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.
The Internal Revenue Service has reinterpreted its rules to now allow churches to endorse political candidates to their congregations without losing their tax-exempt status.
Reports described the adjustment as a formality since the regulation rarely was enforced anyway.
But the new standard was made clear in a court filing, a consent judgment, in a Texas federal court in a case brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America, Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom.
A report at Just the News explained those plaintiffs sued over the Johnson Amendment because it requires "certain organizations, including churches, to refrain from participating or intervening in campaigns for public office as a condition for their non-profit, tax-exempt status."
That was instigated by Lyndon Johnson who, as a senator, was facing opposition from faith groups in his campaign.
"When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither 'participate[s]' nor 'intervene[s]' in a 'political campaign,' within the ordinary meaning of those words," the federal agency confirmed.
Analysts confirmed it was the first time the IRS formally confirmed such statements are legal, not just tolerated or overlooked.
"The agency has for years been wary of punishing religious leaders for political statements made during worship," the report said.
The contention from churches and Christian organizations has been that the IRS rule violated the First Amendment right they have to speak and to exercise their religion, as well as their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.
The IRS said that stretching the Johnson Amendment to cover church statements regarding issues of faith and candidates "would create serious tension with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause" as it "would treat religions that do not speak directly to matters of electoral politics more favorably than religions that do so."
The Washington Examiner noted, in the case, both sides "asked a federal judge to order the Trump administration and future presidential administrations not to enforce the ban on political endorsements against the groups that sued."
The report noted President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have been trying to overturn the amendment for years.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
USAID workers for years have handed out billions of U.S. tax dollars to other nations, their programs, their politicians, their agendas.
Some were completely off-base when it came to U.S. interests and some simply were in support of the ideologies of the USAID.
Now, under President Trump, multiple thousands of USAID workers are now ex-employees, with the official closure of the agency just days ago and a few jobs considered important transferred to the State department, with a few hundred leftover workers.
But among those thousands, now, apparently is a contingent planning to sabotage the United States.
U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, paraphrased the intent: "If you stop letting us run America, we'll start a color revolution and overthrow your democratically elected government." He added, "These people are making the case for their own firing better than we ever could."
It was at Twitchy that the plans were noted.
"Some of the democracy-building experts President Donald Trump fired this year from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department are now reapplying the skills and knowledge they built up over decades to undermine Trump's power," it said. "For years, these officials were stationed across the globe actively supporting opposition movements in autocratic nations. Now they've got time, a network of former colleagues and a growing sense of moral indignation."
One said, in an interview with NOTUS, "Take it from those of us who worked in authoritarian countries: We've become one. They were so quick to disband AID, the group that supposedly instigates color revolutions. But they've done a very foolish thing. You just released a bunch of well-trained individuals into your population. If you kept our offices going and had us play solitaire in the office, it might have been safer to keep your regime."
Twitchy noted, "That sounds a lot like sedition, a lot like a direct threat, and a lot like someone who belongs in a jail cell, not in an office at Foggy Bottom."
One observer suggested maybe not everything being planned is serious.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Life just got a bit easier for those rushing to catch a plane at one of America's busy airports.
At Ronald Reagan National Airport in D.C. Tuesday, DHS Secretary announced that the Transportation Security Administration will no longer require any passengers to remove their shoes at security checkpoints.
The requirement has been in place for most passengers since 2006, part of the reaction to an attempted terrorist attack in which a passenger tried to ignite explosives in his shoes during a 2001 flight.
An email from the TSA about the news conference said the new policy would "make screening easier for passengers, improve traveler satisfaction and will reduce wait times."
Most people have had to take their shoes off for airport screening for nearly two decades after a passenger tried to ignite explosives in his shoes during a 2001 flight.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Many experts assessed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, common drugs already documented for their effectiveness against certain ailments, as both a defense against getting infected with COVID-19, the China virus that circled the globe and killed millions, as well as a possibly beneficial treatment.
Not Big Pharma, which was taking in billions of dollars for the various mRNA shots which now have been documented to trigger a multitude of problems, including heart ailments in young men. Part of the problem was the availability of the likely COVID-fighters, as they required prescriptions, and physicians were under intense pressure to reach out for the shots that included a corporate profit for drug manufacturers.
But that could be changing. Dr. Simone Gold and America's Frontline Doctors have filed citizens petitions with the Food and Drug Administration asking that they be available to consumers over the counter.
They were joined by doctors Dana Granberg-Nill, Bryan Atkinson, Pierre Kory, Brian Tyson, Peterson Pierre, Robin Armstrong, Geoff Mitchell, and Lynn Fynn as co-petitioners, according to a report from the Gateway Pundit.
The report said, "Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been FDA-approved for decades and is available OTC in many parts of the world, such as in Africa and South America, for the prevention and treatment of malaria. In the United States and other Western Nations, HCQ is a widely prescribed medication primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. According to the government's own database, FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System), HCQ is one of the safest drugs on the planet."
And, "Ivermectin is a wide-ranging antiparasitic agent that has been used in humans for over three decades and won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015, reflecting the drug's enormous impact on human health."
The report said ivermectin also has "gained much attention for its potential use in cancer treatment.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "The COVID pandemic sparked a tremendous public health demand to repurpose well-known drugs like HCQ and ivermectin for new uses, specifically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Tragically, patients who were prescribed these medications by their doctors were denied access by pharmacies that refused to fill these prescriptions due to pressure from government health agencies and their C-suite executives.
"To make matters worse, both drugs were attacked relentlessly in order to push experimental mRNA injections onto the public."
The report said with the goal of cutting through COVID propaganda and removing a barrier to patient access, the petitions were delivered to the FDA, originally during the pandemic. Now the petitions have been refiled.
Gold said, "The fight to make hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin over-the-counter continues. The mainstream narrative has collapsed under the weight of its own deception, and the truth can no longer be suppressed. It is way past time for our government to truly follow the science."
Mitchell said, "We suggest that one of the predominant reasons for the poor clinical outcomes and excess COVID deaths in the U.S. was the prohibition of early, oral, outpatient treatment with safe, effective, repurposed drugs like the Nobel-prize-winning IVM and also HCQ. The FDA led the charge against these treatment alternatives, enlisting pharmacists, corporate pharmacies, and physicians in their effort as well."
The medical industry had to suppress availability of the existing drugs because in order to release the new, potentially injurious mRNA shots, because under the emergency authorization process, it was required that there be "no viable existing alternatives."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Some detainees at the federal government's new detention facility in Florida, known as Alligator Alcatraz, are complaining about the conditions inside – including mosquitoes "as big as elephants."
Along with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, President Trump last week celebrated the opening of the facility deep in the Everglades.
Not all the guests, however, are happy with their new accommodations.
Leamsy "La Figura" Izquierdo, a Cuban artist who was arrested in Miami last week, told CBS News he moved into the facility with about 400 others.
"There's no water to take a bath, it's been four days since I've taken a bath," said Izquierdo, who was arrested on charges of battery and assault with a deadly weapon.
The inmate claims he is fed only once a day. Another complaint is that detainees have not been given toothpaste.
"They only brought a meal once a day and it has maggots," he said. "They never take off the lights for 24 hours. The mosquitoes are as big as elephants."
Another detainee, an unnamed Colombian man, said his mental health was deteriorating without access to his medication and Bible.
"I'm on the edge of losing my mind. I've gone three days without taking my medicine," he told CBS. "It's impossible to sleep with this white light that's on all day."
"They took the Bible I had and they said here there is no right to religion. And my Bible is the one thing that keeps my faith, and now I'm losing my faith," he added.
As reported in the Independent, the facility was built quickly to help alleviate pressure on other detention facilities amid Trump's deportation efforts. It eventually is expected to hold anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 people.
Another detainee, who was not named by CBS, told the news outlet that those running the facility were not respecting "human rights." He described being at Alligator Alcatraz as "a form of torture."
"They're not respecting our human rights. We're human beings; we're not dogs. We're like rats in an experiment," he said.
On X, not all users were sympathetic to the alleged conditions. Posted The Blaze in response to the bathing complaint: "FAFO! Maybe don't enter our country illegally!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
All of America knows how badly Kamala Harris, the Democrats' nominee, lost the 2024 presidential election to President Donald Trump.
Landslide numbers in the popular vote. Also in the Electoral College. Losses in every single swing state.
But she knew of that probable outcome before the vote, according to a report that cites evidence released in a new book.
The Washington Examiner explains it was in a series of memos from Maria Comelia, a political strategist who has advised Democrats, to Harris campaign manager Jen O'Malley Dillon that Harris simply wasn't giving voters a reason to cast a ballot for her.
The four memos come from the book, "2024: How Trump retook the White House and the Democrats lost America," by several authors.
There Comelia told Harris she needed to distance herself from the failed presidency of Joe Biden, who may have torpedoed Harris by confirming that she was with him on every major political decision.
Comelia suggested Harris appeal to independents and what she described as "soft" Republican voters with the move, the report said.
"The current focus of rolling out and utilizing Republicans like Liz Cheney gives comfort that a soft Republican who dislikes Trump is not alone, but it doesn't give reason to vote for Harris," she wrote. "They may not want to vote for [President Donald] Trump, but they aren't ready yet to cast a vote for Harris. Flip the concept. Instead of Republicans for Harris, how do we make it Harris for Republicans? This general framework is applicable to independents and moderate undecideds as well because it creates a structure that either makes it possible to vote for her or comfortable enough not to turn out to vote for Trump," the memo said.
A separate memo suggested, "You have to meet people where they are and that comes from local faces that they are more likely to trust or at least like. The reality is that Josh Shapiro in [Pennsylvania] has earned more GOP votes in PA than either Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. More importantly, this audience does not want to be lectured to and told who to vote for. Celebrities and never-Trump supporters have the opposite effect with these audiences."
The counsel also included advice for Harris to admit Democrats missed the mark during the Biden-Harris regime on the economy, inflation, border security, COVID-19, crime and much more.
"Create clear daylight/differentiation between a Harris and Biden administration," Comelia instructed. "Acknowledge where the Democratic Party hasn't gotten it right — a willingness to not just work with the other side, but call out your own party when necessary. Meet the moment by contrasting the stakes on the issues."
A commentary by Hugo Gurdon in the Examiner at the same time confirmed where the Biden tenure and Harris campaign have left the Democrats: "Screwed."
"Betting on appearances over reality is a weak long-term strategy, especially when those appearances are false. Fictions quickly wear thin, allowing people to see through to reality, to facts that stay stubbornly in place," he said. "President Abraham Lincoln put it more pithily: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.'"
He explained, "Today's Democrats still don't get that you can't fool voters indefinitely. They criticize the Medicaid and food stamp reforms President Donald Trump signed into law on Friday as literally deadly. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), a former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN, 'The way I can summarize this big, ugly bill best is: Republicans caved, Trump lied, and people will die.'
"If that's the best the party can do, Democrats are in trouble. They are, however, all saying much the same thing. A Democratic campaign official informed me tersely recently on NewsNation that the reforms are 'cruel' because 'if you're a single mom and you're only working 40 hours a month because you're raising three kids, you don't get your Medicaid anymore under this bill.'"
That claim, he explained, is "not true."
He pointed out the changes about which Democrats are complaining mostly don't take effect for some time, until even after the 2026 midterms.
"These dates mean the howling horrors Democrats are crying 'wolf' about will not have gone into effect when voters next cast their ballots, and others will hardly have had time to resonate by the time the nation is choosing the next occupant of the White House. Voters don't get worked up about things that have not happened, and the horrors Democrats foretell will not have happened in two different ways: They won't have been applied, and once they are, voters will realize they aren't horrors anyway," he said.
"'I think we're screwed,' a Democratic operative told me as he contemplated the electoral politics of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. His party has to pump up the issue — it's part of the Democrats' trick of pretending they're on the side of the little guy — but it will turn to ashes and run away through their fingers."
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.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Texas pediatrician who took to social media to claim, wildly and irrationally, that Texas flood victims, adults and children, were supporters of President Donald Trump and got "what they voted for" has been fired.
A report at the New York Post said Dr. Christina Propst first was suspended for her "vile post," then dismissed.
A commentary at Twitchy described her as a "MONSTER pediatrician" who was "cheering" the deaths of "MAGA children."
"May all visitors, children, non-MAGA voters and pets be safe and dry," Probst wrote in the now-viral post, the Post said. "Kerr County MAGA voted to gut FEMA. They deny climate change. May they get what they voted for. Bless their hearts."
Twitchy commented, "We have no words. Ok, that's not true, we always have words, but none of them are PG-13 enough for this site. And the fact that she thought it was smart to post it for the whole world to see only makes it worse. Posts are forever, especially those that truly reveal who people are."
Her employer, Blue Fish Pediatrics, responded:
The Post reported, "Propst's employer, Blue Fish Pediatrics, initially said the employee had been suspended — before announcing that 'the individual is no longer employed' there."
"As we previously mentioned in our original statement, we strongly condemn the comments that were made in that post. That post does not reflect the values, standards, or mission of Blue Fish Pediatrics," the company said.
The chief of the Texas Medical Board, Sherif Zaafran, also said, "There is no place for politicization. The entire focus needs to be on looking for survivors. Any complaints we may receive will be thoroughly investigated."
The report explained, "The doctor appeared to have changed her username and profile image on Facebook since the post went viral, several X users noted. Propst's profile pages were taken down from both the Blue Fish Pediatrics site and the website for Memorial Hermann Health System, which is associated with Blue Fish Pediatrics."
Memorial Hermann said, in a statement, "This provider is not employed by Memorial Hermann. We have zero tolerance for such rhetoric which does not reflect the mission, vision, or values of our system."
Kerr County voted for President Trump in November.
Camp Mystic, an all-girls Christian summer camp located along the banks of the Guadalupe River, confirmed on Monday that 27 campers and counselors had been killed.
On social media, a commenter said, "No telling how malicious a doctor like that would be."
Another told Gov. Greg Abbott, "She should lose her medical license."
A long list of insults also followed her online comments, with the mildest being, "You likely cannot uphold your oath to 'do no harm' if you actively wish death on people who simply have a difference of political opinion."
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.