INTERNACIONAL
Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Since there was such a tempest over Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show, perhaps there’s a solution at hand. This compromise would satisfy both red and blue America. And the exhibition would transfix the country: Have former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump testify at halftime about the Epstein files.
Republicans believe former President Clinton has something to hide about Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats think the same about President Trump. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the former president and Hillary Clinton to testify about the Epstein files. After a lot of wrangling, the Clintons are due to appear for closed-door depositions later this month.
But both Bill and Hillary Clinton are now calling for open sessions. And Democrats believe that such an appearance at a public session — by a former President — would establish a precedent to lug in President Trump to answer questions about what he knew about Epstein.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL TO APPEAR BEFORE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE LAWMAKERS FOR EPSTEIN PROBE DEPOSITION
Hillary Clinton addresses her staff and supporters about the results of the U.S. election as her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, applauds at a hotel in the Manhattan borough of New York, Nov. 9, 2016. (Reuters/Carlos Barria)
One architect of the law compelling the release of the Epstein files, applauded demands last week by the former First Couple to testify at a televised open hearing. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the former president is an important witness.
«As long as [the hearing is] focused on Epstein, and it’s not a wild goose chase — it’s not trying to score political points or embarrass either President Clinton or President Trump, it is asking legitimate questions about what they knew took place and who they knew were participating in heinous acts,» said Khanna. «That should be a legitimate point of inquiry.»
After agreeing to a closed-door deposition later this month, Hillary Clinton took to X. She wrote to Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., saying, «If you want this fight let’s have it in public.»
Former President Clinton echoed his wife the next day on X, also calling for a public session. The former commander-in-chief declared that he won’t be used «as a prop in a closed door Kangaroo Court.»
A spokeswoman for Comer accused the former first couple of «moving the goalposts.» Comer was always open to a hearing. But after a closed-door deposition.
«Depositions have historically been much more substantive than hearings,» said Comer. «Hearings unfortunately, have become more of an entertainment thing.»
It’s hard to track exactly what the Clintons wanted.
The House Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis last August to subpoena both Bill and Hillary Clinton for depositions — along with a host of other prominent figures like former Attorney General Bill Barr. After a lot of haggling, the committee subpoenaed them to appear at dates in October. The Clintons defied those. Then the committee assigned them dates just before Christmas. But neither showed then because of a funeral. The committee requested that the Clintons give them dates for January appearances. They didn’t. The committee then assigned them additional dates for January testimony. They skipped out on those. That’s when Comer threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they didn’t appear in January. The Oversight Committee voted — in bipartisan fashion — for contempt. The House Rules Committee planned last week to prep a measure to force the entire House to vote on contempt — and send criminal referrals for the Clintons to the Justice Department for prosecution after they defied the subpoenas.
REVEALED: TRUMP CALLED POLICE CHIEF TO SUPPORT EPSTEIN PROBE, AND LAWMAKERS NAMED 6 MEN SHIELDED FROM EXPOSURE
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., alongside Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., left, speaks to reporters after a closed-door deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and confidante of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
But the Clintons finally agreed to depositions at the end of this month. And once that was on the calendar, the duo began calling for public hearings.
There is a method behind this madness. There isn’t a loyalty among younger Congressional Democrats to the Clintons. In fact, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was steamed at some Democrats for wanting the Clintons to appear. Younger Democrats don’t have the same reverence for the Clintons as older Democrats. Hillary Clinton ran for president a decade ago. She hasn’t been a senator since 2009. She last served as Secretary of State in early 2013. President Clinton left the Oval Office more than a quarter-century ago.
However, this is the Democrats’ gambit:
If former President Clinton appears about the Epstein files, it may be tough to make the case that President Trump shouldn’t appear.
«Certainly it does set the precedent. President Trump was subpoenaed during the January 6th investigations and didn’t come in. He cited some form of executive privilege. And so we’re kind of forcing the Clintons to come in with the threat of criminal contempt. Then that is a precedent that we are setting,» said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va. «In other countries, like the UK, the Prime Minister regularly comes before the Parliament. And so it’s not like it’s unprecedented around the world.»
Granted, that’s a parliamentary system where the prime minister is a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer regularly appears for «Prime Minister’s Questions» every Wednesday at noon in London. Members of Parliament usually pepper the prime minister with questions and scoff in a scene which resembles something out of Monty Python.
But the American and British systems are fundamentally different.
Getting a sitting or former President — and even first lady — before Congress is rare but not unheard of.
BONDI TO FACE GRILLING IN HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OVER EPSTEIN FILES, WEAPONIZATION ALLEGATIONS
Former President Bill Clinton was seen in photos with Jeffrey Epstein as part of a DOJ Epstein files release on Friday, Dec. 19. (Department of Justice)
There are three prominent examples of sitting Presidents appearing before Congress. President Abraham Lincoln testified voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in 1862. The New York Herald published his «State of the Union» message to Congress just before it was sent to Capitol Hill. Presidents sent written «reports» in those days. They did not give speeches to Congress. Lawmakers probed the leak of the message to Congress. It was speculated that Herald reporter Henry Wikoff got the message ahead of time thanks to his friendship with Mary Todd Lincoln. The House Sergeant at Arms briefly held Wikoff — and released him after the president spoke to the Judiciary Committee.
President Woodrow Wilson appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919 to discuss a treaty with Germany and establishing the League of Nations. Wilson’s push for the League of Nations failed. The Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles.
President Gerald Ford had been in office two-and-a-half months before he appeared voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1974. Ford told lawmakers that his pardon of former President Richard Nixon wasn’t something they bargained about. Ford told the committee that he pardoned Nixon because his physical and mental health fell into a steep decline.
Former President Harry Truman appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1955 to testify about the United Nations Charter.
Ford came back as a former president in 1983 for a Senate hearing on the bicentennial of the Constitution.
And there are examples of both sitting and former first ladies testifying, too.
Eleanor Roosevelt testified twice as first lady. Once about labor issues. Then, about the organization of volunteers for the civilian defense agency before World War II.
Rosalynn Carter testified about mental health as first lady.
Hillary Clinton famously testified about her husband’s health care plan — even though it was dubbed (often derisively) «Hillarycare» in the fall of 1993. She testified multiple times as Secretary of State. Most notably in early 2013 regarding Benghazi.
And, first lady Laura Bush was en route to Capitol Hill to testify before a Senate panel about early childhood education on 9/11. The committee cancelled the hearing after the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
So, many Republicans are game to hear from the Clintons about the Epstein files. Frankly, some were more interested in just holding them in contempt than actually gleaning anything about Epstein. But it looks like the Clintons will at least sit for depositions in a few weeks. Whether there’s a hearing or not is unclear. Some Republicans may even push for that. But caveat emptor. An open session for the Clintons will only intensify the push by Democrats — and some GOPers — to hear from President Trump.
Their testimony might not come during the Super Bowl halftime show. But open testimony by a former President and a sitting President would be a political Super Bowl.
politics,the clintons,jeffrey epstein,republicans,house of representatives politics,congress,william barr
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump reacted on Tuesday after newly released photos appeared to show the husband of former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem cross-dressing in private messages to a number of women.
The images were allegedly part of a trove of hundreds of messages sent between Noem’s husband, Bryon, and three women, obtained by The Daily Mail.
The father of three appeared to be pictured in hot pink underwear, wearing a skin-colored shirt with large, faux breasts worn underneath.
The New York Post reported the photos were taken while acting out a «bimbofication» fetish, which focuses on hypersexual, exaggerated physical appearances.
Bryon Noem (L), husband of US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem (R), listens as Secretary Noem testifies before the Senate Committee in Washington, DC, May 20, 2025. (Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)
TRUMP HIGHLIGHTS BORDER PATROL UNION’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN TO HELM DHS
Another image appeared to show Bryon Noem posing with large, fake breasts in a tight light blue T-shirt while making a kissy face.
Trump told the Daily Mail he did not know about the photos and was surprised the Noem family confirmed their authenticity.
«They confirmed it? Wow, well, I feel badly for the family if that’s the case, that’s too bad,» Trump told the outlet. «I haven’t seen anything. I don’t know anything about it. That’s too bad, but I just know nothing about it.»
It is unclear if anyone else inside the administration knew about the alleged photographs.
Fox News Digital was unable to authenticate the photos independently.
Bryon Noem, the husband of former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem listens as she testifies before the House Committee on Homeland Security in the Cannon House Office Building on December 11, 2025, in Washington, DC. The committee convened to hear testimony from top national security officials on potential worldwide threats. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
FIRED DHS CHIEF KRISTI NOEM FACES CRIMINAL REFERRAL FROM CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS
Markwayne Mullin was sworn in as Homeland Security Secretary last week after Kristi Noem’s March 5 ousting.
Kristi Noem is currently serving as special envoy to the Shield of the Americas.
In a statement to The Post, a spokesperson for Kristi Noem said she was «devastated» by the discovery.
«The family was blindsided by this, and they ask for privacy and prayers at the time,» the spokesperson said.
While the couple has been married for more than 30 years, Fox News previously reported rumors of an alleged affair between Kristi Noem and her top advisor, Corey Lewandowski, contributed to her dismissal from the DHS post.
Bryon Noem, husband of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, watches as Kristi Noem, secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not pictured, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
NEWSOM DECLARES ‘TRUMP IS IN RETREAT’ AFTER NOEM OUSTER, DEMANDS MILLER BE ‘NEXT’
During her time as 33rd governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem was sued by a transgender and «gender nonconforming» advocacy group, The Transformation Project, after the state terminated a contract with the organization.
She also received backlash from the LGBTQ community for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which advocates claimed sanctioned discrimination against queer people.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The White House, Department of State and DHS did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
kristi noem, homeland security
INTERNACIONAL
El presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro no se enfrenta a cargos en Estados Unidos en este momento, dicen funcionarios
El presidente Donald Trump y el presidente de izquierda de Colombia, Gustavo Petro, han tenido una relación volátil, en la que Trump ha pasado de llamar a Petro “hombre enfermo” y “líder ilegal del narcotráfico” a, más tarde, “genial”.
Cuando The New York Times reveló recientemente que fiscales federales de Nueva York estaban investigando a Petro por posibles vínculos con narcotraficantes, muchos lo tomaron como una señal de que las relaciones habían dado otro giro.
El reportaje se dio a conocer meses después de que Estados Unidos capturara al presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, por cargos de narcotráfico, lo que llevó a los comentaristas políticos a preguntarse si las autoridades estadounidenses también tenían preparada una acusación contra Petro.
Sin embargo, funcionarios estadounidenses han asegurado al Gobierno de Colombia que Petro no se enfrenta en estos momentos a cargos penales relacionados con las investigaciones de Nueva York, según cuatro funcionarios de Estados Unidos y Colombia, que hablaron bajo condición de anonimato para tratar un asunto delicado.
Es posible que los funcionarios estadounidenses quieran tranquilizar a Petro, dijeron los analistas políticos, porque Colombia se enfrenta a la primera vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales el 31 de mayo. Aunque Petro está limitado a un solo mandato, puede influir en el candidato de su partido de izquierda, Iván Cepeda, quien encabeza las encuestas.
Cepeda, conocido por su labor en materia de derechos humanos y negociaciones de paz, no se ha comprometido con la estrategia militar que Petro ha desplegado recientemente contra los poderosos grupos de traficantes de su país, incluidos antiguos rebeldes de izquierda implicados en el tráfico de cocaína.
El gobierno de Trump está impulsando un enfoque militar de línea dura en toda la región, destinado a erradicar los cárteles y los grupos de traficantes.
Las dos investigaciones penales del Departamento de Justicia estadounidense sobre Petro, que no están relacionadas, están en sus primeras fases, y no está claro si alguna de ellas podría derivar en cargos penales, informó el Times. Las pesquisas han explorado, entre otras cosas, las posibles reuniones que Petro podría haber mantenido con narcotraficantes y si su campaña presidencial solicitó donativos a traficantes.
Petro negó tener vínculo alguno con narcotraficantes.
Los expertos jurídicos afirman que los fiscales federales estadounidenses suelen abrir investigaciones sobre políticos, incluidos jefes de Estado, sin llegar a presentar cargos. Las acusaciones pueden surgir de investigaciones más amplias sobre corrupción, narcotráfico y otros delitos.
Es poco habitual que el gobierno estadounidense presente cargos contra un jefe de Estado en ejercicio. A menudo, los cargos se desvelan después de que el dirigente abandona el cargo.
Aunque este tipo de investigaciones penales, delicadas y de alto nivel, suelen llevarse a cabo en secreto, el reportaje del Times sobre ellas no descubrió indicios de que la Casa Blanca desempeñara algún papel en el inicio de las pesquisas sobre Petro.
La Casa Blanca remitió una solicitud de comentarios al Departamento de Justicia y los fiscales federales se han negado a comentar la información del Times. El Departamento de Estado también declinó hacer comentarios para este artículo.
Petro, el primer presidente de izquierda de su país, provocó la indignación de Trump el año pasado con frecuentes y acaloradas críticas a sus políticas hacia América Latina e incluso hacia Gaza. Trump amenazó públicamente a Petro tanto con aranceles elevados como con acciones militares; las autoridades estadounidenses revocaron su visa y le impusieron sanciones.
Recientemente, parecía que los dos líderes habían hecho borrón y cuenta nueva, ya que tuvieron llamadas telefónicas y una reunión en la Casa Blanca en febrero que ambos describieron en términos entusiastas y dijeron que se había enfocado en trabajar juntos para combatir a los grupos de narcotráfico colombianos.
En ocasiones, Trump ha cambiado drásticamente su valoración de enemigos políticos después de hablar con ellos.
Las investigaciones penales se han recibido con profundo escepticismo en Colombia, en un momento en el que el Departamento de Justicia estadounidense es considerado una herramienta que Trump utiliza para perseguir a sus enemigos.
Según Rachel Barkow, profesora de derecho de la Universidad de Nueva York, los fiscales federales de todo Estados Unidos siguen emprendiendo el mismo tipo de acciones judiciales de siempre. “Pero el público externo no sabe cuáles están contaminadas y cuáles son los enjuiciamientos habituales, y ese es el problema que tenemos ahora”.
La noticia de las investigaciones llega también en un momento en que Trump, deseoso de ejercer el dominio estadounidense sobre el hemisferio, ha intervenido en varias elecciones latinoamericanas, lo que ha contribuido a impulsar una ola de derecha en la región.
La embajada de Colombia en Washington emitió un comunicado enérgico en el que refutaba el informe del Times. Petro lo calificó de injerencia electoral.
Los políticos de la derecha lo aprovecharon como un regalo político.
Abelardo de la Espriella, candidato de extrema derecha, dijo en un video que había llegado el momento de que Petro respondiera por sus “escándalos”.
Petro respondió a De la Espriella diciendo: “No me interesan los procesos en EEUU porque en mi país jamás me han acusado de algo como sugiere el New York Times”. La fiscalía colombiana nunca ha presentado cargos penales contra Petro.
Muchas personas en Colombia consideran que el momento de publicación del reportaje parece destinado a afectar las elecciones, dijo María Jimena Duzán, destacada periodista de investigación colombiana. “Aquí, la gente lo siente como un acto de intervención en la campaña”.
Figuras populares de la derecha, entre ellas el expresidente Álvaro Uribe, han intentado extender la sombra de la duda proyectada sobre Petro a Cepeda, el candidato de la izquierda.
Cepeda no respondió a una solicitud de comentarios, pero ha tachado públicamente las investigaciones de “rumores” destinados a dañar la imagen de Petro con fines políticos y electorales.
Pero las noticias sobre las investigaciones al final podrían beneficiar a la izquierda, señaló Duzán.
“Puede ayudar al candidato de Petro”, dijo Duzán, y explicó que la popularidad del presidente ha subido siempre que los colombianos han sentido que estaba siendo atacado por Trump.
Ese mismo efecto podría beneficiar ahora a Cepeda.
Varios días después de la aparición del reportaje del Times, una encuesta mostró que Cepeda seguía a la cabeza y había ganado terreno.
A pesar de las noticias sobre las investigaciones, Petro se ha mantenido prácticamente en silencio. Muchos colombianos esperaban que volviera a atacar verbalmente a Trump, dijo Luisa María Lozano, directora de ciencias políticas de la Universidad de La Sabana de Colombia.
En cambio, ha prevalecido una “tensa calma”. Trump también ha permanecido callado.
Es probable que los funcionarios hayan tratado de restar importancia a las investigaciones, dijeron los analistas, en un momento crítico.
El gobierno de Trump ha ampliado recientemente su lucha contra las drogas más allá del fentanilo, y ha dado prioridad a “aplastar el dominio de los cárteles y las bandas criminales” en toda América Latina, como dijo Trump en una reciente cumbre de líderes conservadores de la región celebrada en Florida.
Petro, quien no fue invitado a la cumbre, de cualquier forma ha adoptado una postura más dura frente a los poderosos grupos armados de su país.
Tras el fracaso de las conversaciones de paz con los grupos armados, “los militares están haciendo el proverbial combate contra las drogas que históricamente han hecho”, dijo Juan Gabriel Takotlian, experto en relaciones internacionales especializado en Colombia.
En caso de que gane Cepeda, dijo Takotlian, los funcionarios estadounidenses quieren la continuidad de las políticas que ha emprendido Petro, y añadió que Colombia es también un socio clave mientras Estados Unidos trabaja para estabilizar Venezuela, su país vecino.
Otro político de izquierda crítico seguramente no es la primera opción de Trump para la presidencia, dijo Lozano, la politóloga. Sin embargo, lo que parece más importante es tener un líder que colabore en el cargo, añadió, y señaló la alianza de Trump con la dirigente interina de Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, quien es una socialista declarada.
“Al final a Trump lo que le servía era un gobierno que se alineara y colaborara con los Estados Unidos”, dijo.
Luis Ferré-Sadurní colaboró con reportería desde Bogotá y Jonah E. Bromwich, Nicole Hong y William K. Rashbaum desde Nueva York.
Annie Correal es corresponsal para América Latina del Times.
Gustavo Petro,político,presidente,Colombia,sentado,reflexión,postura,Estados Unidos,entrevista,líder
INTERNACIONAL
Iran’s ‘basement’ Chinese drone networks spark fears of sleeper cell attacks on US soil
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Iran is building a decentralized drone warfare capability in Tehran’s apartment building basements, powered by inexpensive technology sourced from China, a leading defense expert has warned.
Draganfly’s Cameron Chell also said that this emerging system — centered on first-person-view (FPV) drones — could pose a threat not only across the Middle East but potentially to the U.S. homeland itself.
«The FPVs are Iran’s Hail Mary because they are very hard to defend, are incredibly effective, and can be delivered in a manner without having to have a central command,» Chell told Fox News Digital.
«So whether it’s the Iranian army, whether it’s militia groups or Iranian patriots, they can all create or procure their own FPVs and get offensive,» Chell said.
EX-CIA STATION CHIEF WARNS US TROOP DEPLOYMENT TO KEY IRANIAN ISLAND COULD BE ‘EXTREMELY RISKY’
Smoke rises after an Iranian drone was intercepted over the Bahrain Financial Harbour towers, which houses the Israeli embassy, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, March 6, 2026. Picture taken on a mobile phone. (Stringer/Reuters)
He added that «Iran could be reiterating FPVs and churning out more than 100,000 a month over time.»
«Iran’s got either militias or sleeper cells in the States who can, in my estimation, already build this equipment,» Chell clarified.
Chell’s warning comes as recent incidents in Iraq highlight the growing use of FPVs.
At Baghdad International Airport, Iranian-backed militias operating under the «Iraqi Islamic Resistance» umbrella have launched multiple FPV drone attacks.
Footage released in March 2026 allegedly shows an FPV drone striking a U.S. UH-60M or HH-60M Black Hawk helicopter, while another attack successfully hit a U.S. AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel radar unit at the same base.
«FPVs are a central core theme, and Iran is building these itself, suspecting they’re pulling parts in from China and getting the parts through some pretty porous borders, so it is very difficult to stop that,» Chell said.
IRAN’S DRONE SWARMS CHALLENGE US AIR DEFENSES AS TROOPS IN MIDDLE EAST FACE RISING THREATS
A drone view of the site of an Iranian missile strike on a residential building, after Iran launched missile barrages following attacks by the U.S. and Israel, in Tel Aviv (REUTERS/Roei Kastro)
He warned that Iran’s strategy mirrors what has already occurred in Ukraine, where decentralized drone manufacturing has flourished.
«There will be, or already is, an underground industry for FPV and drone manufacturing, which will or is swelling up inside Iran, the exact same way that we saw it swell up inside Ukraine,» he explained.
«This is going to be happening in people’s homes in Iran, people’s basements, the basements of apartment blocks, where they can construct makeshift assembly lines.»
«I am confident China and Russia are shipping in parts to help support the development of drone assembly or manufacturing capability – which is a de facto decentralized cottage industry,» he warned.
Concerns extend beyond overseas battlefields as about 1,500 Iranians were intercepted at the U.S. border during the Biden administration.
Officials warn the unknown number who evaded detection raises fears of potential «sleeper cells.»
MORE THAN 90% OF IRANIAN MISSILES INTERCEPTED, BUT A DANGEROUS IMBALANCE IS EMERGING
Iran drone swarms threaten U.S. military assets in Middle East region (Iranian Army/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS)
President Trump acknowledged the issue on March 11, saying, «A lot of people came in through Biden with his stupid open border, but we know where most of them are: We’ve got our eye on all of them, I think.»
«It is the beginning of an asymmetric capability that the Iranians will use against their neighbors and U.S. assets in the region, but also the U.S. homeland,» Chell said.
«We may even want to call it terrorist attacks, using FPV’s against their neighbors and practically anywhere in the world,» he added.
«It’s a matter of when we see FPV attacks, probably swarm, probably sophisticated, on U.S. soil.»
«Within the next eight months, the Iranians are going to have sophisticated drone systems that can defeat some RF/radio frequency jamming. They will start to use tactics like swarming or spoofing,» he warned.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
«It will be very, very difficult for the U.S. to take out these little drone factories in the basements of apartment blocks where civilians help. Cutting supply chains will also be difficult.»
«The primary choke point for the Iranians is to establish supply chains from China to have enough supply to constitute precision mass capability and/or consistent, pervasive asymmetric capability,» Chell said before stating that if this happens, «the war between Iran and the U.S. just gets a lot longer.»
war with iran, iran, wars, military tech, military
“Si no son felices…”: el crudo planteo de India Ortega a sus padres Ana Paula Dutil y Emanuel Ortega que cambió todo en su familia
“Tuve que poner USD 30.000 de mi luna de miel para pagar sueldos”: la confesión de una empresaria influencer que se viralizó
Los diputados prepararon 4800 preguntas para que Adorni responda en su presentación ante el Congreso
Kristi Noem, Trump respond to shocking cross-dressing photos tied to her husband
100 por hora: Adorni enfrenta una avalancha de preguntas en Diputados mientras persisten las dudas sobre su patrimonio
El presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro no se enfrenta a cargos en Estados Unidos en este momento, dicen funcionarios
Máximo Kirchner salió al cruce de Milei y Macri tras el fallo por YPF a favor de la Argentina
La secretaria del piloto denunció que el amigo de Adorni la hostiga y la justicia dispuso medidas
El Gobierno cambia su propuesta de reforma: endurece penas para delitos comunes, pero no para los casos de corrupción
Nuevas críticas de Marcela Pagano contra los Milei: “Karina es la que gobierna”, aseguró
POLITICA3 días agoEl Gobierno cambia su propuesta de reforma: endurece penas para delitos comunes, pero no para los casos de corrupción
- POLITICA2 días ago
Nuevas críticas de Marcela Pagano contra los Milei: “Karina es la que gobierna”, aseguró
- ECONOMIA3 días ago
Burford aseguró que el fallo por YPF es “muy decepcionante” y que analiza llevar el caso a la Corte Suprema de EEUU y al Ciadi
