Connect with us

Politics

How a top DC strategist courted Jeffrey Epstein

Published

on

How a top DC strategist courted Jeffrey Epstein

Leading Washington strategist Juleanna Glover publicly argued for a third-party presidential candidate halfway through Donald Trump’s first term, calling for a “morally lucid” leader akin to abolitionist Abraham Lincoln.

At the same time, she was privately trading emails with Jeffrey Epstein — a decade after he went to jail on child prostitution charges — to share possible presidential tickets “outside the partisan lanes.”

Glover even offered some “radical combinations” in an August 2018 email to a group of “third party thinkers” she then forwarded to Epstein via his now infamous address jeevacation@gmail.com. Her list of dream tickets mixed and matched figures like former Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg, former Republican Govs. Larry Hogan of Maryland and Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates, coincidentally an Epstein associate himself.

Glover proposed: “Biden/Romney? Bill Gates/Hogan? Bloomberg/Haley? Howard Schultz/Bob Corker? Sandberg/Kasich?”

Advertisement

Their correspondence about centrist fantasy politics was only a small piece of a professional and political relationship that stretched across more than a year. Their workaday messages about third party campaigns, conversations that could have easily been with a well-regarded opinion columnist, underline the degree to which a large number of influential people treated Epstein as if he was just another rich guy to be courted rather than a convicted sex criminal with a troublesome reputation.

Glover, who has long been a leading Never Trump figure, told POLITICO in an interview that her motivation for engaging with Epstein was solely focused on unearthing any potential information that could sink Trump’s reelection.

Despite that claim, there are no emails between Glover and Epstein that show her soliciting information from him about Trump. While she referred POLITICO to a fellow Never Trumper to corroborate that motivation, a second person involved in some of her interactions with Epstein at the time, said they were not aware of her approach.

And in an interview, Glover acknowledged she had also asked Epstein for help in a business matter in 2017 involving her then-most prominent client, Elon Musk, and Saudi Arabia. In one Tesla-related email, Glover said that if Epstein was advising any sovereign wealth funds wanting to help “a prominent company go private,” she could help. In the second email to Glover, Epstein criticized Musk for not being “fluent” in how to deal with Middle Easterners’ “bluster” and “bloviating bragging” after Saudi funding did not come through.

Advertisement

Glover took a stab at helping reintroduce Epstein to parts of mainstream society and made a brief attempt to fashion him into a champion of democracy, arranging a meeting with the head of the nonprofit group Freedom House in 2017. And it wasn’t just Glover advising Epstein — he also offered suggestions on how to talk to New York Times reporters writing about Musk’s rumored drug use.

Glover’s and Epstein’s relationship encompassed several dozen emails, two in-person meetings and a number of calls, according to a POLITICO review of the Epstein files released by the Department of Justice. Her name returns 191 results in the files, although many mentions are duplicates.

Glover characterized the relationship as a limited series of interactions comprised of 31 emails that she sent him, of which 12 dealt with logistics and 15 regarded Tesla. (The Tesla emails showed that Glover was leveraging the relationship with Epstein to help her client.) She said they had two meetings and three calls. She said the remaining were two emails on third party politics, one on MAGA stalwart Steve Bannon and the last connecting Epstein to a pro-democracy nonprofit. Glover said that he was never a client and she “never took anything of value from him.”

Their dynamic, catalogued here in full for the first time, further demonstrates the expansive reach of the late sex offender’s connections across the political spectrum. His Rolodex ranged from moderate former Republicans like Glover to Bannon and giants of the American left like Noam Chomsky.

Advertisement

Glover, a former aide in the George W. Bush White House and an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, had by 2017 largely moved on from professional electoral politics and built a thriving practice as an adviser to executives and corporations seeking to navigate the media landscape.

Her townhouse in Kalorama is a gathering place for a wide array of D.C. operators, think tankers, campaign funders and journalists. She has built goodwill across the town and a thriving personal network in part with her willingness to host book parties, new job celebrations and more: Indeed — she was a co-host of an engagement party in 2023 for the author of this article, and has thrown book parties for multiple past and present POLITICO reporters.

Glover consulted for Axel Springer, POLITICO’s owner, several years ago, according to a company spokesperson.

‘Captive’ to Elon Musk

Glover came to know Epstein through another type of fixer who was also advising him on PR strategies. The journalist Michael Wolff, a shared acquaintance of the two, first mentioned Glover to Epstein in March 2017 as she was consulting for Musk.

Advertisement

“I rolled the dice when Michael Wolff asked me to meet with Epstein against the backdrop of Epstein talking publicly about Trump,” she said in a statement. “My interactions with Epstein were in service to that objective; not to help him in any way or improve his image. Wolff was seemingly positioning me as someone smart enough for him to take advice from.

“To wit, I repeatedly steered Epstein to talk to top investigative journalists including Jim Stewart of the NY Times and Epstein eventually did so, ultimately talking to Stewart about writing his book. I never knew what Epstein was planning to say, but a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist almost found out,” she said, referring to Stewart.

At the time of her interactions with Epstein about Stewart, Musk’s move to try to take Tesla private led to a Securities and Exchange Commission probe and rumors of drug use. He needed all the communications help he could get.

“[T]here’s a Washington PR type named Juleanna Glover with whom you might want to ch=t,” Wolff wrote to Epstein that spring. “Elon Musk basically owns her now and I’m not sure she can take on o=her clients, but she will have a valuable perspective on how you get to wh=ere you want to be.”

Advertisement

Two months later with the subject line “More PR,” Wolff reminded Epstein that they had spoken about Glover, reupping the Musk connection.

“She’s captive to him, so not hireable. But she’s exceedingly smart and well connected and has interesting things to say,” he wrote. “She can offer an extremely informed overview on how to think about larger steps. Not so much about the trial per se, but going forward. Anyway she is in NYC on Thursday with some time if you wanted me to arrange a meeting.”

Within an hour, Epstein wrote back, “Yes please.”

Three days later, Epstein, Glover and Wolff had lunch together on a day that Epstein was set to have breakfast with private equity investor Leon Black and dinner with director Woody Allen and his wife Soon Yi Previn, according to his schedule. (Black has been accused of sexual assault by two women but has denied all allegations.)

Advertisement

Wolff has written books critical of the president and in 2016 even told Epstein “you’re the Trump bullet” to stop his rise given their former relationship. Last November, Wolff posted an Instagram video in which he said, “These two men, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, had the closest of relationships for more than a decade.”

Trump has said he wasn’t involved in any of Epstein’s criminal activity and that they had a falling out years ago. Epstein was once a frequent visitor at Mar-a-Lago and court records indicate that Trump flew at least once on one of Epstein’s planes and his phone numbers were in Epstein’s directory. There’s no evidence to suggest Trump took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation.

Wolff said in a statement that he worked on an effort with Glover to get Trump to publicly respond to questions about his relationship with Epstein during the 2016 presidential campaign. Glover said that Wolff had called her in the fall of 2015 to try to have reporters ask Trump about Epstein. That’s why Wolff emailed Epstein that year regarding how Trump might handle questions about their shared history.

“In 2017, I encouraged Juleanna to see Epstein in the hope that she might help convince him to go public about what he knew about Trump,” he said. “I believe she suggested to Epstein that Jim Stewart at the Times would be receptive.”

Advertisement

Glover referred POLITICO to an anti-Trump political consultant, Rick Wilson, with whom she had been in touch about Epstein in 2015, years before her correspondence with Epstein began.

Wilson told POLITICO that he and Glover had a phone call in the fall of 2015 to try to figure out if Epstein had any dirt on Trump.

“She’s a great communicator, and that’s why people seek her out, and that’s why she was so valuable in this anti-Trump fight at the time,” he said. “She was definitely in the pursuit of trying to stop Trump.”

In the summer of 2018 she asked Epstein about Stewart, who was writing a piece on Musk.

Advertisement

“Do you like Jim Stewart?” she wrote to Epstein in August 2018. “Will send him to you for deep backgound [sic] convo if y=u like? But only if you like.”

“[N]o thanks,” Epstein replied. “I live in dark background.”

During several days in August, the two exchanged emails and calls about Musk, who was looking for wealthy investors to buy out shareholders.

“If you are advising re: sovereign wealth funds looking to help a prominent company go private, let me know if I can help w any approp additional information,” she wrote Epstein on Aug. 12.

Advertisement

“Clever,” he replied. She also offered a primer on how Tesla’s Autopilot worked.

Epstein passed along names of potential candidates to join Tesla’s board, suggesting former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler and Margaret Thatcher, not realizing she had been dead for five years. (Summers and Ruemmler have apologized for their connections to Epstein and left their jobs after their ties to him were highlighted in the files.)

Epstein also offered to “help shape your story” and gave Glover advice on how Musk should talk on the record to Stewart or then-Times reporter Landon Thomas Jr. about the situation.

“Will try,” Glover replied.

Advertisement

Two days after Epstein’s death, Stewart wrote a column recounting a meeting he had with Epstein in which he claimed to know information about wealthy and famous people that was “potentially damaging or embarrassing, including details about their supposed sexual proclivities and recreational drug use.”

Thomas Jr. left the Times in 2019 after he solicited a major charitable gift from Epstein, who’d been a source, according to an investigation by NPR and a statement the publication made to the New York Post. Thomas Jr. declined to comment to NPR and didn’t respond to a request for comment from POLITICO.

Stewart said in a statement that he wasn’t aware at the time of any relationship between Glover and Epstein and didn’t know about anything Epstein might have told her.

“As I would with any potential source, I reached out to Epstein because I’d heard he was recruiting board members for Tesla at the behest of Musk,” he said. “Epstein wanted to meet in person, so I went to his townhouse. (I subsequently wrote about that encounter.) I don’t recall using anything Epstein had to say in any story about Musk. He certainly didn’t ‘shape’ any story I was involved in.”

Advertisement

Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades-Ha said in a statement that Thomas Jr. hadn’t worked at the Times since 2019 “after editors discovered his failure to abide by our ethical standards. Times editors were not aware at the time of Thomas’s now-public emails with Epstein.”

Referring to Musk, Epstein told her that he only said “great things about your boy” while sharing that “some of the papers are looking into whether you [sic] boy was on drugs.” He then asked Glover if there are “different colors of cocaine. ? ! ectasy [sic]. (I know zero about drugs).”

“Nothing to it,” she replied. “He barely even drinks.” She acknowledged three days later, “Oh and re burning man, he hasn’t gone in years but may go w his musician girlfriend the last weekend in aug – that is the best the rumor mongers can do.”

After the Times published the interview, Elon Musk Details ‘Excruciating’ Personal Toll of Tesla Turmoil, Epstein emailed Glover, saying “good work – interview apart from the one short seller comment. :)”

Advertisement

Glover responded: “Glad you think it improves situation.”

The exchanges about Musk show how their relationship was a give-and-take compared to a more formal adviser-client set up with Epstein giving positive feedback to one of the nation’s leading communications strategists on her own media approach. At the same time, Glover also steadfastly defended her client, insisting he didn’t do drugs less than a month before he smoked marijuana live on The Joe Rogan Experience.

Glover said that her interactions with Epstein about Musk came during a tense time as Tesla’s leadership was pushing hard to take the company private, which Musk had announced the Saudis and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman were key to getting done.

“Epstein had bragged that he was close to MBS, so I reached out,” she told POLITICO. “Musk was unaware that I’d done so. I shared publicly available information about the company, with the intent that Epstein would advise the Saudis to hold steady on their commitment to Musk to take the company private. I was trying to encourage him to weigh in with the Saudis to keep their word to Musk. I do not believe he was in any way useful to this effort as there are no known communications with MBS in the DOJ files.”

Advertisement

Musk didn’t respond to requests for comment.

An attempt at a pro-democracy rehabilitation

Glover’s firm Ridgely Walsh emphasizes “bespoke public affairs services” and the DOJ files reveal the kind of strategic matchmaking services she might offer clients. For Epstein, who needed to burnish his image, she found an advocacy group in need of funding.

After their first lunch meeting in May 2017, Epstein thanked Glover for her time and said he was happy to meet the leadership of the democracy nonprofit Freedom House as he tried to overhaul his public reputation after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor and was sentenced to 18 months in jail. (He served 13 months on a work release program that allowed him to go to his office during most days.)

“The pro- democracy fund=ng is a good idea, no matter what positive fallout it may have on me perso=ally,” he wrote.

Advertisement

He also invited Glover and a guest to see the Tony-award winning play Oslo, in which he bragged that he had bought out the entire Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center so that many U.N. diplomats could attend. “[Y]ou would be part of the private gatherings. Many interesting people will attend,” he noted.

Glover doesn’t appear to have replied to Epstein’s invitation but seven weeks later she told Epstein she had secured a date for Michael Abramowitz, the then-head of Freedom House, to come see him. They were all supposed to meet in person on July 24, but Epstein ended up being out of town so the three joined a call. Glover, who has long worked for international dissidents of various stripes, connected the two via email after the call with Abramowitz responding, “nice to meet you. Talk soon I hope.”

A month later, Abramowitz emailed Epstein, saying he hoped he had a good summer and had enjoyed talking to him. While he sent four attachments about the organization, Epstein had the brusque reply “thx” with a link to an article on HuffPost promoting his work funding scientists. (The articleno longer appears on HuffPost.)

The pair ups didn’t always work, although for Freedom House the mismatch turned out to be a positive. Numerous politicians have had to give away Epstein donations to charitable causes and other figures associated with the late sex offender have lost their jobs or resigned from posts.

Advertisement

Freedom House referred a request for comment to Abramowitz.

“I was asked to have a conversation with him about philanthropy,” Abramowitz said in a statement. “It was a brief phone call, and Freedom House never accepted money from him.”

Glover said she connected Epstein to Abramowitz because Epstein was interested in funding nonprofits. Glover and her firm have experience working with pro-democracy efforts including work on the Magnitsky Act, much of which she does pro-bono. (The Magnitsky Act allows the U.S. government to punish foreign officials for human rights abuses.)

“We do much work in the pro-democracy space, so I asked Freedom House to talk to Epstein about what overseas nonprofits might prove to be the most effective in supporting democracy efforts in Russia and Eastern Europe (at that time Russians were in the streets in large numbers protesting Putin),” she said.

Advertisement

“There was was also growing awareness about Putin directing interference in the U.S. 2016 election and the U.S. was certainly not going to step up to support free elections given Trump’s growing closeness to Putin so I suggested Epstein do it,” Glover said.

“I suspected these foreign groups would welcome his money in their vital, but cash-strapped work,” she added. “I have apologized to the good leaders of Freedom House for connecting this storied institution to this monster. Nothing came of that conversation. Epstein of course lied about his intent and/or ability to marshal money.”

A warning about Steve Bannon

There were tensions embedded in Epstein’s relationship with Glover, a classic establishment GOP operator, and his similarly newfound friendship with Bannon, the conservative firebrand who was separately giving him strategic advice. It’s an illustration of Epstein’s success at cracking the political world that he was able to maintain relations with both of them.

In their 2018 correspondence about unconventional presidential tickets, Epstein took care to write “(not bannon)” when telling Glover that his other “friends with great knowledge of the system” thought the third party idea was “brilliant.”

Advertisement

Glover replied back with a link to a New York Times op-ed she authored about third parties “that says something of the same.”

In December 2018, Epstein replied back to a blast from Glover sharing a POLITICO Magazine op-ed she had written about how Joe Biden should run on a unity ticket with Mitt Romney.

“[Y]ou are right of course,” Epstein wrote.

Months earlier, Glover passed along a request by the BBC to put the outlet in touch with Wolff about Epstein. Wolff forwarded it to Epstein, who told him to get more information on the matter.

Advertisement

“On the job,” Wolff replied.

Glover emailed him to say she was going to be in New York City the next day and wanted to check in. Epstein wrote back that he “would have loved to however i am in the caribean [sic] please try again next time.”

“Will do,” Glover replied. “Take care.”

In April, Glover checked in again to ask if Epstein would be free in a few days in New York City, adding “Hope all is well.” He told her he was not in town that day. But the two met up in July after Glover emailed him again asking if he was in Manhattan, adding “Hope all is great.”

Advertisement

On her way to the meeting at his Upper East Side mansion, she apologized for being a few minutes late, saying “I am so sorry!”

Among the topics of discussion at their meeting was Epstein’s dealings with Bannon.

“On reflection, I don’t think any good can come from Steve being in your sphere,” Glover wrote to Epstein the next day. “I have only met him once but there is a malice and manipulative vengeful nature there that can only cause you harm. He will use his access to you to leverage something unwelcome – not sure what, but he’s conjuring dark forces and access to you is only energizing him.”

Epstein thanked her, and added, “I will take advice.” (Despite telling her that, hecontinued to talk to Bannon up until his arrest the next year on new sex trafficking charges and sat down for interviews with Bannon for a documentary he was making.)

Advertisement

Asked why she had warned Epstein about Bannon, Glover told POLITICO that Epstein had mentioned to her he was seeing Bannon later in the day during their July 2018 meeting. “I warned Epstein away from Bannon, as I thought Bannon would block Epstein from saying what he knew about Trump,” she said.

A spokesperson for Bannon declined to comment.

The last instance of Glover in the files is in March 2019 when Epstein emailed hera link to a letter to the editor of the Times that his four lawyers had written defending Epstein and saying “the number of young women involved in the investigation has been vastly exaggerated.” It continued that the earlier “case lacked the credible and compelling proof that is required by federal criminal statutes.”

She did not reply.

Advertisement

He died by suicide in his New York jail cell five months later on Aug. 10, 2019.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

HuffPost Headlines 3-13 | HuffPost UK Videos

Published

on

HuffPost Headlines 3-13 | HuffPost UK Videos

Katherine Heigl faces the public’s fury after a trip to Mar-a-Lago, Timothée Chalamet continues to face backlash and reporter Alanna Vagianos talks about her new HuffPost article “When Miscarriage Is Recast As Murder”— just some of the stories HuffPost is following today.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Mandelson files and Starmer’s ‘protection racket’

Published

on

Mandelson files and Starmer's 'protection racket'

In his latest ‘smoking-gun, the Canary’s Ranjan Balakumaran examines the partial release of the Mandelson files. These files concern Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Jefferey Epstein fanboy, Peter Mandelson to top-tier government positions.

Balakumaran shows that beyond turning a blind eye to Mandelson’s seedy relationship with serial child-rapist, Downing Street’s negligible actions go further.

The rules in place to protect British national security were suspended to allow Mandelson to participate in, and profit from, highly sensitive briefings, meetings, and intelligence. A coordinated “protection racket” for Blaire’s disciples, by Starmer’s handlers.

The Labour party’s increasingly cartel-mindset and the ensuing damage of the Mandelson is yet to receive the attention it deserves. Starmer, in particular, has been left of the hook.

Advertisement

Balakumaran can be viewed in full below.

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

There's a new wedge issue playing out in Senate Dem primaries

Published

on

There's a new wedge issue playing out in Senate Dem primaries

Democrats in competitive primaries keep fighting about corporate PAC money. It has opened up a muddy and sometimes performative debate.

The issue has played out in contested Senate primaries, where Democrats have pledged not to accept corporate PAC money to signal their support for campaign finance reform and show voters that they are not beholden to special interests. Among the Democrats seeking to distinguish themselves: Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton in Illinois, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, and both state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.

Corporate PACs, which raise money from their employees and distribute it to candidates, usually give in similar amounts to Republicans and Democrats. For several cycles, a growing number of Democratic candidates have sworn off the money, citing the outsized influence of business interests on politics.

But for many, the pledges not to take the money are mostly symbolic. Candidates who aren’t currently in office receive almost no corporate PAC donations anyway, as more than 99 percent of those funds have gone to sitting senators or representatives this cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission. And rejecting one specific type of donation doesn’t actually mean candidates can’t receive support from outside interests — often in much larger amounts than corporate PACs are allowed to send.

Advertisement

Corporate PAC money can also still end up indirectly supporting new candidates: A majority of Democratic senators receive the funding, as do official party groups, both of which donate to and otherwise help Senate hopefuls.

As a result, the escalating debate over corporate PAC money has comparatively little impact on Democratic candidates’ ability to raise money — but it has created an opening for heated attacks from all sides.

Stratton rejected donations from corporate PACs, but millions of dollars in support she has received from a super PAC has been the focus of a flurry of attack ads from Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), one of her top rivals who himself has received millions in super PAC support. Flanagan and McMorrow have both faced criticism for accepting corporate money in past roles, despite their pledges not to do so in their respective Senate races now.

While the push by some Democrats to reject corporate money goes back several cycles, even emerging as a point of contention in the party’s 2020 presidential primary, the focus in Senate primaries is newer.

Advertisement

For Democrats looking for any advantage in crowded races, rejecting the money carries potential electoral benefits. Polling shows the issue resonates not only with a Democratic base interested in money-in-politics reform but also with independent and Republican voters.

“Pledging to forego corporate PAC money is one way that candidates signal to voters that they reject business as usual in Washington and want to work to fix our broken campaign finance system,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Still, “even when a candidate rejects a PAC check, there are still ways for corporate interests to curry favor,” Beckel said.

The debate among Democrats comes at a time when corporate PACs account for a smaller share of funds influencing races. Corporate PACs face strict limits for their political giving, $5,000 per cycle, a number that has not changed in decades, even as individual giving limits are indexed to inflation. Far more funds now flow through super PACs — which candidates are free to criticize but don’t have to reject.

Advertisement

And the questions are unlikely to fade: The Democratic National Committee has sought to explore how it could limit corporate money, along with harder-to-trace “dark money” that flows through nonprofit groups, in the party’s 2028 presidential primary.

“I think it just shows this fundamental shift even inside the Democratic Party, that running on anti-corruption is no longer a niche position,” said Tiffany Mueller, president of End Citizens United, which backs Democrats supportive of campaign finance reform and has, since 2018, had candidates sign pledges that include a promise to reject corporate PAC money.

The group’s pledge this cycle, which includes several money-in-politics reforms, has gotten signers quicker than past pledges, Mueller said.

In Illinois, where early voting is already underway ahead of Tuesday’s primary, Stratton has made rejecting corporate PAC money a key component of her campaign in a three-way primary against Krishnamoorthi and Rep. Robin Kelly. The lieutenant governor, who was endorsed by End Citizens United, accused both opponents of benefiting from a “broken” campaign finance system.

Advertisement

“I’m the only candidate rejecting corporate PAC money, because my campaign is about the people of Illinois, not special interests,” she said in a statement.

Kelly, in an interview, defended her own record of accepting some donations from corporate PACs, saying that the funds over the years supported Democrats and never influenced her voting record. She noted the much greater flow of super PAC money supporting both of her opponents.

“When I came to Congress, I didn’t know my dues were going to be the level that they were. I didn’t know that I was expected to give money to my other colleagues, or people that wanted to be my colleagues,” Kelly said. “And frankly, the money I collect, that’s where a lot of it has gone through the years, paying dues to the DCCC.”

While Stratton has sought to carve out a lane as the reformer, Krishnamoorthi’s campaign has gone after her finances, with ads running on both television and digital accusing her of taking “corporate and MAGA money” and calling attention to a super PAC backing her. Krishnamoorthi’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Stratton has benefited from $11.8 million from a super PAC linked to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, with additional support from the Democratic Lieutenant Governor’s Association. Meanwhile Fairshake, backed by major cryptocurrency interests, has spent nearly $10 million attacking her to help Krishnamoorthi.

The scrutiny on corporate PAC money in primaries comes as a majority of sitting Democratic senators continue to take those donations for their campaigns and leadership PACs. That includes several senators who have actively been endorsing in the primaries, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Ct.), who has endorsed Flanagan in Minnesota, and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who has endorsed both Flanagan and McMorrow.

Corporate PACs can — and do — give larger donations to party committees. That has been a point of conflict in Minnesota, where opponent Rep. Angie Craig has hit Flanagan for corporate PAC donations accepted by the DLGA while she was its chair. The group is now backing her campaign along with Stratton’s.

Flanagan’s campaign has said she did not have sole decision-making power over the DLGA’s donors. In a statement to POLITICO, a spokesperson for Flanagan accused Craig of “trying to distract from the fact that she’s taken millions of dollars from corporations and special interests.”

Advertisement

“Peggy is the only candidate in this race to reject corporate PAC money,” the spokesperson said. Craig’s campaign declined to comment.

The divide extends from safe-seat races to the most competitive. In the Michigan Senate primary, which sets up a must-win open seat for Democrats looking to take back control of the upper chamber, the issue has already arisen in candidate forums. El-Sayed, who previously ran for governor, has sought to distinguish himself on the basis that he has never taken corporate PAC money.

“There’s only one candidate in this race who’s understood corporate money to be the central disease of our politics from day one when they ran in 2018,” said Sophie Pollock, a spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign, in a statement.

Rep. Haley Stevens, meanwhile, received donations from corporate PACs as a representative and has continued to for her Senate campaign. Her campaign spokesperson, Arik Wolk, noted she repeatedly voted for campaign finance reform and recently received an “A” grade from End Citizens United on its anti-corruption scorecard.

Advertisement

And although McMorrow previously accepted corporate PAC money for her state legislative campaign and leadership PAC, she has rejected it for her Senate campaign.

“As a first-time candidate, there were people who said, ‘We need to fight like the Republicans fight. If we don’t, we will lose,’” McMorrow said in an interview. “And I’ve learned through my time in the legislature that, you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth, that people won’t trust you. And also, not only can we fund campaigns without corporate PAC dollars, but frankly, we need to.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Muslim woman targeted in hit-and-run incident

Published

on

Muslim woman targeted in hit-and-run incident

A suspected white supremacist thug has tried to murder a 20-year-old Muslim woman in London. He did this by running her down as she crossed a road on 8 March. The horrifying incident was captured on what appears to be a doorbell camera. However, the ‘mainstream’ media have completely ignored it, despite the fact that during muslim hate crimes increase in the month of Ramadan, when Muslims are more visible.

No word has been released about the condition of the poor victim. The clip was shared by the Muslim Social Justice Initiative (MSJI) in an Instagram post.

Commenting on the rising tide of Islamophobia, the group notes that:

Anti-Muslim violence will escalate as long as anti-Muslim racism is denied.

This is the reality we’re navigating.

Advertisement

White supremacists are emboldened by a state openly genociding Muslims abroad and criminalising us here.

We ask allies to strategise seriously, because Muslim communities are almost completely taking care of each-other alone.

The rising tide of Islamophobia

Islamophobia continues to escalate as the Starmer regime enables, emboldens, and courts the racist right and demonises Muslims to support Israel’s crimes in Palestine, Iran, Lebanon and the wider region. More to the point, the Labour right itself, which now makes-up the largest faction in the party, is deeply racist, particularly against Muslims.

Labour has shamelessly and disastrously tried to weaponise that racism in by-elections both before and after Keir Starmer was helped into Downing Street by so-called ‘Reform UK’.

It cost Labour the February 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election. And it has caused Labour to haemorrhage members and support, not only among Muslims but among all decent people.

Advertisement

Now, while opposition to Israel’s crimes is treated as ‘antisemitism’, real racism endangers the lives of Muslims and others who fall foul of the tricoloured monoparty’s racism.

I express my solidarity, as a white Christian journalist, with Muslims and all others who are fighting that evil.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Caption Contest (Peas in a Pod Edition)

Published

on

Caption Contest (Peas in a Pod Edition)

Caption Contest (Peas in a Pod Edition)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Putin’s Aide Blames British Specialists Over Ukraine Strike

Published

on

Putin's Aide Blames British Specialists Over Ukraine Strike

Russia has blamed “British specialists” for helping Ukraine execute a deadly missile strike on a munitions factory.

Kyiv said it had struck one of Russia’s “most important military factories” on Tuesday, known as the Kremniy El plant, using British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles.

The site is the second-largest microelectronics manufacturer in Russia.

According to Russian authorities, at least seven civilians were killed and 42 injured in what it called a “terrorist missile attack”.

Advertisement

The Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters: “It is obvious that the launch of these missiles was impossible without British specialists.

“We are aware of this, we know it well, and we naturally take it into account.

“In order to prevent such barbaric actions by the Kyiv regime from continuing, the special military operation is being conducted.”

Russia’s foreign ministry also claimed the attack was premeditated.

Advertisement

It said: “Western states bear full responsibility for the consequences of this strike, which resulted in civilian casualties.

“Britain has gone beyond the norms of international law and is ready… to take the conflict to a fundamentally new level.”

But Ukrainians rejected that analysis, saying the strike targeted the facility itself not civilian infrastructure.

A UK official also told Ukrainian outlet, the Kyiv Independent, that Britain’s support for Kyiv reflects the country’s “clear right of self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks”.

Advertisement

“We are clear that the equipment provided by the UK is intended for the defence of Ukraine. Ukraine has the right of self-defence,” the official said.

They also made it clear they do not “comment on operational details” when asked about Russia’s claim of direct UK involvement in that operation.

The UK has been sending missiles to Ukraine since May 2023 for use against Russia-occupied territories.

The criticism from Russia comes as Vladimir Putin continues to fight his war of attrition over Ukrainian land.

Advertisement

He already holds a fifth of the neighbouring European country but continues to push for more territory, even as the US attempts to negotiate new peace deals – efforts torpedoed by Putin’s refusal to compromise on his maximalist war aims.

Russia has consistently criticised the UK and other Ukrainian allies throughout the four-year war, even falsely blaming Britain for starting the war.

It’s worth remembering there is an international arrest warrant out for Putin himself for the alleged abduction of Ukrainian children.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Two Strength Tests Can Predict Your Longevity After 60

Published

on

Two Strength Tests Can Predict Your Longevity After 60

You might already know that a person’s grip strength correlates strongly with their overall health, ageing status, strength, bone density, cognitive ability, sleep, and more.

A new paper published in JAMA Network Open, which involved over 5,000 women aged 63-99, looked at how both grip strength and a “sit-to-stand” chair rise correlated to mortality.

After eight years of follow-up, they found that women who did well in both tests were less likely to die in the years after the first tests.

How did they measure both strength tests?

Advertisement

The grip strength test was measured in kilograms. The more pressure you apply to an object – like a tool called a hand dynamometer – when you squeeze it, the higher that kilogram figure is.

For every seven extra kilograms in the grip test, participants had a 12% lower mortality risk on average.

The unassisted sit-to-stand chair raises involved getting up from a seated position in a chair to standing without assistance, eg, leaning on something or pushing against an object, as quickly as possible.

They tracked participants’ speed in seconds for five unassisted sit-to-stand chair raises.

Advertisement

“When it came to chair stands, moving from the slowest time to the fastest time in 6-second increments, researchers saw a 4% lower mortality rate,” the University of Buffalo, whose researchers were involved in the study, said.

Why might strength be so linked to longevity?

“If you don’t have enough muscle strength to get up, it is going to be hard to do aerobic activities, such as walking, which is the most commonly reported recreational activity in U.S. adults ages 65 and older,” the study’s lead author, Dr Michael LaMonte, told the University of Buffalo.

“Muscular strength, in many ways, enables one to move their body from one point to another, particularly when moving against gravity… When we [can] no longer get out of the chair and move around, we are in trouble.”

Advertisement

Interestingly, the benefits of greater strength seemed to hold even when participants didn’t meet exercise guidelines for 150 minutes a week.

“We also showed that differences in body size did not explain the muscular strength relationship with death,” Dr LaMonte said. “When we scaled the strength measures to body weight and even to lean body mass, there remained significantly lower mortality.”

How can I stay strong as I age?

The research suggests that maintaining strength as we age is key to better health outcomes.

Advertisement

“Healthy ageing probably is best pursued through adequate amounts of both aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activities,” the researcher said.

You don’t need to pump iron daily to reap the benefits, Dr LaMonte suggested: “Even using soup cans or books as a form of resistance provides stimulus to skeletal muscles and could be used by individuals for whom other options are not feasible”.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Tim Roth Talks Turning Down Role Of Snape In Harry Potter Movies

Published

on

Tim Roth Talks Turning Down Role Of Snape In Harry Potter Movies

As part of a new interview with VT, the Reservoir Dogs actor sat down with co-star Rebecca Ferguson to promote the new Peaky Blinders film, when the topic of conversation somehow turned to Harry Potter.

Spurred on by Rebecca, Tim reluctantly admitted: “I was almost in it.”

“They asked me to be in it,” he elaborated, before explaining why he ultimately chose not to pursue the role. “I initially said yes and then I thought ‘No, I’ll just [always] be Snape, that’ll be it’.”

Obviously, that role very famously went to Alan Rickman who played the creepy-but-complex Hogwarts professor in all eight of the Harry Potter films between 2001 and 2011, becoming synonymous with Snape for many generations.

Advertisement

It was previously reported that Tim had auditioned to play Snape, but ended up choosing to star in The Planet Of The Apes instead – which was filming at the same time – after deeming it too much to appear in both.

Alan was on author JK Rowling’s original “wishlist of actors” given to the film’s producers from the off, along with Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris and Maggie Smith, who went on to play Hagrid, Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall, respectively.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is currently in select cinemas, ahead of its release on Netflix later this month.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Ultimate Guide To Better Sleep

Published

on

The Ultimate Guide To Better Sleep

Expert comment provided by Dr Sophie Bostock, founder of The Sleep Scientist.

Want to hear something a little depressing? The average adult only gets three night’s good sleep a week, research from the Mental Health Foundation found.

In fact, 14% of those asked said they don’t get enough sleep to function normally on any day of the week.

But what is good sleep to begin with, and how can we improve ours?

Advertisement

HuffPost UK spoke to sleep expert Dr Sophie Bostock about what great sleep looks like, how to tell if you’re not well-rested, the mistakes too many of us make, and how to make it better.

What is “good sleep” anyway?

A “normal” sleep range for healthy adults is anywhere from seven to nine hours a night.

But Dr Bostock said counting the hours isn’t the only way to tell if you’re sleeping well.

Advertisement

“The best measure of how well you’re sleeping is how you feel during the day,” she explained.

“For most adults, healthy sleep means around 7-9 hours of sleep, at a similar time each night, falling asleep within about 15–30 minutes, and waking up feeling reasonably refreshed.

“Good sleepers aren’t perfect sleepers. Brief awakenings during the night are normal – the key is whether your sleep leaves you feeling capable and alert during the day.”

How can I tell if I’m not getting enough sleep?

Advertisement

Tiredness is such a common complaint among adults that it can be hard to tell when you’re truly poorly-rested.

But Dr Bostock told me there are signs.

“If you answer yes to two or more of the [below statements I’d suggest you’d benefit from more, or better quality sleep,” she said:

  • Do you lie in at weekends or rest days?

  • Do you press the snooze button multiple times?

  • Do you rely on sugar or caffeine to get you through the day?

  • Do you find yourself dozing off during the day in long meetings, on trains, or on the sofa?

  • Do you struggle to concentrate or feel irritable for no reason?

What are some common sleep mistakes?

Advertisement

The two most common sleep mistakes Dr Bostock sees are from “either ends of the ‘sleep worry’ spectrum,” she said.

The first issue is “not prioritising sleep enough,” or “treating sleep as optional – squeezing it around work, screens and social commitments”.

That can wear on your body and mind fast.

And in the other extreme, some people struggle with “worrying about sleep too much – trying too hard to sleep, which can trigger the stress response and keep the brain alert”.

Advertisement

Some sleep experts have warned against “orthosomnia,” an obsession with sleep that can paradoxically keep you up at night.

How can I improve my sleep?

Luckily, Dr Bostock said that getting better sleep is usually easier than most of us imagine.

“Sleep thrives on consistency,” she said.

Advertisement

“The most powerful habits are surprisingly simple: keep your wake-up time fairly consistent, get out into natural light during the day, and build a short wind-down buffer before bed.

“Protecting a dark, cool, quiet sleep environment can also make a big difference – even something as simple as a sleep mask can help support deeper rest.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

No Talk Between Starmer And Mandelson Over US Ambassador Role

Published

on

No Talk Between Starmer And Mandelson Over US Ambassador Role

Downing Street has admitted that Keir Starmer did not speak to Peter Mandelson directly before appointing him to be US ambassador.

The prime minister is facing intense scrutiny over the decision to give the former Labour peer such a senior role, despite his well-known friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Times reported overnight that Starmer delegated the vetting of Mandelson to two personal friends of the peer.

The prime minister was also warned by his national security adviser Jonathan Powell that the vetting process seemed “weirdly rushed”, while the head of the Foreign Office Sir Philip Barton also raised concerns.

Advertisement

When asked by reporters if it’s true the prime minister did not speak to Mandelson directly before giving him the job, Starmer’s spokesperson said: “The full process at the time of the appointment was followed.

“There is no requirement for a formal interview with the prime minister as part of that process.

“The prime minister received advice on options surrounding the appointment, as well as due diligence advice in the usual way.

“As you know the due diligence noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Advertisement

“Questions were then put to Mandelson by advisers in No.10.”

The representative added: “Peter Mandelson responded, but it’s clear that there are lessons to be learnt from this and shortcomings in that process have been highlighted.”

He said: “A number of reforms have been brought in and the prime minister is determined to see those through.”

Pressed over why Starmer did not interview Mandelson, he said: “The full process that was in place at the time was followed.

Advertisement

“You’ve heard from the prime minister yesterday when he reiterated his apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing Peter Mandelson.”

Starmer said on Thursday: “It was my mistake and I take responsibility in relation to it.”

Asked if the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was involved in interviewing Mandelson, the spokesperson said: “Im not going to comment ahead of any future releases and clearly there’s also some document which we have alluded to already which are part of the police investigation.”

The Times reported that Starmer instructed McSweeney, a personal friend to Mandelson, to ask him just three questions about his connections to Epstein.

Advertisement

McSweeney allegedly did not express any views about Mandelson’s responses.

His replies were then reportedly assessed by No.10′s then-director of communications, Matthew Doyle, who was also a personal friend to Mandelson.

Doyle reportedly said he was “satisfied” with the peer’s answers.

The government released its first tranche of documents related to the vetting around the peer’s appointment this week.

Advertisement

Some information is being withheld while Scotland Yard carries out its own probe into Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office.

Mandelson denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025