Author: William Shoukri

With the Epstein situation reaching a boiling point over the weekend, Donald Trump’s hand apparently has been forced, explaining his sudden flip on the issue Sunday night. 

Senior House Democrat and Rep. for California, Robert Garcia, said in a statement on Monday that “He’s failed… And now he’s panicking and has realized he is about to lose this Epstein vote to force the Department of Justice to release the files.”

Donald Trump had a sudden change of heart about the release of the Epstein files on Sunday.

“House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax.”

It was a strange turn from the messaging he’s had for the last few months, and even stranger after he publicly demeaned longtime supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene for gently criticizing his handling of the documents less than 48 hours prior.

“Trump is panicking”

According to Robert Garcia, Trump “tried everything to kill our Jeffrey Epstein investigation,” and after it became clear on Sunday that he would no longer be able to brush it off, he was forced to switch sides.

“Now [Trump’s] panicking and has realized he is about to lose this Epstein vote to force the Department of Justice to release the files.”

Garcia added in a later statement that “Let’s be crystal clear: Trump has the power to release all the files today… But instead, he wants to continue this cover-up and launch bogus new investigations to deflect and slow down our investigation. It won’t work. We will get justice for the survivors.”

“Nothing to hide”

Trump’s flip on Epstein came via a Truth Social post just after 9 PM:

 “As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax.”

Trump’s post on Truth continued to say that the issue was distracting from the ‘Great Success’ of his administration, and the GOP needed to get “BACK ON POINT,” before prattling off a list of his administration’s ‘accomplishments’.

The statement left experts wondering ‘why’ for about 20 hours; now we know, Trump’s hand had been forced.

Prosecutors in Italy are investigating one of the most horrifying stories of the year: war tourists paid to kill civilians.

…participants would be given a ‘price list’ for the type of kill, with children costing the most.

Multiple media outlets have claimed that wealthy people underwent ‘weekend safaris” to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, to shoot at unarmed civilians.

The alleged ‘safaris’ took place during the Sarajevo Siege, which lasted from 1992 to 1996, and claimed more than 11,000 victims.

The Sarajevo Siege was already gruesome, as the Bosnian-Serb force besieged the city in what was the longest siege on a city in modern European history.

Who took part?

Journalist Ezio Gavazzeni sparked the investigation after filing a legal complaint, complete with evidence, to Italian prosecutors, claiming “murder aggravated by cruelty and despicable motives”.

Gavazzeni described the demographic that took part in the killings as “wealthy people with reputations, entrepreneurs, who during the siege of Sarajevo paid to be able to kill defenceless civilians.”

According to Gavazzeni, between 1992 and 1996, Italian citizens would gather in Trieste, Italy, on the border with former Yugoslavia on Fridays for a weekend of “hunting”.

These Italians, being painted as ‘gun enthusiasts’ and ‘right-wing sympathizers,’ reportedly paid up to 100,000 euros (adjusted for inflation) per day to participate in the killings.

Gavazzeni claims the participants would be given a ‘price list’ for the type of kill, and that foreigners would pay for whom they wanted to target, with children costing the most, then men, women, and finally elderly people, who could be killed free of charge.

Gavazzeni outlined the exact demographic for the participants:

 “People with a passion for weapons, to indulge, who prefer to go to bed with a rifle, with money at their disposal and the right contacts of facilitators between Italy and Serbia. It’s the indifference of evil: becoming God and remaining unpunished,”

He went on to say the perpetrators had “no political or religious motivations.”

They were simply killing for fun.

Who knew?

Serbia has denied any knowledge of the killings, but experts cast doubt on the comment.

According to Subasic, the Bosnian military intelligence officer who is expected to testify to the prosecution claimed the way that the trips were organized pointed directly to the Serbian State Security Service being “behind it all”.

The investigation is expected to last well into the new year, as evidence and sources must be compiled, as well as a directive for the prosecution.

In 2022, a documentary titled Sarajevo Safari was released by director Miran Zupanic, which revealed the crimes of the Sarajevo Siege.

Donald Trump has finally had enough with Marjorie Taylor Greene, and unsurprisingly, Jeffrey Epstein was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

MTG has been consistent on her anti-Epstein messaging, frequently telling the media she believes all the files should be unclassified. Initially, this opinion aligned with Trump’s politics.

In 2024, Donald Trump ran on a platform dedicated to declassifying the Epstein files, even though it was reported that Trump himself was a frequent character.

As soon as Trump began his second term, he flipped on the Epstein issue, claiming the files were a ‘hoax’ and frequently downplaying the crimes of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his partner-in-crime.

Greene’s comments

The comments that finally made Trump shut the door on MTG came on Friday morning, with Greene appearing on CBS Mornings. Greene told hosts Gayle King, Tony Dokoupil and Nate Burleson that Trump is making a ‘huge miscalculation” by dismissing the bipartisan group of House representatives pushing to release the Epstein files.

“Just being very honest with you, it’s something that I don’t understand, [the government] will not protect the predators,”

Trump snaps

Trump initially took to Truth Social to make his opinions known, calling Greene a “raving lunatic” (yes, really), and claiming she has gone “far-left” because of her recent comments criticizing Republicans on the Epstein issue and the government shutdown.

“I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support,”

Trump added that he would no longer take Greene’s calls, effectively ending their relationship.

Greene responds

On her part, Greene didn’t take the comments lying down, stating on Twitter, “I have supported President Trump with too much of my precious time, too much of my own money, and fought harder for him even when almost all other Republicans turned their back and denounced him.”

She added that she “don’t worship Donald Trump,” saying something that most Republican politicians can’t.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has been one of Donald Trump’s most effective allies since 2016, and she is currently one of the most popular Republican representatives holding office.

Donald Trump has denied any wrongdoing regarding his friendship with criminal sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Unfortunately for DJT, there seems to be mounting evidence saying the contrary.

The House of Representatives will take up the Epstein vote again next week. The motion to release the files was last blocked in September, with Republican congresspeople outvoting Democrats 51-49.

New emails released

The Epstein situation found its way above the fold after new emails from Epstein were released last week. Though none of the emails explicitly outlined criminal wrongdoing by Donald Trump, his name was mentioned more than 150 times, according to the CBC.

One email claimed that Trump “knew about the girls,” and another claimed he was “the dog that hasn’t barked.”

Just a week ago, the United States officially recognized Syria’s president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a “specially designated global terrorist.”

Now, he’s shaking hands and smiling in the Oval Office.

@cnn

Less than a year after his lightning power grab, Syria’s president Ahmed Al-Sharaa is capping his transformation from jihadist to global statesman in a historic visit to the White House that says as much about the young leader as it does his push for his country’s diplomatic reinvention. CNN’s Paula Hancocks reports.

♬ original sound – CNN

On Monday, Ahmed al-Sharaa became the first Syrian president to cross the threshold of the West Wing, a feat that is noteworthy in and of itself, but becomes even more so when we remember that Sharaa only recently had a $10m bounty on his head; with the US only lifting it in December 2024.

A shocking meeting

Sharaa’s meeting with Trump in the White House may be the most astonishing meeting ever hosted at the White House.

Remember, Sharaa was so captivated by 9/11 that he copied Osama bin Laden’s look, pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and led a militia that used suicide bombers to wage jihad in Syria and Iraq.

Now he’s standing in the White House.

A shady entrance

The route that Sharaa took to enter the White House spoke volumes about how the administration feels about the meetings.

Hiden from the media and television cameras, Sharaa entered the building through West Executive Avenue, rather than being driven to the front door of the West Wing as is customary for the arrival of world leaders.

Sharaa left the White House about two hours later and was greeted by a mob of supporters.

Not the first meeting

Trump and Sharaa first met in May at a summit in Saudi Arabia. At the time, Trump called the (former?) jihadist a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past, very strong past. Fighter.”

Interesting wording for someone labelled a “global terrorist” by the… United States.

After the meeting at the Oval Office, Trump claimed Sharaa is a “very strong leader”.

“He comes from a very tough place, and he’s a tough guy. I liked him. I get along with him… the new president of Syria, and we’ll do everything we can to make Syria successful.”

Trump may have chosen to give Sharaa the benefit of the doubt, but experts are hesitant.

“It’s a colossal gamble. He could be a valuable ally. He could be the devil incarnate.” Said a former Western diplomat who served in the Middle East.

Sharaa‘s shift

Over the last five years, Sharaa has shifted his views slightly, going from a hardline Islamist who banned Christmas and persecuted minorities to a president who apologized to Christian clergymen and worked to return stolen property to religious minorities.

At the request of the Turkish government, Sharaa reportedly began cooperating with intelligence agencies around the world, including the CIA and MI6, among others.

Additionally, at the request of Western countries, Sharaa detained wanted jihadists connected to Europe, and even reportedly assisted in the operation that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Experts warn that Sharaa is almost certainly acting in his own interests, not Washington’s, but for now, Syria’s president may be an unlikely ally – and in a country whose trade deals have fallen in pieces at their feet, Trump seems to think Sharaa is worth the risk.

In yet another example of the Trump administration’s shocking incompetence, it’s been revealed that an ex-Trump golf course employee was illegally deported to Mexico.

For ten years, Alejandro Juarez served Donald Trump to the best of his abilities. Juarez worked at Trump National Golf Club Westchester for a decade. While employed, he built a life for himself in New York: a wife, two kids, and a full-time job in America. For most immigrants who flee their country, Juarez was living the dream.

That dream was first battered in 2019, when Trump unceremoniously fired Juarez and a dozen other workers for being undocumented.

“He told me, ‘Thanks, Alejandro, thanks for everything.”

-Alejandro Juarez

Now? That dream is shattered, and Juarez’s family is left trying to sweep up the broken pieces of their lives in America.

Illegally deported

In September 2025, Juarez was ousted from the US and returned to Mexico, more than two decades after he fled the country. Alejandro Juarez didn’t receive a hearing, didn’t appear before a judge, and by the time of his scheduled hearing on September 25, he had already been deported back to Mexico.

“This is unprecedented in my 20 years of practice—an individual being removed without any hearing, leaving even the court and DHS confused,” Juarez’s lawyer, Anibal Romero, told the Times.

Initially, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the media that Juarez had been arrested for a DUI conviction from 2022, but later admitted to mishandling Juarez completely.

According to DHS, Juarez was supposed to be sent to an ICE detention center in Arizona, but instead was popped on a plane to Mexico.

Per DHS’s comments, Juarez was accidentally sent to Mexico. Yes, accidentally.

Trump administration officials said they would attempt to bring Juarez back to the U.S., but said they would be deporting him again, this time attempting to do so legally.

All-knowing and powerless?

Juarez’s is not the first case of this nature. Last spring, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador, despite a court order barring his repatriation.

Trump initially claimed that he lacked the power to return Garcia from prison, but the Supreme Court ruled that his administration would have to find a way to secure Garcia’s release.

Garcia was returned to the U.S. in June 2025, but was arrested by ICE in August during a mandatory check-in with DHS. Garcia is currently out on bail, having pled not guilty to a charge of human trafficking.

Garcia is citing vindictive prosecution.

In a move that is clearly furthering the US’s position amid tensions with Venezuela, the USS Gerald Ford has been deployed in the area of responsibility of the US Southern Command, which covers Latin America and the Caribbean.

With USS Gerald Ford now patrolling, there are now 15,000 American soldiers in Latin America, and 60 planes, including F-18 fighter jets.

“These forces will enhance and augment existing capabilities to disrupt narcotics trafficking and degrade and dismantle transnational criminal organizations,”

-Sean Parnell, Pentagon spokesperson

The deployment of the ship and its fleet was announced three weeks ago, but its arrival marks a significant signpost in military tensions between the US and Venezuela.

President Maduro responds

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro announced a “massive deployment” of land, sea, air, river and missile forces, as well as civilian militia, to counter the US naval presence off its coast.

Maduro is accusing the US of “fabricating a new war” and said the military deployment represents “the greatest threat our continent has faced in the past 100 years”.

Maduro has a point, with the arrival of the USS Gerald Ford and it’s accompaniment, which includes dozens of aircraft and destroyer ships forms the largest US military presence in the region in decades – seen as the biggest since the invasion of Panama in 1989.

The USS Gerald Ford has joined other warships, a nuclear-powered submarine and aircraft based in Puerto Rico.

Trump’s justification

Trump has justified all of the military attacks in the Caribbean Sea over the last three months as part of his “war on drugs,” but experts have questioned the validity of the claim, especially since drugs have only been recovered from one of the 20 vessels sunk by the US.

[The US is] stretching the meaning of the term [self-defense] beyond it’s breaking point… Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law.”

-Prof Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin, human rights expert

Trump has claimed that all 20 boats sunk by US strikes were carrying drugs for Venezuelan cartels, including the Tren de Aragua. The only problem is that at least three of the vessels have been confirmed to have been Colombian, without any attachment to Venezuela or the cartels peddled by Trump.

On Sunday, the summit for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States made a statement informally directed at the United States:

“The use or threat of use of force and any action not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.”

Venezuela and Nicaragua were the only countries not to sign the declaration, and Maduro’s regime reportedly expected a direct condemnation of the US rather than a vague statement.

Political motivations

Most analysts see the US attacks as a way to pressure Nicolas Maduro to step down, after stealing last years presidential election.

Maduro lost the Venezuelan election in June of last year, and Venezuela proved it with its own polling technology. Regardless of the loss, Maduro is still in power and has refused to step down.

Polling data has found that Maduro only won 30% of the Venezuelan vote, compared to the oppositions 67%. Not only did Maduro lose, but it was a landslide loss.

More than 1,200 opposition activists and volunteers have been arrested in Venezuela since the election last year.

It is not clear what will be the US’s next action. President Trump was reportedly briefed on multiple options, air strikes on seaports, airports and military facilities, and a dramatic (if less likely) option: sending in a team of special operations forces to apprehend or kill Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his senior advisers. This, of course, would be an overt act of war that experts say even Trump would be hesitant to commit to.

The Trump administration is attempting to drill oil off the shore of California, something that hasn’t happened in more than 4 decades. This would be the first fossil fuel development in California since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that killed thousands of animals and caused millions of dollars of harm to California’s fishing industry.

Since then, drilling has been prohibited in California state waters. There has been no new leasing in federal waters off the coast of California since the 1980s.

Gavin Newsom rolls his eyes

Gov. of California, Gavin Newsom, has emerged as one of Trump’s most vocal adversaries and is unsurprisingly not pleased with Trump’s directive.

“Our coastal communities depend on healthy oceans for economic security and their cherished way of life… If this is the plan, the Trump administration must go back to the drawing board. There’s too much at stake to risk more horrific oil spills that will haunt our coastlines for generations to come.”

-Joseph Gordon – Oceana

In response to the directive, Newsom rolled his eyes and said the plan would be “dead on arrival” once it got to California, and that the state would “absolutely” challenge the plan in court once it’s finalized.

Newsom is currently in Brazil for the United Nations climate summit, but still made comments to the media, noting that Donald Trump did not suggest drilling offshore of Mar-A-Lago, something he finds “remarkable.”

“He didn’t promote it off the coast of Florida… That says everything about Donald Trump.”

-Gavin Newsom

The proposed drilling area in the Pacific Ocean would be off Santa Barbara County, where a small amount of drilling is reportedly already occurring.

Texas-based oil company Sable Offshore is seeking to reactivate three idle drilling rigs in federal waters off Santa Barbara that have sat empty since a 2015 oil spill. In May, the company began producing oil from one of those rigs under an existing lease, but the drilling resulted in a lawsuit from California attorney general, Rob Bonta. Bonta claimed company was illegally discharging waste into local waterways.

Newsom also sent a letter last month, reiterating that California is “firmly opposed” to developments in fossil fuel.

It looks like a senior Russian minister may have fallen out of favour with Vladimir Putin after negatively affecting trade talks with the United States.

Veteran Kremlin foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was nowhere to be seen at a key Kremlin meeting last week, and he’s now been left off Russia’s delegation to the forthcoming G20 summit in South Africa.

The call to Trump

Echoes of Putin’s displeasure with Lavrov have circulated after communications with the United States went south last month. Trump and Putin were planning to meet in Budapest at the end of October, but the summit was cancelled after a disagreement about Russia’s conduct in Ukraine.

According to media reports, the meeting was cancelled after a call between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Multiple sources reported that Lavrov pushed Russia’s maximalist strategies, and the Kremlin refused any change to their position. This call reportedly convinced the Trump administration that a summit would be ‘pointless,’ leading to the cancellation of the meeting.

If accurate, it’s easy to see how Lavrov could have fallen out of favour with Putin. If Putin felt as though he lost control over the situation, it could create serious tensions between the senior minister and his president.

‘Everything is fine’

Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin have been working diligently to dispel the rumours of fractures in their administration.

When asked on Monday, the Kremlin dismissed the reports, claiming they are “absolutely untrue” and that there is “no need to pay attention” because “everything is fine”.

Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said “Sergei [Lavrov] continues to work, and he is actively at work… When there are relevant public events, you will see the minister.”

A former official told media that “Putin wanted the meeting in Budapest, and it wasn’t Lavrov’s role to get in between,” and that Lavrov “mishandled” the conversation with Rubio, making “a diplomatic mess of things.”

Former diplomat Boris Bondarev also commented on the rumours:

“Putin has been very comfortable working with Lavrov all these years because Sergei [Lavrov] is a seasoned bureaucrat. He knows perfectly well that you should never say anything that does not coincide 100% with the president’s position.”

He added that “if there is even the slightest chance Putin might not like it, he simply won’t say it. The idea that Lavrov showed any unwillingness to negotiate, and that this somehow derailed the meeting, is improbable. There is no separate Lavrov line; only Putin’s,”

Lavrov’s piece

On Lavrov’s side, comments from an interview originally made with Italy’s Corriere della Sera paper recently surfaced, where the diplomat made his stance clear.

“We are counting on common sense and that the maintaining of that position will prevail in Washington and that they will refrain from actions that could escalate the conflict to a new level,”

He went on to say that Europe is “sabotaging all peacemaking efforts and are rejecting direct contacts with Moscow. They introduce new sanctions which boomerang on their economies even further. They’re openly preparing for a new major European war against Russia.”

Lavrov, 75, was elected as Ambassador of Russia to the United Nations in 1974 and has been the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2004. Lavrov is one of the longest-serving top diplomats in the world.

It seems like we read it twice a week.

“Four dead in US airstrike,” “Venezuelan ship brought down by US fire,” “Two dead as Trump strikes down another ship,”

So many breaking headlines we become immune to the words “airstrike” and “Venezuela”.

The reality? These words become life-and-death decisions for fishermen in Venezuelan waters. A reality impossible to forget.

Donald Trump has ordered 20 individual bombings in the last three months and has killed more than 80 people since September. Trump claims every last one of those people was “dangerous narco-terrorists” who are threatening America. In reality, there is little to no evidence implicating the majority of the victims in organized crime.

Three months of terror

The US began initiating airstrikes on Venezuelan ships in the Caribbean Sea in September, under the guise of fighting narco-terrorism.

Donald Trump, backed by Pete Hegseth, outlined his mission to battle maritime drug trafficking in Latin America after the first strike.

That first strike came on September 2, when an American military vessel sank a 39-foot speedboat filled with “a considerable amount of cargo.” This initial strike was one of the more legitimate, with the vessel hailing from a known trafficking centre, and multiple sources supporting the US’s accusations of it being a criminal vessel. 11 people were killed in the first strike, according to Trump, all of them members of the gang Tren de Aragua.

Over the next six weeks, Trump carried out another four strikes, killing 16. There were drugs recovered in only one of the strikes. Venezuela has claimed that at least one of the boats attacked was a fishing vessel.

Additionally, at least two of the victims have been confirmed as Colombian citizens without any attachment to the country of Venezuela, nor its organized crime groups.

These cartels are the Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere, using violence, murder and terrorism to impose their will, threaten our national security and poison our people,

-Pete Hegseth

What next?

Donald Trump was reportedly briefed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Thursday regarding possible avenues of furthering military actions in Venezuela.

According to ABC, possible actions could range from nothing to air strikes on seaports, airports and military facilities. According to experts, Trump was also briefed on a dramatic (if less likely) option: sending in a team of special operations forces to apprehend or kill Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his senior advisers. This, of course, would be an overt act of war that experts say even Trump would be hesitant to commit to.

Pete Hegseth has made it clear that the US feels no inclination to stop its advances against Venezuela.

“The United States military will treat these organizations like the terrorists they are—they will be hunted, and killed, just like Al Qaeda – Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere,”

The legality of either option mused by Trump is foggy, with some lawmakers claiming the US could legally force Maduro out of office, and others saying that the US has no right to be conducting any foreign military operations in Venezuela.

The US recently deployed the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, just north of the Caribbean Sea. Along with the carrier, there are now 15,000 American troops in Latin America, and 60 aircraft, including F-18 fighter jets.

Are they legal?

Experts are split on whether these attacks are lawful or not. On the one hand, Donald Trump is not technically breaking American law. As president, he is designated “Commander in Chief” of the army, meaning he has the power to order attacks against military targets.

Even if Trump isn’t violating National law, he’s certainly breaking international law.

Prof Luke Moffett of Queen’s University Belfast, a human rights expert, claims that the attacks must be “reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials,” to count as self-defense. He claims the attacks are “unlawful under the law of the sea,” as the vessels were in international waters and posed no immediate violent threat to the US.

Prof Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin, another human rights expert, says that the US is “stretching the meaning of the term [self-defense] beyond it’s breaking point,” and that “Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law.”

Whether Trump is directly violating international law is irrelevant (we’ll direct your attention to international crimes committed in Palestine, Sudan, and Congo, all gone unenforced by the UN). What is relevant is the fact that innocent people are being killed. It’s been confirmed that at least three of the vessels sunk were ships being used by drug cartels, but at least three of them were not.

After three months of strikes ramping up exponentially, Venezuelan fishing boats live in constant fear of American attacks, and now that the strikes are happening to Colombian vessels and near Mexican shores, America is striking fear in fishermen all over the Caribbean Sea.