Byline Times Audio Articles

Steve Bannon Offered Trump's MAGA as Shield for Jeffrey Epstein

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Read our Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features SUBSCRIBE TODAY Jeffrey Epstein - long portrayed by the Republican right as part of a deep state liberal conspiracy - was providing strategic, financial and media support to the very heart of Trump's MAGA movement, working directly with Steve Bannon on political planning in Europe and US campaign messaging from 2018 to 2019. The payoff would be a movement that neutralised the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment in the workplace. For years, Bannon - the architect of MAGA, Trump's first campaign manager and former White House chief strategist - has used his War Room podcast to promote QAnon conspiracy theories about the Democrat Party as a cabal of child molesters. He once described QAnon as "the elephant in the room"; had Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene on his show calling Democrats "the party of paedophiles"; and urged listeners to call their senators and oppose the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson by relaying "your unexpurgated opinion on what you think of Judge Jackson in this area of child torture, child rape, baby torture, and baby rape." Yet the new emails released by the House Oversight Committee, reviewed by Byline Times reveal that in contrast, Steve Bannon had worked closely with Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier and convicted sex offender accused of operating a vast international sex trafficking ring involving underage girls. Jeffrey Epstein's Russian 'Tech Maidens' As the scandal around the release of the Epstein Files continues to follow Donald Trump, Peter Jukes investigates the late sex offender's ties to Vladimir Putin-linked individuals with a curious career trajectory Peter Jukes Resisting #MeToo Epstein offered potential financial support to Bannon through opaque cryptocurrency schemes designed to evade regulatory scrutiny, along with extensive political networks, strategic planning and routes to European leaders - not to mention advice on pro-Trump video campaign materials. In return, Bannon offered Epstein something irresistible: to build a right-wing MAGA coalition that would "stave off" the global movement against sexual harassment for more than a decade. Earlier this year, Steve Bannon repeatedly claimed that the convicted child sex offender was operating as part of a deep state anti-Trump conspiracy. "In that arc of looking at how the deep state has tried to stop Trump and the MAGA movement, you can easily fit in," Bannon told a crowd at a Turning Point US conference in July. "Epstein is a key that picks the lock on so many things," he said. "Not just individuals, but also institutions. Intelligence institutions, foreign governments, and who was working with him on our intelligence apparatus and in our government." However, newly released emails now show Jeffrey Epstein acting as an intimate political fixer for Steve Bannon himself between 2018 and 2019. Over this period, Epstein arranged access to world leaders for Bannon, proposing opaque crypto-based funding structures, drafting contact lists for the MAGA architect, and even offering the President of the UN General Assembly to guide Bannon's "EU project." In return, Bannon fed Epstein ideological strategy, media plans and internal Republican thinking - at one point spelling out a right-wing coalition to "stave off Time's Up for next decade plus". The correspondence also shows Epstein helping to shape Bannon's public image. In one message, he tells journalist Michael Wolff that if Republicans held the House in 2018, "Steve would deserve most of the credit", while Bannon privately reassured Epstein during renewed scrutiny that "there is a crazed jihad against u". The emails reveal a political partnership across these two years in which MAGA's architect worked hand-in-hand with a convicted sex offender - contradicting everything Bannon has since claimed about Ep...

Labour's Biggest Problem Is Not a Lack of Leadership but a Lack of Ideas

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features SUBSCRIBE TODAY Keir Starmer is not a good Prime Minister. In the year and a half that he has been in Downing Street he has lost the trust of the public and his own party. A poor manager and an even poorer communicator, Starmer has proven to hold few of the political skills required to prosper in 21st century politics. It is fair to say that many of his problems were not originally of his own making. For all the criticism of Starmer for endlessly blaming his predecessors, he did come into office with the worst inheritance of any Prime Minister in modern times. In every area from public services, to the public finances, it is hard to imagine a tougher set of circumstances for an incoming Government than that experienced by Starmer last year. However, tough circumstances require tough leadership and so far the Prime Minister has shown himself incapable of delivering it. Indecisive and uncommunicative, Starmer has instead left Downing Street to be largely run by a group of competing aides operating out of their own fiefdoms, with little clear direction from above. The result has been a rapid turnover of senior staff and the sort of infighting that led to the botched briefings against Wes Streeting earlier this week. Yet for all the talk of a potential challenge against Starmer in the coming months, the fact remains that the biggest problem facing this Labour Government is not just a lack of leadership, but a lack of ideas. As today's Budget U-turn on income tax today demonstrates, the real problem is not just that the Government is incapable of communicating its ideas from the top, but that it doesn't really know what those ideas should be in the first place. Is this a Government willing to take unpopular decisions for the greater good, as they claim, or a chaotic administration flittering endlessly from one unpopular alternative policy to the next at the slightest bit of pushback, as recent events suggest? The fact that even they don't appear to know the answer to this question tells you that the real problem with this Government is not just the lack of an effective communicator in No 10, but a lack of any clear ideas to communicate. And while much has already been written about potential replacements for Starmer, it's unclear that any of the available candidates have those ideas either. The BBC's Attempts to Appease the 'Right-Wing Coup' Against It Are Now Seeding Its Own Destruction By attempting to appease those forces seeking to destroy them, the BBC has helped trigger a crisis that now threatens its very future, argues Adam Bienkov Adam Bienkov The Candidates At the front of the pack to succeed Starmer is the Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Streeting's chances have been boosted recently by a combination of his attempts to tack to the left and the recent bungled attacks on him by Starmer's Downing Street aides. As this week has shown, whatever his flaws, Streeting is a better communicator and a more skillful politician than Starmer. However, a Streeting leadership still remains a longshot for the obvious reason that his politics remain a long way from the politics of the average Labour member, even allowing for the recent exodus of left-wing members to the Greens. As disliked by many Labour members as he is liked by much of the British press, Streeting would struggle to win any contest to replace Starmer. Faced with a choice between the Health Secretary and a generic soft left rival, most Labour members would likely opt for the latter. However, even if Streeting could somehow succeed in becoming Labour leader and Prime Minister, it remains unclear whether he has any real sense of what he would do differently to the current incumbent of Downing Street. Like David Cameron, who said he wanted to become Prime Minister "because I think I'd be good at it" Streeting has not shown any ind...

'It's Time for a Debate About Who Owns Our Media' Says Leader of the UK's Trade Union Movement

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features SUBSCRIBE TODAY The head of Britain's trade union movement has called for a debate about the concentration of ownership of major UK media organisations, as he warned against allowing Trumpian attacks on the BBC to undermine our national broadcaster. Trades Union Congress General Secretary Paul Nowak condemned media attacks on the BBC and said that GB News - the broadcast platform for much of the opposition to the publicly-funded corporation- is an "ideologically driven mouthpiece for those on the Right." Speaking to Byline Times from TUC's Congress House in central London, Nowak said the "problems around media ownership and media bias have got worse" in his 36 years as a trade union activist. He pointed to the growth of right-wing channel GB News, now promoted by Donald Trump and his team directly, and Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter (now X). The evidence shows a marked shift towards far-right figures on the platforms. Nowak, 53, told this outlet: "When I was a young activist, we used to rail against Murdoch's monopoly of the media and the bias of the right-wing media, and that has remained [the case]. But he added: "Alongside that, now we've got social media companies owned wholesale by tech billionaires like X. Or [take] Paul Marshall who [owns] GB News and that whole empire. ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH MORE OPTIONS We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe. "I do think it is time for a debate about media plurality, and who owns our media." He said the issue was "particularly important" amidst the concentration of social media ownership by a handful of tech barons. "Who has control over the algorithms that dictate what content goes onto people's phones?"…We need to be effectively regulating those social media companies." And while he highlighted some signs of unions reaching more people on platforms like TikTok, the union chief noted a stark fact: "Collectively, the trade union movement has [fewer] followers on X and Instagram than Nigel Farage on his own." "We directly represent five and a half million people, so we've got to get much better at using those social media platforms and talking directly to members and potential members," the TUC head added. Don't miss a story SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES On the crisis in the BBC, the Merseyside-born leader argued that "anybody who cares about [a] decent press and media in this country should be rallying to defend the BBC and to strengthen it." "Does that mean the organisation is perfect? No way at all. Would we have criticisms about some of its editorial decisions? Of course. Did they get it wrong on that Panorama programme [about Donald Trump]? Probably. "But I think it is…the best news broadcaster in the world, and for all its imperfections, it's something we should absolutely defend - certainly defend it against the likes of Donald Trump." He pointed his ire in particular at GB News, which is host to a raft of Reform UK politicians as presenters including Nigel Farage and Lee Anderson. The channel has faced a slew of investigtations over airing conspiracy theories, anti-migrant and homophobic slurs, and health misinformation. Some on the Right would like GB News to eclipse the BBC. But Nowak said: "There is no comparison with GB News whatsoever. One is an ideologically driven mouthpiece for those on the Right, and the other is a genuine public service broadcaster. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but an institution that we have to defend." EXCLUSIVE The Pro-Trump Bias...

Reform Councillor Accused of Flouting Transparency Rules After Refusing to Declare His Company

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features SUBSCRIBE TODAY A Reform councillor failed to declare a company he owned, triggering a formal complaint from a constituent. Terry Mole (Reform UK, Ramsgate Division) was accused by a constituent of flouting the Localism Act, as he did not disclose his ownership of a delivery firm. Cllr Terry Mole's register of interests - until a complaint was filed by a constituent - stated that he owns a company, but the name of the company was omitted. It simply read: "Company owner - Debt Transfer Services". The Localism Act 2011 stipulates that councillors must accurately disclose their financial interests within 28 days of being elected. However, Byline Times found that, rather than running a (nameless) 'debt transfer' company, it is actually a firm called DAT Transport Services Ltd - a delivery company operating in Kent. When questioned by a constituent about the matter - before this outlet found the real nature of the firm - Cllr Mole replied suggesting they meet in-person, but refused to give the name of his company via email. ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH MORE OPTIONS We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe. Cllr Mole had said: "I would rather not pass personal information to someone unknown to me through the internet." But constituent Carly told him: "Elected councillors are required to be transparent about their sources of income and assets they own. Your register of interests is still incomplete; it does not name the business you own." Cllr Mole then allegedly stopped responding to her emails to follow up with the invitation. The resident then requested Kent County Council instruct Cllr Mole to disclose the relevant details of the company he owns. She asked the council's democratic services team to confirm whether or not Cllr Mole is breaking the law. After a month of failing to get answers, she filed a formal complaint to the council. On November 11th, a council official told the constituent: "Further to your emails regarding Mr Mole's register of interests, I can confirm his employment has now been updated to include the name of the company for which he is director." The constituent of Cllr Mole, Carly, said: "I find it very odd that Terry Mole went to these lengths to avoid revealing the name of his company. It's in the public interest for him to be transparent and tell us where his earnings come from, but he refused to talk about it when I contacted him directly, and didn't answer my follow-up email at all." Don't miss a story SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES "Why didn't Kent County Council check the submissions from their councillors? Why are some of them allowed to get away with highly evasive answers on their registers of interest? "The public are sick of politicians that have vested interests, so we need all of them to honestly disclose how they (and their spouses) earn a living." Speaking to Byline Times, a spokesperson for Kent County Council's democratic services team appeared to confirm there was no sanction for appearing to break the rules, saying: "I can confirm that, following receipt of relevant enquiries, Officers sought clarification from Mr Mole to check the details in the Register to ensure they were correct. Following this clarification, his Register of Interest has been updated accordingly." Though the problem is not confined to Nigel Farage's party, it is the latest in a series of inaccuracies from Reform councillors, failing to provide the full picture of their financial interests. As reported in our On the Ground column i...

'The UK's Suspension of Intelligence Sharing Over Trump's Caribbean Boat Strikes Risks a Transatlantic Rift'

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features SUBSCRIBE TODAY The leaked reports suggesting that the UK has suspended intelligence cooperation with the US over its lethal strikes against boats allegedly smuggling drugs through the Caribbean risks wider ramifications for UK-US intelligence cooperation, but only if the US chooses to overreact. The UK's decision does not reflect any move to go "soft" on drugs, as some in the Trump administration might try to allege. Nor does it mean that the UK sympathizes with the Maduro regime in Venezuela, which many analysts believe is the true target of the US's more assertive posture in the region, part of a wider strategy to increase pressure on the regime and stimulate an internal coup against Maduro. The UK has consistently stood with the US and other international partners in condemning Maduro's authoritarian rule in Venezuela, and denouncing his claim to the Presidency as illegitimate following contested elections last summer. Earlier this year, the UK imposed sanctions on 15 individuals closely associated with his regime. The UK's decision seems to have been motivated purely by a concern that it not be directly implicated in the US's attacks, which numerous international experts, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have said is a form of extrajudicial killing, illegal under international law. There have been 19 attacks on boats so far, resulting in the deaths of at least 76 people. They have apparently taken place without any warnings to the people onboard, or with irrefutable proof that the boats were indeed carrying drugs, and destined for the US mainland. 'How to Convert the Success of the No Kings Protests Into a Nationwide Anti-Trump Uprising' The scale of protests against the President show he can still be beaten, but only if his opponents start offering a coherent alternative, argues Alexandra Hall Hall Alexandra Hall Hall The UK could face legal jeopardy, because it has traditionally cooperated closely with US organisations combatting drug trafficking in the region, including by sharing intelligence, and stationing a liaison officer at the main centre for tracking drug movements and conducting counter-narcotic operations in the Caribbean, the Joint Interagency Task Force South unit in Key West, Florida. The UK also has a naval officer onboard one of the US warships, the USS Winston Churchill, which is part of a larger naval strike force, including an aircraft carrier, which the US is moving into the region. This officer could potentially become personally liable, if he is on board a ship which takes part in illegal operations. Earlier this year, the Trump administration tried to establish legal cover for its attacks by designating drug traffickers as "enemy combatants" engaged in an armed conflict against the US, and certain drug cartels as "foreign terrorist groups". While it is certainly true that drug-related deaths have soared in the US, and that drug gangs in Latin America are notoriously violent, their main destabilizing effects are felt in drug producing countries, such as Colombia, or transit countries, such as Mexico. There can be no credible claim that drug gangs pose such a serious security threat to the US, that it would justify a full-on military response Moreover, the most serious drug problems in the US today are caused by synthetic drugs such as fentanyl, which are trafficked mainly through Mexico, and produced using chemicals sourced from China. According to Michael Shifter, former President of the Inter-American Dialogue, a leading Latin America think tank in Washington, whom I spoke to a few weeks ago about what might be behind US actions in the Caribbean, Venezuela, while certainly home to many criminal drug groups, is largely irrelevant to the fentanyl issue. Shifter's believes that the US administration's decision to portray its military p...