op held her feet to the fire on social media.
Some, like Rogan O'Handley, said the memo from the DOJ and FBI was a "shameful chapter in our country's history." Others like Liz Wheeler called for Bondi's ouster. "I'm supposed to be on vacation, but it’s time to fire Pam Bondi," Wheeler wrote.
The problem for the White House is that Bondi doubled down on claims of a client list. She said in May that they were sifting through "tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn, and there are hundreds of victims."
Instead, the memo said "files relating to Epstein" included "ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography." This distinction raises questions about all of Bondi's statements regarding the case.
Meanwhile, the White House is engaging in damage control, including a Department of Justice spokesperson who sidestepped the question of the conflicting reports. "We've delivered more transparency in 6 months than the Biden administration did in 4 years," the spokesperson deflected.
Besides the question about a client list and other materials, the memo addressed longstanding theories that Epstein did not commit suicide by hanging, as was previously reported. The memo claims that Epstein definitely killed himself while in jail, case closed.
Trump made many promises to his voters during the campaign, including that the Epstein client list would be released. Now the White House is telling people there's no such thing, and that isn't sitting well with people skepitcal of the claim.
Former White House Physician Kevin O'Connor, who said that President Joe Biden was fit to hold office even as his cognitive decline became crystal clear to the rest of the world, is now seeking to delay his testimony before the House Oversight Committee because of disagreements about the scope of the questions he would be asked.
O'Connor was scheduled to testify Wednesday, but he is reluctant to disclose information about Biden's health while in office and his use of an autopen to sign documents and legislation.
A lawyer for O'Connor requested the testimony to be moved to July 28 or August 4 to give him time to meet his "ethical obligations" in the matter.
"Dr. O’Connor has legal and ethical obligations that he must satisfy and for which violations carry serious consequences to him professionally and personally," a letter to the judge read.
The letter also argued that no other doctor has every been subpoenaed
"We are unaware of any prior occasion on which a Congressional Committee has subpoenaed a physician to testify about the treatment of an individual patient. And the notion that a Congressional Committee would do so without any regard whatsoever for the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship is alarming."
The Oversight Committee responded by saying that O'Connor could object to individual questions during the testimony, but that the delay was not permissible.
A spokesperson for the committee accused O'Connor of attempting to "stonewall" the process unnecessarily.
O'Connor is expected to testify on Wendesday due to the issued subpoena and faces consequences if he does not show up to do so.
Former top aide to Biden, Neera Tanden, testified weeks ago that she directed autopen signatures under Biden's direction but said she didn't know where the authorization to do so came from.
"Ms. Tanden testified that she had minimal interaction with President Biden, despite wielding tremendous authority," Comer said at the time. "She explained that to obtain approval for autopen signatures, she would send decision memos to members of the President’s inner circle and had no visibility of what occurred between sending the memo and receiving it back with approval. Her testimony raises serious questions about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House amid the President’s obvious decline. We will continue to pursue the truth for the American people."
O'Connor is clearly terrified at being asked why Biden was so uninvolved in his own presidency and whether his health had anythign to do with it.
Lying under oath to Congress is a criminal act punishable with jail time, so he obviously has something to hide in trying to avoid the testimony.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the wake of a new FBI memo claiming there was no client list of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, despite U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi saying she had it on her "desk right now to review," the White House is now saying law enforcement did its job, and "the Trump administration is committed to truth and to transparency."
During a press briefing Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked point blank: "The DOJ and the FBI have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client list. What do you tell MAGA supporters who say they want anyone involved in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes to be held accountable?"
Leavitt replied: "The Trump administration is committed to truth and to transparency. That's why the attorney general and the FBI director pledged at the president's direction to do an exhaustive review of all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his death. And they put out a memo in conclusion of that review.
"There was material they did not release because, frankly, it was incredibly graphic and it contained child pornography which is not something that's appropriate for public consumption.
"But they committed to an exhaustive investigation. That's what they did and they provided the results of that. That's transparency."
Peter Doocy of Fox News immediately followed up on her answer, saying: "According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. So what happened to the Epstein client list that the attorney general said she had on her desk?"
Leavitt responded: "I think if you go back and look at what the attorney general said in that interview which was on your network, Fox News … ."
"I've got the quote," Doocy indicated, then proceeding to read it.
"[Fox News anchor] John Roberts said, 'DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?' And she (Bondi) said, 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review."
Leavitt answered: "Yes, she was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. That's what the attorney general was referring to and I'll let her speak for that. But when it comes to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put behind bars."
In a March interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, Bondi indicated "a truckload of evidence arrived. It's now in the possession of the FBI. Kash [Patel] is going to get me and himself really a detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence had been withheld. W're gonna go through it, go through it as fast as we can, but go through it very cautiously to protect all the victims of Epstein, 'cause there are a lot victims."
"We believe in transparency, and America has the right to know," Bondi added.
In May, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino were facing fierce criticism for asserting Epstein indeed killed himself in jail.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Maria Bartiromo of Fox News on "Sunday Morning Futures" asked both officials why many Americans don't buy the government assertion that Epstein committed suicide in a New York City holding facility.
"They have a right to their opinion," Patel said, "but as someone who has worked as a public defender, as a prosecutor who's been in that prison system, who's been in the Metropolitan Detention Center, who's been in segregated housing, you know a suicide when you see one, and that's what that was."
Bongino said: "He killed himself. I've seen the whole file. He killed himself."
"I call bullsh**," said Infowars host Alex Jones.
"Overall, I think Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are doing a great job, but on this claim that Epstein's death is not a cover-up I call bullsh**."
Jones posted a lengthy comment on X, indicating: "EPSTEIN confirmed a suic*de? Maria sits down with FBI's Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, who claim Epstein did, in fact, commit suic*de. Now, let's get into why people do not believe this theory."
Number one, Maurene Comey, Fmr. disgraced FBI Dir. James Comey's daughter was in charge of Epstein's alleged suic*de investigation, which isn't a good start, and Maurene allegedly lost the jailhouse CCTV tapes as a result of a technical error.
Then on top of the "lost/erased tapes," through a "technical error," both security guards "fell asleep," who were supposed to be watching Epstein's cell, who was on 24hr surveillance for suicide watch which is standard procedure in every jail and being a high-profile prisoner.
There are rumors and a video you can search which claims nitrous oxide was used to knock the guards out, which then Epstein was taken out by another individual. Others claim the guards were paid not to talk.
Either way, for the tapes to mysteriously go missing or erased and to have not one, but TWO guards both fall asleep coincidentally, the odds of both of these happenings to occur at the same time in the same place are astronomical.
We know the Comey's are corrupt. James Comey just sent out a dogwhistle to have our sitting president assassinated. Why do you think he would do that? What [do] Comey, the Clintons, and the Obamas all have to hide? Are you paying attention to Trump's recent posts? Are you starting to connect the dots? Remember, there are no coincidences.
Musk continued his online campaign against the Trump administration on Monday, posting on X about the lack of arrests related to Jeffrey Epstein's supposed "client list" despite campaign promises to release information about his close associates.
"What's the time? Oh look, it's no-one-has-been-arrested-o'clock again," he captioned a graphic titled "The Official Jeffrey Epstein Arrest Counter" set to "0000."
What’s the time? Oh look, it’s no-one-has-been-arrested-o’clock again … pic.twitter.com/CO9xJz68Tf
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 7, 2025
Musk was seemingly responding to an earlier post in which the Trump administration said "There is no Epstein list" after promising to release it.
The Epstein knock has been ongoing with Musk, who during an earlier disagreement with President Donald Trump accused him of being on the Epstein list before removing the post and apologizing.
Musk obviously doesn't know who is on the Epstein list, if it exists, or he would probably just release the information himself.
That's if there is even an Epstein list, which would mean that the Trump administration was lying when it claimed there wasn't one.
At any rate, the administration also signaled that there were no further arrests forthcoming related to Epstein's alleged sex trafficking.
Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, were both arrested in connection to sex trafficking, and many allegations were thrown around about which famous and high-profile politicians and celebrities might have been involved.
Epstein was said to have had a top-secret client list that he used to blackmail his famous clientele, but a Sunday night memo from the DOJ said they didn't find any evidence of a list or any sort of blackmail.
The memo, as reported by Axios, also said there was no evidence Epstein didn't kill himself, despite widespread questions and speculation suggesting he was murdered by someone who didn't want his alleged client list to be made public.
FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who once espoused conspiracy theories about how Epstein really died, said in April that after investigating himself, he believes that Epstein did kill himself.
He and FBI Director Kash Patel, who said before his appointment that it should be easy to release the Epstein client list and implied that officials were cowards for not doing it, that Epstein's cause of death was suicide and that the client list didn't exist.
Many people remain skeptical about that narrative, however.