Catégorie oBox : BuzzNews

Hillary Clinton emerged from a closed-door deposition with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Chappaqua and delivered a blunt assessment of what she said became a spectacle rather than a focused inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking crimes.

Clinton said she repeatedly told investigators she had no relationship with Epstein, then watched the questioning drift into topics she described as irrelevant. She told reporters: «I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein,» adding: «I never went to his island. I never went to his homes, I never went to his offices.»

Clinton said the session moved beyond the stated subject, portraying the most sensational lines of questioning as distractions that did not advance the committee’s stated goal of fact-finding.

Her appearance came only after months of resistance to subpoenas and a rising threat of contempt. The committee’s leadership said the subpoenas were approved on a bipartisan basis and formally issued in early August 2025, then followed by prolonged negotiations as the Clintons challenged the process and sought conditions, including a public hearing.

In early February, Oversight Chairman James Comer announced the pair would sit for transcribed, filmed depositions after the committee moved toward contempt proceedings over noncompliance. Clinton’s deposition was scheduled for Feb. 26, with Bill Clinton set to appear the next day. The contempt threat was not abstract: the committee had advanced resolutions and publicly signaled it was prepared to escalate if the Clintons did not show up in person.

«I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet».

-Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

In her prepared remarks, Clinton delivered a categorical denial of having information that could meaningfully assist the committee’s investigation. She said: «The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.» She continued:

«As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes, or offices. I have nothing to add to that.»

Clinton also acknowledged she had encountered Ghislaine Maxwell in social settings, but insisted that did not translate into knowledge of criminal wrongdoing.

Clinton said the questioning veered into conspiracy terrain, including topics that have circulated for years online with no relevance to the Epstein case. In one of her most pointed comments after leaving the session, she described the line of inquiry as a sign the deposition had lost focus.

Clinton told reporters it became «quite unusual, because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet». Her remarks landed in a political environment where Epstein-related disclosures have fueled a flood of speculation, with lawmakers and commentators disputing what has been released publicly, what remains sealed, and whether the government’s document disclosures have been complete.

Clinton framed her testimony as an example of how that climate can encourage performative questioning.

The closed-door format itself became part of the fight. Clinton and her advisers argued the committee’s public posture on transparency clashed with its insistence on private questioning, and she repeatedly called for a public hearing. Ahead of her deposition, she posted: «So let’s stop the games. If you want this fight, let’s have it — in public.

You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there,» while the committee maintained it would release video and a transcript after lawyers had a chance to review it. The deposition was also briefly disrupted after a photograph from inside the room circulated online, triggering objections about ground rules and reinforcing Clinton’s argument that the process was being treated as political theater.

«As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes, or offices. I have nothing to add to that.»

-Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

The committee’s next major step is Bill Clinton’s scheduled deposition, which is expected to draw sharper attention because of his documented contacts with Epstein, including travel on Epstein’s plane years before Epstein’s final federal arrest. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has emphasized that she had no direct relationship with Epstein and no firsthand knowledge to share beyond denying claims and describing limited social encounters involving Maxwell.

The committee has argued that the Clintons’ testimony is necessary to map how Epstein operated around powerful institutions, while Democrats have questioned whether the inquiry is being used selectively and sensationally. For now, Clinton is leaning into a single claim: that the most prominent moments of the deposition were the ones she says never belonged there at all.

Netflix has confirmed it will not raise its offer for Warner Bros. Discovery after Paramount submitted a higher all-cash bid, effectively ending Netflix’s pursuit of the media giant. The streaming company informed Warner Bros. Discovery’s board that it would not engage in a bidding war beyond its latest proposal, signaling that the economics of the deal no longer aligned with its strategic priorities. The development marks a dramatic shift in what had become one of the most closely watched takeover battles in the entertainment industry, as control of major assets including Warner Bros. Pictures, HBO, and CNN hangs in the balance pending Warner Bros. Discovery’s final decision on Paramount’s offer.

Netflix’s most recent proposal reportedly valued parts of Warner Bros. Discovery at a lower per-share price than Paramount’s revised all-cash offer, which is said to reach approximately $31 per share and cover the entirety of the company’s assets, including its television networks and streaming operations.

Netflix had structured its bid primarily around acquiring the studio and streaming divisions, arguing that such a configuration would streamline regulatory approval while preserving production capacity. However, Paramount’s willingness to acquire the full corporate structure, including linear cable holdings such as CNN, significantly altered the competitive landscape and increased the overall valuation available to shareholders.

«Our proposal provides superior value and a clear path to completion, delivering immediate and certain cash consideration to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.»

-Paramount’s executive leadership team

In a public statement explaining its decision, Netflix leadership said: «We believe we would have been great stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs in the United States. But this transaction has always been a nice-to-have at the right price, not a must-have at any price.» The statement underscored that while Netflix viewed Warner Bros. Discovery’s intellectual property library as strategically valuable, it would not stretch beyond financial discipline to secure the acquisition. The company emphasized its continued focus on organic growth, international expansion, and investment in original programming.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s board has acknowledged receipt of Paramount’s revised proposal and is currently evaluating whether it constitutes a superior offer under the terms of its existing agreement with Netflix.

The board had previously recommended that shareholders reject an earlier Paramount bid, but the improved financial terms and all-cash structure have intensified deliberations. Paramount executives have argued that their proposal delivers greater certainty of closing and stronger immediate value to shareholders. In a statement regarding the offer, Paramount leadership said:

«Our proposal provides superior value and a clear path to completion, delivering immediate and certain cash consideration to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.»

The potential acquisition carries significant political and regulatory implications, particularly because it includes CNN, one of the most influential news networks in the United States. Lawmakers and media analysts have already begun speculating about potential editorial and structural changes should Paramount gain control. The consolidation would reshape the competitive landscape across streaming, film production, cable news, and advertising markets, likely drawing scrutiny from federal antitrust authorities.

President Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized CNN’s coverage, has previously said: «CNN is a disaster. Nobody watches it.» While Trump has not formally commented on the pending deal, observers note that any ownership transition involving CNN could quickly take on political overtones.

«We believe we would have been great stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs in the United States. But this transaction has always been a nice-to-have at the right price, not a must-have at any price.»

-Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters

As the industry awaits Warner Bros. Discovery’s final determination, the outcome of the bidding battle could redefine the balance of power in global media. For Netflix, the decision to step aside reflects a disciplined approach after years of aggressive expansion. For Paramount, the acquisition would dramatically expand its footprint, combining film studios, streaming platforms, and cable news under one umbrella.

The coming weeks will determine whether Warner Bros. Discovery accepts the higher offer and how regulators respond to a consolidation that could alter the trajectory of the American media industry for years to come.

Cuba says a confrontation off its northern coast left four people dead and six wounded after Cuban border forces opened fire on a Florida-registered speedboat that Havana alleges entered Cuban waters and initiated gunfire. According to Cuba’s Interior Ministry, the incident occurred Wednesday morning near Cayo Falcones, roughly one nautical mile northeast of the El Pino canal, when Cuban Border Guard troops approached the vessel for identification. Authorities said those aboard the speedboat «opened fire», injuring the commander of the Cuban patrol craft, prompting Cuban forces to return fire.

The ministry stated that the wounded were transported for medical treatment while six survivors were detained. The unusually deadly maritime clash immediately heightened tensions in the Florida Straits and triggered diplomatic alarm.

Cuban officials quickly framed the episode as more than a border confrontation, describing it as an organized armed incursion. In its official statement, the Interior Ministry said the 10 people aboard were «Cuban residents of the United States» who were armed and «intended to carry out an infiltration for terrorist purposes.»

Authorities reported seizing assault rifles, handguns, Molotov cocktails, bulletproof vests, telescopic sights and camouflage uniforms from the vessel. The government added that most of the individuals «have a known history of criminal and violent activity.» In the same communication, Havana declared:

«In the face of current challenges, Cuba reaffirms its determination to protect its territorial waters, based on the principle that national defense is a fundamental pillar of the Cuban State in safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring stability in the region.»

«The 10 people aboard were Cuban residents of the United States who were armed and intended to carry out an infiltration for terrorist purposes.»

-Cuba Interior Ministry

U.S. officials have rejected any suggestion that the incident was a U.S. government operation and said they are independently assessing the situation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that no U.S. government personnel were involved and cautioned against accepting Havana’s narrative without verification. «We’re not going to base our conclusions on what they’ve told us, and I’m very, very confident that we will know the full story of what happened here,» Rubio said. He added:

«As we gather more information, then we’ll be prepared to respond accordingly.» Emphasizing the rarity of such an event, Rubio remarked: «Suffice to say it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that.» Vice President JD Vance said the administration was closely monitoring developments.

The speedboat shooting comes amid heightened regional tensions following the U.S. military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026. U.S. forces detained Maduro in Caracas and transferred him to the United States to face federal charges related to narcoterrorism and drug trafficking. The operation followed months of expanded U.S. naval deployments and enforcement actions targeting Venezuelan oil exports. After Maduro’s removal, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assumed power on an interim basis, pledging institutional stability while facing internal and international pressure.

The Trump administration has framed the operation as a law enforcement and national security action, further escalating diplomatic strain across the Caribbean, including with Cuba, which has historically depended on Venezuelan oil shipments.

The diplomatic fallout has intensified political rhetoric on both sides. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier criticized Havana’s account, stating: «The Cuban government cannot be trusted, and we will do everything in our power to hold these communists accountable.» Cuban authorities, meanwhile, maintain that the confrontation began only after the vessel entered Cuban waters and fired upon Cuban forces. Officials in Havana have characterized the incident as a defensive response to an armed threat. The competing narratives hinge on details that have not yet been publicly released, including potential ballistic evidence, radar tracking data and testimony from the detained survivors.

«We’re not going to base our conclusions on what they’ve told us, and I’m very, very confident that we will know the full story of what happened here.»

-U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio

As investigations continue, the episode threatens to deepen an already fragile relationship between Washington and Havana. Cuba’s repeated use of the phrase «infiltration for terrorist purposes» underscores its attempt to frame the shooting as a national security response rather than an immigration or smuggling matter. The Trump administration, while disputing the Cuban account, has signaled it will respond once more facts are established. Rubio’s remark that «it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that» reflects the seriousness with which U.S. officials are treating the incident. With sanctions enforcement intensifying across the region and maritime tensions rising, the deadly encounter risks becoming a significant diplomatic flashpoint.

A new and scandalous allegation is now at the center of a court fight in Washington, D.C.: attorneys say federal agents used fear, threats, and misinformation to pressure unaccompanied migrant children into giving up their right to remain in the United States by signing “voluntary return” paperwork. The claim appears in a motion filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as part of a class-action case involving Guatemalan minors and a wider challenge to how the government handles unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries. The filing alleges children were confronted while still in Customs and Border Protection custody, before they could reach lawyers or relatives, and were told that refusing to sign could lead to harsh consequences.

The motion stems from ongoing litigation involving unaccompanied Guatemalan minors and challenges the legality of a policy allowing Customs and Border Protection to present voluntary departure paperwork to children while still in border custody. Under longstanding federal protections, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries are generally transferred to shelters overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they can access legal services and appear before an immigration judge. Attorneys argue the new practice circumvents those protections by pressuring children to make life-altering decisions in a custodial setting without adequate safeguards or judicial oversight.

According to sworn declarations cited in the filing, one Guatemalan boy was allegedly confronted by agents who “shouted, cursed, and threatened [him] with a dog and a stun gun” if he refused to sign the paperwork. The motion states that he was told he could face prolonged detention if he did not agree to return to his home country. Lawyers contend that the child was not allowed to consult family members before signing. Other declarations describe minors who allegedly signed documents they did not fully understand, in some cases due to language barriers or fear of retaliation. Attorneys say at least 13 children have been identified as having signed under what they characterize as coercive circumstances.

«The advisal document provided to unaccompanied children explains options available under the Immigration and Nationality Act on their path forward.»

-Customs and Border Protection

The legal filing further alleges that the advisal form presented to children contains language designed to discourage them from seeking a hearing before an immigration judge. The document reportedly states: «If you choose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicate a fear of returning to your country you can expect the following: you will be detained in the custody of the United States Government for a prolonged period of time.» Critics argue that such language, when delivered to minors in custody, can be perceived as a threat rather than a neutral explanation of legal consequences. The motion asks the court to expand existing protections and block the practice while litigation continues.

Customs and Border Protection has defended the advisal process. In a public statement, a CBP spokesperson said: «The advisal document provided to unaccompanied children explains options available under the Immigration and Nationality Act on their path forward. CBP’s duty is to follow the law and protect children. Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential.

It ensures they understand their rights and options – and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.» Homeland Security officials have not publicly addressed the specific allegations involving the dog and stun gun described in the court filing.

The controversy unfolds as President Donald Trump faces declining approval numbers on immigration enforcement tactics. Recent polling has shown that while immigration remains a central issue for many voters, a majority now say enforcement measures have gone too far. In one recent survey, 58 percent of respondents said Trump has gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants, and 62 percent opposed aggressive enforcement tactics.

During a recent address, Trump reiterated his administration’s stance, declaring that «the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.» As the federal court considers whether the alleged actions violated existing injunctions and child protection laws, the case has intensified debate over the limits of enforcement and the treatment of vulnerable minors in custody.

Several major media outlets, including The New York Times, NPR and the Associated Press, have reported that key federal records tied to a woman who contacted investigators in 2019 are missing from the Justice Department’s public Epstein database. The woman came forward during Donald Trump’s first term, shortly after Jeffrey Epstein’s July 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by both Epstein and Trump decades earlier when she was 14 years old. According to reporting based on internal discovery logs and document indexes, the FBI interviewed her multiple times in 2019. However, only one interview summary appears in the public release, while additional interview reports referenced in official logs are not included, raising questions about whether the disclosure is complete.

NPR’s review of the Justice Department’s document production found serial numbering gaps and references to additional FBI interview summaries that are not currently available in the online repository. Internal logs reportedly indicate that the FBI conducted four separate interview sessions with the accuser in 2019. Of those, only a July 24, 2019 summary has been made public. The publicly available interview focuses primarily on Epstein and does not detail the full scope of allegations described in other summaries referenced in discovery materials. According to reporting, a discovery index linked to this accuser lists 15 related documents, but fewer than half are present in the public database. The absence of the remaining materials has intensified scrutiny over whether responsive records were withheld.

«Oversight Democrats can confirm that the DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused President Trump of heinous crimes.»

-U.S. Representative (D-CA), Robert Garcia

The allegations referenced in reporting describe events dating back decades, when the woman was an early teenager. According to summaries cited by journalists, she told investigators that Epstein introduced her to Trump and that she experienced sexual assault and violence. Those details, however, are not fully reflected in the publicly released FBI documentation because multiple interview summaries appear to be missing. In its public statement announcing the file release, the Justice Department said it had published millions of pages of material in compliance with disclosure requirements. The department also stated:

«Notable individuals and politicians were not redacted in the release of any files.» In the same announcement, it added:

«To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false.»

Following public reporting about missing interview records, the Justice Department acknowledged it is reviewing the issue. In a statement addressing concerns, the department said:

«As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the Department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production.»

It added that any documents found to have been improperly withheld and legally releasable would be published. Officials have emphasized that certain materials can be withheld or redacted under federal law to protect victim identities, sensitive personal information, or ongoing investigative interests. Nonetheless, critics argue that if interview summaries exist and are listed in discovery logs, their absence from a release promoted as comprehensive undermines confidence in the transparency process.

«I have nothing to hide! I’ve been exonerated! I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.»

-President, Donald Trump

President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations and has framed the document release as clearing him of wrongdoing. Speaking to reporters, Trump said:

«I have nothing to hide! I’ve been exonerated! I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.» He added: «I’ve been totally exonerated.» Trump has long acknowledged that he knew Epstein socially in the 1990s but has said he distanced himself years before Epstein’s criminal prosecution. No criminal charges have been filed against Trump in connection with Epstein’s crimes. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have sharply criticized the handling of the files. Representative Robert Garcia said:

«Oversight Democrats can confirm that the DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused President Trump of heinous crimes.»

The broader fallout from the Epstein file disclosures has extended beyond Trump, drawing renewed scrutiny toward other public figures whose names appear in various contexts throughout the archive. The release has also been criticized for technical errors and redaction problems in earlier waves of documents. Despite mounting questions about missing interview summaries and incomplete discovery logs, Trump remains largely insulated politically among his core supporters, many of whom view the controversy as politically motivated. While several prominent individuals mentioned in Epstein-related records have faced reputational consequences, Trump’s standing within his party has not shown immediate erosion. As the Justice Department’s internal review continues, the central issue remains whether the public has received a complete accounting of all relevant investigative materials tied to the accuser’s allegations.