A group of survivors connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein has announced plans to release their own list of names, saying it will identify individuals they claim were involved in or connected to their abuse.
The group has not yet disclosed when or where the list will be made public.
“We know who abused us. We saw who came and went,” the survivors said in a joint statement. “This list will be survivor-led—for survivors.”
The announcement has already drawn widespread attention, but further comments from Epstein survivor Juliette Bryant intensified the public reactionBryant made a pointed statement referencing former U.S. President Donald Trump, prompting renewed speculation and debate online.While no evidence has been presented alongside the remarks, the comments have fueled questions across social media and political circles, with many now watching closely to see whether Trump or his representatives will respond.
As anticipation grows, observers emphasize that any forthcoming claims will need to be independently verified once released
JUST IN…Thomas Moves to Arrest Jasmine Cr0ckett — But Within 20 Minutes, She Turns the Entire Court Against Him! The moment Clarence Thomas signaled for Cr0ckett’s arrest, reporters nearly fell out of their chairs.
But Cr0ckett didn’t back down — she att@cked. Over the next 20 minutes, she delivered a blistering, airtight defense, exposing procedural violations and calling out Thomas’ conflicts of interest with surgical precision. The courtroom shifted. Aides whispered nervously behind Thomas.
Judges began exchanging looks. By the time Cr0ckett finished, Thomas was no longer the accuser — he was the one under scrutiny because….
After Renee Good was shot the agent called her, I quote, a ‘f*cking b*tch’ on camera. Yes or no, is this how your agents are trained to act?” Gallego asked Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott.
“No sir,” conceded Scott.
That blunt opening salvo out of the way, Gallego then dug into the meat of his well-founded criticisms—
“Director Lyons, you are trained in weapons handling, correct?” Gallego asked Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.
“Yes, sir,” said Lyons.
“If you look at the Rene Good shooting, why is the agent holding a camera phone and a weapon at the same time?” asked Gallego.
“So sir, I don’t want to comment on the ongoing investigation just because that’s still being determined at this time, but can I just go back to one thing, sir, that you mentioned?” said Lyons.
“No, I want to ask a further question on this. Has there ever been an order to any agents, CBP agents in Minnesota or other places, for them to be recording on their personal phones to essentially be somewhat social influencers or to pass the media on up?” asked Gallego. “Has there ever been any orders given for agents to be recording while they’re doing these stops or engaging with the public?”
“Sir, there’s never been an order to do that,” admitted Lyons. “Agents have used it as far as if they were going to make an arrest on, say an agitator, the U.S. attorney was requiring to have video leading up to the event. So officers have reused that for that.”
“For video from a handheld, from a phone?” asked Gallego.
“If they had a body camera available from the body camera or from any type of recording device,” said Lyons.
“The reason there’s a difference because the body cam is designed for a police officer or law enforcement to engage while still being able to have full scope of knowledge of what’s happening, be able to detain, be able to escalate if they need to escalate,” pointed out Gallego. “What I saw and what the world saw for me is the fact that there was an agent that was moving around a vehicle with a camera phone recording and his hand on the weapon.”
“In what world, in what training, between all of your training in weapons handling, have you ever been taught the appropriate use of holding a weapon and at the same time recording on a camera phone?” asked Gallego. “Did you have any of that type of training at all in your time in ICE, law enforcement, or through CBP?”
Gallego himself is a former Marine who served in Iraq, so he is well-acquainted with the proper use of firearms. In no situation would it make sense for someone to be using a camera phone while also wielding a weapon. The staggering lack of discipline dispolayed bby Good’s killer Jonathan Ross underlines just how poorly trained these ICE agents are. They delight in violence but that’s not enough for them, they also want to film it.
“No, sir, I haven’t,” Lyons told Gallego. “But again, you know, we look at every instance no matter what it is so…
“So shouldn’t there be some kind of command or directive that comes down from CBP headquarters knowing that this is unprofessional conduct that probably created and put the officer and probably the civilian in a situation that ended up escalating to a shooting, that maybe you shouldn’t be holding a camera trying to be influencer and wielding a weapon at the same time?” said Gallego. “That is a professional code of conduct as law enforcement, as military, you would never do that because you know you cannot handle a weapon, assess the situation, and be able to determine to escalate or deescalate.”
“Did you issue any type of direction after Ms. Good was shot saying that this is not what you should be doing or we’re just accepting that this is going to continue going forward?” asked Gallego.
“No, sir, there was nothing issued because we do hold our individuals accountable,” Lyons said weakly.
Gallego should be commended for zeroing in on this particular facet of the Good killing. The Trump administration has tried to smear an innocent mother by claiming that her killer felt endangered by her actions. But if that were the case, Ross wouldn’t have been comfortable enough to film the entire encounter. The truth is that this agent was excited by the prospect of finally getting to use his gun on someone and he seized the opportunity. He should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
All he wants is awards and for everything to be named after him.
The Kennedy Center, Dulles Airport, Penn Station. I mean, if that’s the way to keep him happy, why, I have another suggestion for something we could name after him, and it’s big, and I think he’ll like it, because it’s something everyone’s talking about, something that he actually, unlike most everything else he wants named after him, deserves to be a part of,” joked Kimmel, barely able to keep a straight face.
“And I believe, I propose that we should think about adding his name to the Epstein files, or as they…will heretofore be known as the Trump—Epstein Files! Why NOT put his name on the outside of the files, too?”
Sounds good to us! Trump is mentioned in the files so much — over 1 million times — it would only be fitting for his name to be up there, next to the name of one of the worst sex criminals in American history.
It’s the only place his name belongs…besides on the wall outside a jail cell.
BREAKING: Six Republicans break with Trump as bipartisan House votes 219-211 to repeal Canada tariffs in stunning rebuke to the president
Six House Republicans joined Democrats on Wednesday to deliver a stunning rebuke to President Donald Trump, passing a resolution to repeal his punishing tariffs on Canada in a 219-211 vote that exposed a growing revolt within the Republican Party over the administration’s disastrous trade policy.The bipartisan victory came just one day after three of those same Republicans helped block a procedural move by House leadership to silence debate on the tariffs, opening the floodgates for a series of votes that have put Trump on defense for the first time on his signature economic policy.
The Six Republicans Who Stood Up
The six Republicans who broke with Trump and voted with Democrats were Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Kevin Kiley of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Jeff Hurd of Colorado, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Dan Newhouse of Washington.
They joined almost all Democrats in supporting the resolution sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote no.
The resolution would terminate Trump’s use of a national emergency to impose punitive tariffs on Canada, one of America’s closest allies and trading partners.
Why They Did It
The Republicans who crossed the aisle were unambiguous about their reasons.
“We have a trade agreement, and I think they’ve been a good ally, and I think they’ve been unfairly attacked by the administration, and so I’m going to oppose it, I’m going to oppose the tariffs,” Bacon told The Hill before the vote.
Rep. Thomas Massie has been equally clear, arguing on X that “taxing authority is vested in the House of Representatives, not the Executive,” making the constitutional case that Trump never had the authority to impose these tariffs unilaterally in the first place.
Bacon, Massie, and Kiley had already shown their willingness to fight back on Tuesday evening when they voted with Democrats to block a procedural rule that would have barred members from calling snap votes to repeal Trump’s tariffs. That failed vote paved the way for Wednesday’s historic result.
What Happens Next
The resolution now heads to the Senate, where it appears likely to pass. In October, four Republicans joined all Democrats in a vote to terminate Trump’s tariffs on Canada in a measure led by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Those GOP lawmakers were Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
While Trump is expected to veto the measure, Democrats are positioning themselves to capitalize on the president being forced to publicly confront major pushback on his tariff strategy, putting vulnerable Republicans on record as either standing with struggling American families or standing with Trump’s economic chaos.
Trump’s Furious Meltdown
Trump took to Truth Social as the vote was wrapping up Wednesday to issue a direct primary threat against any Republican who dared cross him.
“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!” he wrote.
He added, “TARIFFS have given us Economic and National Security, and no Republican should be responsible for destroying this privilege.”
The threat only underscored how rattled Trump is by the growing revolt within his own party. Instead of making the case for why his tariffs are good for Americans, he went straight to threatening his own allies.
It didn’t work. Six Republicans voted against him anyway. Democrats Celebrate the Victory
Rep. Meeks celebrated the result and praised the six Republicans who put their constituents above party loyalty.
“They sincerely, I think, voted for it because it was important for their constituency, and they were standing up to, you know, Donald King, Donald Trump, who thinks he’s king,” Meeks said. “To say, ‘I’m going to do what’s best for my constituents first.’ And so I thank them for the courage and what they did.” Meeks also blasted Trump’s treatment of Canada, calling the country “one of our strongest allies.”
“Canadians gave their life for us and various people and all the President has done from the time that he became president, was insult calling them the 51st state, put these 35% tariffs, not allowing the bridge to open up between the United States and Canada.”
This Is Just the Beginning
Meeks also has resolutions ready to terminate the national emergencies justifying Trump’s tariffs on Mexico and the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed across the globe.
“Trump’s tariffs are driving up prices, killing jobs, and threatening our economy. This isn’t what Americans voted for,” Meeks said. Wednesday’s vote is proof that the dam is breaking on Trump’s tariff policy. Six Republicans voted with their conscience, their constituents, and their country over their president. More are likely to follow.
Trump can threaten primaries all he wants. But when Americans are paying more for groceries, cars, and everyday goods because of his reckless trade war, even his own party is starting to say enough is enough.
ONE MILLION VOICES RISING — TRUMP IMPEACHMENT PETITION EXPLODES ONLINE A new petition tied to Trump impeachment discussions is reportedly racing toward 1 MILLION signatures, showing just how fired-up and divided Americans are right now. Supporters call it a powerful demand for accountability, while critics warn it could ignite even deeper political chaos. Is this the turning point that forces Congress to act—or just another digital storm? Click the link to see the petition numbers and what happens next.
An online petition calling for the impeachment of former President Donald Trump is rapidly gaining traction, with organizers claiming it is approaching one million signatures. The surge reflects the continuing intensity of political divisions across the United States, as debates surrounding Trump’s conduct and legal challenges remain at the forefront of national discourse.The petition, hosted on a popular civic engagement platform, urges members of Congress to pursue formal impeachment proceedings. Supporters describe the effort as a necessary step to uphold constitutional accountability and send a message about standards of leadership. Many signatories cite concerns ranging from alleged abuses of power to broader questions about democratic norms.
Critics, however, argue that the petition is unlikely to translate into immediate legislative action. They contend that online campaigns, while symbolically powerful, do not carry legal authority and may further inflame partisan tensions. Some Republican leaders have dismissed the effort as a politically motivated attempt to revisit battles that have already played out in Congress and the courts.
Trump has previously faced two impeachments during his presidency, both resulting in acquittal by the Senate. Any new impeachment effort would require majority support in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction — a high political bar in a closely divided environment.
Political analysts say the petition’s rapid growth underscores the enduring influence Trump holds over American politics, whether as a rallying point for supporters or as a flashpoint for critics. Whether the campaign represents a meaningful turning point or simply the latest wave of digital activism remains uncertain. What is clear is that public engagement — and polarization — around Trump’s legacy shows little sign of fading.
JUST IN: House Democrats are reportedly coordinating with moderate Republicans in an effort to secure the 218 votes needed to impeach Trump before March 31 over alleged abuse of power. Raise your hand if you’re in support
**House Democrats Reportedly Near Threshold for Trump Impeachment Push**In Washington this week, House Democrats are reportedly intensifying efforts to secure the 218 votes needed to bring articles of impeachment against former President Donald Trump ahead of a self-imposed March 31 target date, in a bid framed around alleged “abuse of power.” According to political observers tracking internal support, Democratic leaders are engaging with a small number of moderate Republican lawmakers whose districts lean away from hard-line party politics, hoping to sway them into backing the measure
The push reflects deepening frustration among some Democrats over Trump’s conduct during his post-presidential political activities and recent public statements. While Democrats control the House by a slim margin, they lack the nearly unanimous party unity typically needed to pass an impeachment resolution without some Republican defectors. If successful in securing a simple majority — 218 of the 435 votes — the House could formally charge Trump with abuse of power, a constitutional standard often cited but historically difficult to define and enforce.
So far, most mainstream reporting has focused on internal party debates and procedural hurdles rather than a formal floor vote date, and some Republican lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to impeachment in any form. Previous attempts by House Democrats to move impeachment bills, including ones introduced by Rep. Al Green, have been shelved or failed to gain traction, sometimes with Democrats themselves voting “present” instead of in support.
Moderate Republicans, historically a small but pivotal group in closely divided chambers, could tip the balance. Any bipartisan support for impeachment would be highly unusual in recent U.S. history, given the sharp polarization around Trump within the GOP. Even if the House were to impeach, the effort would almost certainly face a hostile Republican-controlled Senate and is expected to become a highly contentious political flashpoint in the run-up to national elections.
Who else believes that Pam Bondi is just an id*ot and doesn’t deserve her position in this country? but AOC: Pam Bondi won’t resign, and she won’t be fired. She’s doing exactly what her boss hired her to do. How disgusting they are FULL STORY
Here’s a **brief, realistic article** summarizing the current situation around U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the political controversy referenced in your prompt:The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/11/bondi-house-hearing-epstein-crime/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * [The Times](https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/pam-bondi-calls-democrat-loser-lawyer-in-heated-epstein-testimony-60vtq6f53?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/d1a1b021-c6be-4906-bbdb-4c17ee18e9f8?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * [Decider](https://decider.com/2026/02/12/ana-navarro-pam-bondi-the-view-trumps/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
**Pam Bondi Faces Intense Political Backlash After Contentious Congressional Hearing** **Washington, D.C. —** U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has become the center of a fierce political firestorm following a turbulent House Judiciary Committee hearing this week, where she was pressed on the Department of Justice’s handling of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The hearing, which lasted several hours, devolved into heated exchanges and personal insults, with Bondi at times lashing out at Democratic lawmakers as criticism mounted.
Lawmakers — particularly members of the Democratic Party — accused the DOJ under Bondi’s leadership of mishandling the release of millions of documents, including failing to shield the identities of Epstein victims while allegedly protecting powerful figures potentially connected to the case. Survivors who attended the hearing publicly expressed disappointment and described the testimony as lacking empathy and accountability.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a vocal critic of Bondi, labeled the attorney general’s performance “very erratic” and claimed her aggressive defense and refusal to answer key questions only fueled suspicions of a cover-up to shield influential individuals. Bondi repeatedly deflected blame toward past administrations and pivoted to unrelated topics at times, such as economic statistics, which frustrated many lawmakers. ([malaysia.news.yahoo.com][3])
Despite the intense criticism, Bondi shows no sign of resigning. Conservative voices — including commentators on the right — have also called for her departure following what they described as a weak and defensive performance, but those calls have not gained enough traction to force a change. Commentators have noted that Bondi remains aligned with President Trump’s priorities, making her continued tenure likely for the foreseeable future.
Supporters of Bondi — primarily among Republican lawmakers — have praised her focus on law enforcement priorities such as crime and immigration, framing the criticism as partisan theater. However, public and political disapproval has grown across the spectrum, with some commentators condemning her approach to leadership and accountability. ([Financial Times]
Shocking Claims: Epstein Survivor Suggests Donald Trump Recordings Could ExistThe Epstein case has long been a source of controversy and public fascination. Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with deep connections to high-profile figures around the world, was arrested in 2019 on charges related to sex trafficking of minorsHis subsequent death in a Manhattan jail cell sparked widespread speculation and conspiracy theories. Now, a new claim has reignited the firestorm surrounding the case.An Epstein survivor has publicly stated that recordings allegedly involving Donald Trump exist. While these claims have not been independently verified, they have immediately drawn intense scrutiny from both the public and political observers.The implications of such recordings—if they exist—could be serious, not only legally but also politically, given Trump’s continued prominence in American politics.The survivor, whose identity has not been fully disclosed for safety reasons, suggested that private recordings exist which capture interactions between Epstein’s circle and Donald Trump. The survivor emphasized that these recordings could have significant consequences if they were ever made public.While details about the content of these alleged recordings remain vague, the claim alone has fueled speculation across social media, news outlets, and political forums. Many are debating whether these recordings, if they exist, could serve as evidence of wrongdoing, or if they are simply part of the wider pattern of rumors surrounding Epstein’s network of powerful associatesDonald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were known to have crossed paths in social and business circles during the 1980s and 1990s.Public records, photographs, and media reports confirm that they attended some of the same events and had acquaintances in common. Trump has publicly stated that he was “not a fan” of Epstein and claimed to have severed ties with him many years agoDespite these claims, the resurfacing of Epstein-related scandals consistently raises questions about whether other influential figures were involved in his activities. Allegations of private recordings add a new layer of complexity to an already convoluted web of claims.The potential political ramifications of these claims are enormous. Donald Trump remains a polarizing figure, with many supporters and detractors closely following any developments that might affect his reputation or political future. Any new evidence tied to Epstein, particularly something as tangible as recordings, could influence public opinion, impact elections, or even lead to legal scrutiny.
Social media platforms have already been flooded with discussions, theories, and debates over the survivor’s claims. Hashtags related to Epstein and Trump are trending, and news websites are reporting on every angle of the story. This level of attention demonstrates the enduring public fascination with Epstein’s circle and the potential consequences for those associated with him.
Skepticism and Verification
It’s important to note that the existence of these recordings has not been independently verified. Many experts caution against jumping to conclusions, emphasizing the need for credible evidence before assuming the claims are factual. In past high-profile cases, unverified allegations have sometimes been amplified for political or sensational reasons.
Nonetheless, the survivor’s statement has reignited widespread interest in Epstein’s network. Investigators, journalists, and the public are watching closely, awaiting any corroborating evidence that might emerge.
Political Consequences
If the recordings do exist and contain incriminating content, the political consequences could be severe. Even the suggestion of wrongdoing can influence public perception, sway voters, and create legal challenges. For politicians and public figures, allegations tied to high-profile criminal cases are particularly damaging because they can dominate media coverage and overshadow other issues.
For Trump, who remains active in U.S. politics, such claims—even unverified—could become a focal point of debate during campaigns, press conferences, and public discourse. Opponents could leverage the situation to question his character, judgment, or associations, while supporters may dismiss it as speculation or politically motivated attacks.
What Comes Next
At this stage, the claims are primarily raising questions rather than providing concrete answers. Legal authorities, investigative journalists, and independent media outlets will likely continue to probe the situation. Meanwhile, public interest remains high, with social media serving as the primary arena for discussion and speculation.
It’s also possible that new information could emerge in the coming months, potentially confirming or refuting the survivor’s statement. Until then, the situation serves as a reminder of the long-lasting impact of the Epstein case and its ability to touch influential figures, whether through verified facts or unverified claims.
Conclusion
The Epstein case is one of the most infamous scandals of recent decades, touching the lives of countless victims and implicating numerous high-profile individuals. The recent claim by a survivor that recordings allegedly involving Donald Trump exist has reignited public interest and speculation. While the allegations remain unverified, the potential political and legal consequences are significant.
As more information emerges, it will be critical to approach the story with caution, relying on verified evidence rather than speculation. For now, the Epstein saga continues to captivate the world, reminding us of the enduring power of influence, secrecy, and the search for justice.
JUST IN: Former President Barack Obama Reportedly Files $500 Million Lawsuit Against Donald T̄RUMP, Alleging Racial Intimidation and Severe Reputation Damage After He Posted AI-Generated Video Depicting Barack & Michelle Obama as Monkeys — Shocking Legal Showdown!In one breathtaking, explosive twist shaking the very core of this political saga, the staggering lawsuit filed from the corridors of justice is being described as completely redefining the defamation battlefield, unleashing furious reactions throughout Washington and thrusting the T̄RUMP administration dangerously close to a devastating reckoning. Analysts are labeling this racial bombshell a catastrophic trigger, speeding up the crumbling of defenses and igniting savage debates over AI manipulations, presidential provocations, and the total disintegration of the Oval Office’s untouchable aura. As commentary from experts pours in relentlessly and tension skyrockets to unbearable extremes, this lawsuit eruption has exploded into a scorching hotspot — a lethal danger that could rip apart vital political immunities and hurl the whole administration headfirst into an unparalleled whirlwind of accountability and constitutional fury.Former President Barack Obama has reportedly filed a $500 million lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging racial intimidation and severe reputational harm following the circulation of an alleged AI-generated video that depicted Barack and Michelle Obama in a deeply offensive and dehumanizing manner. If confirmed, the lawsuit would mark one of the most dramatic legal clashes ever between two former U.S. presidents — and it’s already igniting fierce national debate.
What’s Being Alleged? According to early reports, the legal filing claims: The video was AI-generated and intentionally defamatory. The content was racially inflammatory and designed to intimidate. The damage to reputation was significant and deliberate. Legal analysts say that if authentic, this case could test the limits of defamation law, digital manipulation, and accountability in the AI era.
Why This Is Bigger Than Politics Experts suggest this legal battle could: Redefine how courts treat AI-generated misinformation. Set precedent for public figures seeking damages over synthetic media. Ignite constitutional debates around free speech vs. targeted defamation. The case, if it proceeds, would likely examine whether sharing or amplifying AI-generated content crosses into actionable harm — especially when it involves racial imagery.
The Stakes A $500 million claim signals that this isn’t symbolic — it’s strategic. Such a lawsuit would demand: Proof of intent Evidence of reputational and emotional harm Legal arguments balancing First Amendment protections Political observers say the implications could ripple far beyond the two individuals involved, potentially shaping the legal boundaries of AI content in campaigns and public discourse.
Important Context At this stage, reports remain developing. No court ruling has been issued, and any allegations would need to be proven in court. As with all legal matters, claims do not equal findings of fact.
