Author name: Peter Zambelli

Bret Baier Fact-Checks JB Pritzker Claim That Chicago Isn’t in Top 30 for Murders
News

Bret Baier Fact-Checks JB Pritzker Claim That Chicago Isn’t in Top 30 for Murders

/

Fox News anchor Bret Baier challenged Illinois Governor JB Pritzker during an interview Wednesday over the state’s handling of violent crime, confronting the Democrat with data showing that Chicago leads major U.S. cities in its murder rate.

The exchange occurred during an exclusive Fox News Channel segment where Baier questioned Pritzker’s claim that Chicago is “not even in the top 30” cities for murder rate.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier pleads with the crowd to quiet down to keep things moving at Fiserv Forum during the first 2023 Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2023.

“Well, here’s a map — most populous U.S. cities: 17.47 per 100,000 population. Chicago is number one over Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, and San Diego,” Baier told the governor.

Baier had begun the discussion by referencing a Fox News crime map comparing the murder rates among America’s largest cities. “Why does Chicago have the highest murder rate of all the big cities?” he asked.

Pritzker rejected that assessment. “Well, we are not in the top 30, in terms of our murder rate,” he said.

When Baier attempted to review the numbers, Pritzker interjected, stating, “Our murder rate has been cut in half over the last four years, and every year, it’s gone down by double digits. And if you look at all of the violent crime over the last four years, they’ve all gone down.”

Baier responded by reading from his data, showing that Chicago leads all major U.S. cities in murders per 100,000 residents. “No, no, no, these are murders,” Baier said.

According to data from Illinois-based research nonprofit Wirepoints, Chicago recorded 573 murders in 2024 — the highest total among all major U.S. cities. New York City reported 377 that same year, followed by Houston with 322.

Wirepoints also found that Chicago’s murder rate stood at 21.5 homicides per 100,000 residents in 2024, placing it sixth nationally overall but first among the top 20 most populated cities.

St. Louis, Missouri — a smaller city — ranked first in the nation with 52.9 homicides per 100,000 people, though its total murders that year were far lower at 149.

When confronted with those numbers, Pritzker replied, “Look, you can pull statistics up, I can too.”

Governor JB Pritzker

The governor continued, “I’m explaining to you, our murder rate has been cut in half and — very importantly Bret — you gotta hear this: very importantly, we’ve been doing the things that are necessary to bring crime down.”

Chicago Police Department preliminary data shows that murders in the city have dropped by roughly one-third between January and August 2025 compared to the same period in 2024.

While crime rates in certain categories have shown declines, Chicago continues to record the highest number of murders among the nation’s largest cities, making it a focal point in the debate over public safety and crime statistics in Democrat-led states.

Trump Secures Major Legal Win Over Gavin Newsom in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
News

Trump Secures Major Legal Win Over Gavin Newsom in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

/

President Donald Trump secured another legal victory against California Governor Gavin Newsom after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear a case challenging Trump’s authority to federalize National Guard troops during unrest in Los Angeles earlier this year.

In a brief order issued October 22, the Ninth Circuit denied California’s petition for an en banc rehearing in Newsom v. Trump, effectively upholding an earlier decision that affirmed the president’s authority to take command of state National Guard forces during domestic disturbances.

The ruling allows President Trump to retain command of approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops who were federalized under his order during protests that erupted in Los Angeles following federal immigration enforcement operations in June.

The legal dispute began after violent demonstrations broke out on June 6, 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out raids near the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.

The operation resulted in 44 arrests and as many as 80 detentions.

The protests that followed escalated into confrontations with law enforcement, with demonstrators throwing objects at officers and damaging federal property.

The next day, President Trump invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute permitting the president to call National Guard units into federal service “to protect federal personnel performing federal functions, and to protect federal property.”

The order activated 4,000 California National Guard members for a 60-day period to assist federal officers and maintain order around key federal facilities.

Governor Newsom immediately challenged the decision in court, arguing that the president had violated the law by failing to issue the order through the state governor, as required by statute.

Newsom claimed the move was unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power, asserting that the president had effectively seized state assets without proper consultation.

In August, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected Newsom’s argument, holding that the president acted within his statutory and constitutional authority.

The panel found that the federal government has broad discretion to assume command of state National Guard forces during periods of domestic unrest when federal property or personnel are threatened.

The governor sought a rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit, known for its historically liberal leanings.

On October 22, the court denied that request, stating that not enough judges supported further review.

The denial leaves intact the earlier ruling, which now stands as binding precedent within the circuit.

Legal analysts say the decision could have long-term implications for the relationship between the federal government and state governors during emergencies.

The ruling reinforces the president’s authority to act unilaterally when federal operations face security threats and local leaders refuse cooperation.

By declining to revisit the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively reaffirmed the limits of state resistance during federal operations and confirmed the president’s power to mobilize state troops when national interests are at stake.

The Department of Justice hailed the outcome as a critical affirmation of executive authority, emphasizing that the president’s power to ensure the protection of federal assets remains “clear and nonnegotiable under the Constitution.”

Governor Newsom’s office has not indicated whether he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal experts note that while an appeal remains possible, the Supreme Court has historically deferred to executive authority in matters involving the use of military or law enforcement power during civil unrest.

For the Trump administration, the decision marks another success in its ongoing disputes with California’s Democratic leadership, solidifying the president’s ability to act decisively in situations where state cooperation is withheld.

The ruling is expected to influence future federal responses to protests or riots that threaten federal property or personnel across the country.

Karoline Leavitt Schools CBS Reporter on White House Construction, Brings Historical Receipts
News

Karoline Leavitt Schools CBS Reporter on White House Construction, Brings Historical Receipts

/

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday displayed historical photographs of major White House construction projects after a CBS News reporter questioned whether President Donald Trump had the authority to carry out current renovations on the East Wing, as reported by the Independent Journal Review.

During the press briefing, CBS White House correspondent Weijia Jiang pressed Leavitt about the temporary demolition and ballroom construction on the White House grounds, implying that President Trump believed he could “tear down whatever he wants” without oversight.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt takes questions during the daily briefing in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2025.

Leavitt responded by showing documented examples of similar construction projects throughout history, noting that presidents have long overseen structural changes to the executive residence.

“So it sounds like the answer is yes, he can tear down whatever he wants,” Jiang said.

“I mean, that’s not what we’re saying. That’s a legal opinion that’s been held for many years,” Leavitt replied. “No, it’s something that presidents have done for years and years. In fact, I have some photos here to show you the construction that’s taken place on the White House grounds.”

Leavitt presented several photographs dating back more than a century, beginning with the construction of the West Wing in 1902 during President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration.

“Look at this — the construction of the West Wing in 1902. The construction of the West Terrace in 1902. These images look quite similar to what you and the American people are seeing today. The construction of the East Terrace as well,” she said.

She then continued, “Look at the construction of the West Wing expansion in 1934. So look, this is a legal opinion that’s been held for many years. Look, this is 1950.”

When Jiang continued pressing her, Leavitt pointed to a photograph of a gutted White House from the Truman-era renovation. “What do you think that rubble is? How did that rubble get there?” she asked.

Presidents have overseen extensive renovations to the White House since the early 1900s. In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt constructed the West Wing and made substantial changes to the East Room, State Dining Room, and Entrance Hall.

In 1909, President William Howard Taft expanded the West Wing and added the first Oval Office.

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt added a second floor to the West Wing and relocated the Oval Office to its current position. Facing structural damage years later, President Harry S. Truman gutted the building’s interior entirely, leaving only the exterior walls intact.

Subsequent presidents made their own additions: President Richard Nixon built the James S. Brady Briefing Room above the indoor swimming pool and added a bowling alley in the basement in 1973. President Barack Obama turned the tennis court into a basketball court in 2009.

Despite that history, several prominent Democrats — including Hillary Clinton, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — have accused President Trump of overstepping his authority by authorizing the new ballroom construction.

Hillary Clinton Gets Obliterated Over Furniture Scandal After Criticizing Trump’s White House Ballroom
News

Hillary Clinton Gets Obliterated Over Furniture Scandal After Criticizing Trump’s White House Ballroom

/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced swift backlash from conservatives after attacking President Donald Trump for his newly announced White House ballroom project — a privately funded modernization effort that comes at no cost to taxpayers, as reported by Fox News.

Clinton posted to X on Tuesday, accusing Trump of “destroying” the White House following reports that construction crews had begun demolishing the East Wing façade to begin work on a 90,000-square-foot ballroom capable of seating 650 guests.

“It’s not his house,” Clinton wrote. “It’s your house. And he’s destroying it.”

The post immediately drew attention from conservatives who pointed to the Clintons’ own history with the White House.

One of the favorites was the 2001 furniture controversy that erupted when the couple left office.

“At least he didn’t steal the silverware,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote on X in response to Clinton’s post.

In 2001, the Clintons were criticized for taking an estimated $28,000 in furnishings provided by donors and paying $86,000 for other gifts.

“Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher’s and curator’s offices,” the Clintons said in a statement at the time. “Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred … any item in question will be returned.”

“All of these items were considered gifts to us,” Hillary Clinton said at the time. “That’s what the permanent record of the White House showed. But if there is a different intent, we will certainly honor the intention of the donor.”

President Trump formally announced Monday that construction had begun on the new ballroom, describing it as part of a broader effort to modernize the East Wing.

“I am pleased to announce that ground has been broken on the White House grounds to build the new, big, beautiful White House Ballroom,” Trump said on Truth Social.

“Completely separate from the White House itself, the East Wing is being fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!”

The ballroom, according to the White House, is being financed entirely through private donations, with no taxpayer funds involved.

Conservative commentators and Trump supporters used Clinton’s post as an opportunity to revisit past scandals involving the former first family.

“Hi Hillary, remind us — wasn’t it you who walked off with $28,000 in White House furniture when you moved out?” conservative commentator Benny Johnson wrote. “And your husband who defiled the Oval Office during his presidency? President Trump’s funding a beautiful new ballroom out of his own pocket.”

Eric Trump also weighed in, responding directly to Clinton’s post: “The ballroom will be spectacular… unlike your work in Haiti.”

Other critics referenced Bill Clinton’s alleged practice of offering overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom to donors during his presidency.

“Yes, between selling nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to donors and her husband’s tutelage of the interns in the Oval Office, if anyone treated the WH as sacred it was the Clintons,” conservative writer Mark Hemingway said.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital that the ballroom construction represents long-overdue updates to the White House.

“President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense,” Ingle said. “These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People’s House.”

Clinton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Man Charged After ‘Political Trigger Moment’ Leads to Shooting at Trump Supporter
News

Man Charged After ‘Political Trigger Moment’ Leads to Shooting at Trump Supporter

/

A Georgia man has been arrested and extradited to North Carolina after allegedly tearing down a pro-Trump banner and firing multiple rounds toward the home of its owner, authorities confirmed this week.

The Swain County Sheriff’s Office identified the suspect as 37-year-old Benjamin Michael Campbell. He was taken into custody in Georgia on September 30 and extradited to North Carolina on October 7, where he is facing multiple felony charges.

According to investigators, the incident occurred on September 6 along U.S. Highway 19 in the Nantahala Gorge area of Swain County, North Carolina. Campbell was allegedly speeding when he spotted a pro-Trump flag displayed in the yard of homeowner Mark Thomas.

Thomas, 62, told The New York Post that Campbell “was driving along, saw the sign, slammed on his brakes — you know, had a political trigger moment — and he just had to tear the sign down.”

Surveillance footage captured from the property appears to show the suspect stopping his vehicle, removing the flag, and then firing several shots toward Thomas’s home through the sunroof of his car before fleeing the scene.

Thomas told the Daily Mail that he keeps firearms nearby for self-defense and quickly prepared to protect himself. “I have weapons for my protection and my enjoyment, and I keep them handy,” he said.

“You know, what good are they if you can’t get to them when you need them? So I reached over and grabbed my rifle.”

The Swain County Sheriff’s Office said the homeowner’s footage played a key role in identifying the suspect and coordinating with out-of-state authorities to locate him.

Campbell was arrested by law enforcement in Georgia and transported back to North Carolina, where he was booked into the Swain County Detention Center on October 7.

Campbell is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflict serious injury, discharging a firearm within an enclosure to incite fear, and willful and wanton injury to personal property. Each charge carries potential prison time under North Carolina law.

Following his arrest, the Swain County Sheriff’s Office released a statement emphasizing the importance of community vigilance. “We take threats of violence seriously, regardless of motivation, and are committed to holding perpetrators accountable,” officials said.

Thomas said the attack left him shaken but resolute in maintaining his right to display political signs. “I’m a Trump supporter,” he said. “No one died here in my yard, but flip the coin, snap your fingers, somebody could have died here. And it’s becoming much more common.”

He also drew comparisons to other recent acts of political violence, referencing the September 10, 2025, assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. Thomas called that incident “absolutely tragic,” suggesting both cases reflect an increasingly volatile climate.

After the shooting, Thomas replaced his damaged Trump banner with a new one. He said he refuses to be intimidated into silence and hopes that justice will be served.

Local officials have not disclosed further details about Campbell’s background or possible motives beyond what was captured on video. Authorities continue to investigate the incident and have urged residents to report suspicious behavior immediately to law enforcement.

Trump Scores Legal Win to Protect Portland After Local Leaders Let Antifa Run Wild
News

Trump Scores Legal Win to Protect Portland After Local Leaders Let Antifa Run Wild

/

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump may deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, to support law enforcement amid ongoing unrest and attacks on officers.

The decision allows Trump to move forward with the federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard members while a broader legal challenge continues.

In a 2–1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an Oct. 4 injunction that had blocked the deployment.

The court found that Trump “likely” acted within his constitutional authority when he directed the Guard to assist in restoring order around the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland.

The legal dispute began when Oregon’s Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield and the city of Portland filed a joint suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the president exaggerated the severity of recent protests and unlawfully intervened in state affairs.

Demonstrations outside the Portland ICE office in recent months have led to multiple arrests and reports of violence against law enforcement officers.

Federal law, the appeals court noted, “authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’”

The judges concluded that evidence presented by the Department of Justice supported the president’s decision to deploy additional personnel.

In a statement posted on X, Rayfield criticized the ruling, writing, “We are on a dangerous path in America. A panel of Ninth Circuit judges has chosen to not hold the president accountable.”

The appeals court cited multiple incidents of harassment and threats targeting federal employees stationed in Portland.

“Several ICE officers at the Portland [Enforcement Removal Operations] office have had their names, photographs, and home addresses posted publicly in several municipal locations and residential neighborhoods, along with threatening messages,” the ruling stated.

Judges also noted that local and state officials had been “unable or unwilling” to provide adequate protection for federal personnel and facilities.

“The continued deployment of [Federal Protective Services] officers to Portland is unsustainable,” the court added, emphasizing that escalating violence and a lack of coordination with local authorities necessitated federal action.

According to the FBI, there have been 195 arrests and citations near the ICE facility since June, including cases involving property destruction and assaults on federal agents.

Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the court’s decision Monday, calling it a significant victory for law enforcement and for the administration’s authority to ensure public safety.

“Today, the 9th Circuit found that [President Trump] has the right to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, where local leaders have failed to keep their citizens safe,” Bondi wrote on X.

“This follows hard work by [Department of Justice] attorneys and helps re-affirm a simple truth: President Trump is the Commander-in-Chief. We will continue fighting and winning in court to defend President Trump’s agenda,” Bondi added.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision marks the latest development in a series of legal battles over federal intervention in cities facing prolonged unrest.

The panel’s ruling allows National Guard troops to begin coordinated operations in Portland while the court considers further arguments in the ongoing case.

Kamala Harris Declares Herself ‘Most Qualified Candidate in U.S. History,’ Fox News Anchor Destroys Her
News

Kamala Harris Declares Herself ‘Most Qualified Candidate in U.S. History,’ Fox News Anchor Destroys Her

/

Kamala Harris drew widespread attention last week after declaring during an interview that she may be the “most qualified” person ever to run for president.

Harris made the remarks during an interview with journalist Kara Swisher, recorded before a live audience, in which she listed her previous positions in public office as evidence of her credentials.

“The fact that I was elected District Attorney for two terms as the first woman elected Attorney General of the state of California,” Harris said.

“I ran the second largest department of justice in the United States, second only to the United States Department of Justice.”

She continued by noting her election to the U.S. Senate and her position in the current administration.

“I was the United States Senator, second black woman elected in the history of the United States Senate,” Harris said, drawing applause from the crowd.

“I was the first woman vice president of the United States.”

Harris then added, “Some people have said I was the most qualified candidate ever to run for president,” prompting another round of cheers from the audience.

The comments quickly spread online, where critics and political commentators questioned her claim and compared her résumé to previous U.S. presidents and presidential contenders.

Fox News anchor Dana Perino was among those who responded, pointing to historical examples of leaders with longer or more diverse experience in government.

“Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, served as governor of Virginia, minister to France, secretary of state and vice president and we could go on and on,” Perino said.

She continued, “George H. W. Bush: congressman, ambassador, envoy to China, CIA director, VP, WWII combat pilot.” Perino added, “And even Joe Biden had more qualifications than she did.”

Harris’s interview comes as she continues to face scrutiny over her leadership record and approval ratings heading into the 2024 general election.

Democrats formally selected her as their presidential nominee in July 2024 following Joe Biden’s decision to step aside after months of internal debate within the party.

Before becoming vice president, Harris served as California’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017 and as a U.S. senator from 2017 until her inauguration as vice president in January 2021.

Her record as attorney general included high-profile initiatives on criminal justice reform, consumer protection, and environmental enforcement, though she has faced criticism from both political opponents and progressive activists over her handling of certain cases during that period.

During the interview, Harris emphasized her career trajectory as proof of her qualifications and experience in national leadership.

“I ran the second largest department of justice in the United States,” she said again while reflecting on her tenure as California’s attorney general.

“I was the United States senator, second black woman elected in the history of the United States Senate.”

The vice president’s comments follow a series of recent public appearances aimed at reintroducing her to voters in key battleground states ahead of the general election.

Her campaign has focused on themes of equality, economic opportunity, and national security, while opponents have criticized her for what they describe as a lack of clarity and consistency on policy issues.

As Harris continues to campaign for the presidency, her claim of being the “most qualified candidate ever to run for president” remains a focal point of political discussion.

The remark has generated both strong support from Democratic audiences and pointed skepticism from across the political spectrum.

Kamala Harris Calls Biden’s Snub of Elon Musk a ‘Big Mistake’ at 2021 EV Event
Democrats

Kamala Harris Calls Biden’s Snub of Elon Musk a ‘Big Mistake’ at 2021 EV Event

/

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has publicly criticized Joe Biden’s decision to exclude Elon Musk from a 2021 White House event on electric vehicles, calling the move a “big mistake.”

Harris made the comments Tuesday during Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington, D.C., where she discussed her new memoir 107 Days and reflected on policy missteps from the administration she once served, as reported by The New York Post.

Vice-President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden attend 23rd anniversary commemoration at 9-11 memorial in New York on September 11, 2024

“I write in the book that I thought it was a big mistake to not invite Elon Musk when we did a big EV event,” Harris said in her interview with Fortune Editor-in-Chief Alyson Shontell. “I mean, here he is, the major American manufacturer of extraordinary innovation in this space.”

In August 2021, Biden hosted executives from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler parent company Stellantis to promote a goal of making half of all new vehicles sold by 2030 zero-emission.

Tesla — the nation’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer — was not invited. Then–White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters at the time that the event featured “the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers,” a pointed reference to Tesla’s non-unionized workforce.

When pressed on whether the omission was intentional, Psaki replied, “I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.”

Musk, whose company produced more electric vehicles than all three automakers combined, reacted on X, writing, “Yeah, seems odd that Tesla wasn’t invited.” Weeks later, he called the Biden administration “not the friendliest” and said it appeared “controlled by unions.”

Frederic Legrand – COMEO – Shutterstock.com

Harris told the Fortune audience that political loyalty should never override acknowledgment of innovation. “I thought that was a mistake, and I don’t know Elon Musk, but I have to assume that that was something that hit him hard and had an impact on his perspective,” she said.

Her comments echo a passage in 107 Days, where she writes that the administration’s decision alienated Musk, who later became one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent financial backers.

During the 2024 election cycle, Musk contributed nearly $300 million to Republican-aligned political groups, including America PAC, which supported President Trump’s reelection effort.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Tesla officials sought multiple meetings with the White House after the 2021 inauguration but were repeatedly rebuffed amid union pressure.

After learning Tesla would be excluded from the event, administration officials reportedly called the company to apologize.

A month later, Biden credited GM’s CEO Mary Barra with having “electrified the entire automobile industry,” a remark that angered Musk, whose company had delivered over 115,000 electric vehicles in the United States that same quarter, compared with GM’s 26,000.

White House aides later attempted to repair the relationship by arranging calls between Musk and senior officials, though tensions remained.

At the Fortune event, Harris also criticized early Biden administration priorities, saying the White House focused too heavily on infrastructure and semiconductor legislation rather than addressing immediate economic pressures.

“When we made the decision as an administration to put the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act first, I actually think that was a mistake,” she said. “Very important work, no question, but we did that before putting the immediate needs ahead of anything else.”

Her remarks come as Biden, now 82, undergoes radiation and hormone therapy for Stage 4 prostate cancer. He was seen Saturday leaving evening Mass in Wilmington, Delaware, marking his first public appearance since treatment began.

Aides said his condition is “high-grade” but hormone-sensitive.

The Post has sought comment from both Biden and Musk regarding Harris’s statements.

Police Investigate Prince Andrew After Email About Virginia Giuffre Emerges
News

Police Investigate Prince Andrew After Email About Virginia Giuffre Emerges

/

London’s Metropolitan Police have launched an investigation into allegations that Prince Andrew asked a protection officer to gather damaging information about Virginia Giuffre, the woman who accused him of sexual abuse connected to Jeffrey Epstein, as reported by The New York Post.

A spokesperson for The Met confirmed to The Times of London that authorities are “aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made.”

The allegations surfaced after reports that the prince, now stripped of his royal title as Duke of York, sent an email in 2011 to Queen Elizabeth II’s deputy press secretary, the late Ed Perkins.

In that message, Andrew reportedly stated he had provided Giuffre’s personal information — including her date of birth and Social Security number — to an on-duty personal protection officer for investigation.

According to The Times, the communication occurred roughly a decade after Giuffre claimed she was forced to have sex with Andrew during his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The email exchange also took place shortly before the release of a 2001 photo showing the prince with his arm around a then-17-year-old Giuffre, with Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell appearing in the background.

It remains unclear whether the officer carried out the request, but legal experts cited by The Times said the alleged action could represent “a breach of [Giuffre’s] right to privacy” and could carry “legal implications” for the prince.

Giuffre’s family disputed the claim that she had any criminal record, telling the Daily Mail that the emails reveal “the lengths to which those implicated try to discredit and defame survivors.” The family added, “The truth will surface and there will be no shadows in which they can hide.”

Giuffre, known as one of Epstein’s most prominent victims, died by suicide in April at age 41 after years of publicly accusing Prince Andrew of sexual assault when she was a minor.

She had filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew in 2021, and the case was settled in 2022 for a reported $12 million. At the time, Andrew denied the allegations, but Queen Elizabeth removed his military honors amid the fallout.

On Friday, Andrew announced he would no longer use his titles of Duke of York or Knight of the Order of the Garter.

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first,” he said in a statement, noting that the decision was made after discussions with King Charles III and other family members.

The move came as royal aides reportedly sought to prevent Andrew’s ongoing controversies from overshadowing King Charles and Queen Camilla’s upcoming state visit to the Vatican — a historic event marking the first joint prayer between a British monarch and the pope since the Reformation.

Biden Mouthpiece Karine Jean Pierre Unloads on the Democratic Party
News

Biden Mouthpiece Karine Jean Pierre Unloads on the Democratic Party

/

Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she left the Democratic Party and registered as an independent, citing frustration and disillusionment with how Democrats treated Joe Biden after his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.

The revelation comes from her upcoming memoir, Independent, which is scheduled for release later this year.

In excerpts obtained by Newsweek, Jean-Pierre described her reaction to the phone call in which then-President Biden informed his staff that he was ending his re-election campaign.

The decision came in July 2024, following weeks of pressure from within the Democratic Party after his debate performance against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“Biden seemed to be totally at peace with his decision, but I was stunned, my feelings a blur,” Jean-Pierre wrote.

“I was angry and sad. I was enraged and heartbroken that this man had given more than 50 years of his life to serving the American people, and in the end he’d been treated poorly by members of his own party. It was horrible.”

Jean-Pierre, who served as White House Press Secretary from May 2022 until early 2025, said she had spent years defending Biden’s leadership and abilities from behind the briefing room podium.

She acknowledged that she never expected him to withdraw from the race and felt betrayed by how quickly party leaders moved to push him aside.

“The Democratic Party had defined my life, my career,” she wrote.

“Everything I’d done to make people’s lives better had been connected to it. The party was the vehicle that allowed me not just to have a front seat to history, working first on [Barack] Obama’s presidential campaign then in his administration, but also to make some history of my own as the first Black woman and openly queer person to ever be a White House press secretary. Never had I considered leaving the party until now.”

According to Jean-Pierre, the turning point came shortly after Biden’s announcement.

She recalled planning to make her first television appearance since his withdrawal on The View, the ABC daytime talk show.

During that time, she began to reconsider her relationship with the Democratic Party and what she described as its culture of political conformity.

“Now the cloud of unease hovering over me solidified into an idea about how I could possibly do something different,” Jean-Pierre wrote.

“How I could channel my disappointment into some kind of concrete action that would allow me to fight for what I believed in without giving blind loyalty to a party I felt no longer deserved it.”

In the book, she recounted the moment she decided to change her political registration.

“‘You know what? I’m going to become an independent. I don’t think I can stomach being in the Democratic Party anymore,’” she wrote.

Jean-Pierre accused party operatives and strategists of orchestrating what she called a “firing squad” against Biden in the final weeks of his campaign, saying Democrats turned on him despite his decades of public service.

She said that pressure from within his own party ultimately forced Biden to step aside.

Jean-Pierre publicly announced her decision to leave the Democratic Party in June, coinciding with the promotion of her memoir.

Before joining the Biden-Harris administration, she worked as a senior advisor for MoveOn.org, served in the Obama White House, and appeared as a political analyst on MSNBC.

She also played key roles in multiple Democratic presidential campaigns, including Barack Obama’s and Kamala Harris’s.

Her departure marks one of the highest-profile defections from the Democratic Party since Biden’s withdrawal.

In Independent, Jean-Pierre writes that her move is not about abandoning political engagement but about reclaiming her own values after what she viewed as a profound betrayal.


Scroll to Top