While Charlee was unharmed, the Bullitt County Sheriff’s Office is investigating what happened. Her grandmother, Beth Campbell, was overwhelmed with relief and called Penny “our hero,” believing the dog stayed by Charlee’s side the whole time.Penny returned home shortly before Charlee was found at a neighbor’s house. Wayne Brown, who spotted Charlee in his backyard, said he was praying for her when he saw her. The moment brought back painful memories of his missing brother, who was found too late.

Brown gave Charlee water and called 911 but remains puzzled about how she ended up somewhere already searched. Authorities conducted a foot search in the area for more clues.

Charlee was hospitalized as a precaution and is doing well

Her parents, Rosario and Alfonso, now walk the streets their daughter once did, joined by more than a hundred relatives, friends and strangers combing fields, ditches and sidewalks. They replay every detail, clinging to the belief that she did not simply run away. Between prayers and interviews, Rosario offers the same plea to anyone listening: help bring Camila home. Somewhere beyond the edges of that last grainy video, a family’s life is still on pause, waiting for an answer.

According to officials, the video appears to show a rapidly escalating encounter in which the individual allegedly followed ICE agents and positioned vehicles in a way that restricted their movement. Authorities say commands were issued during the incident as the situation intensified.

Officials claim the footage shows vehicles being maneuvered aggressively, creating what agents described as a perceived threat to their safety. Moments later, gunfire was discharged, resulting in the individual being injured. Authorities have stated that the footage is intended to provide additional context surrounding the decision-making during the encounter.

Following the incident, the Department of Justice pursued charges related to the events captured in the video. The case drew attention due to the involvement of a well-known online figure and the release of partial details through official statements.

However, the legal process took a significant turn after U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed the DOJ’s case in its entirety. Court records indicate the dismissal was based on legal considerations tied to how the case was presented.

The ruling does not determine wrongdoing by any party involved, but it effectively closes the federal case stemming from the incident. Officials have not announced plans for further legal action at this time.

ICE representatives maintain that the release of the footage is part of an effort to increase transparency and clarify the circumstances surrounding the encounter. They emphasize that each use-of-force incident is reviewed internally.

As discussion continues online, many are analyzing the footage and the court decision to better understand how the events unfolded and what the ruling may mean for similar cases in the future.

Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle ended their years-long relationship in the fall of 2024, but the public only got confirmation months later. Now, both are moving forward, personally and professionally, while keeping a strong bond rooted in mutual respect.

“We Will Always Keep a Special Bond”
In a rare public comment shared with Page Six, Trump Jr., 47, broke his silence in December 2024:

“Kimberly and I will never stop caring for each other and will always keep a special bond. I could not be more proud of her and the important role she’ll continue to play.”

He was referring to Guilfoyle’s new post as U.S. Ambassador to Greece, a role she was nominated for by President-elect Donald Trump ahead of his second term beginning in January 2025.

“She’s been an undefeated prosecutor, national TV news star, a leader of the MAGA movement and close advisor to the president,” Trump added. “The people of Greece are getting an absolute star.”

A Private Decision With Public Implications

While the news didn’t make waves at the time, insiders confirmed that Trump and Guilfoyle called off their engagement before the 2024 election and began dividing assets in late September.“They just had different goals,” one source said, describing the split as amicable and driven more by timing and life direction than by drama. “The breakup was mutual and so is their respect today.”

According to reports, the pair chose not to address the split publicly at first in order to avoid distracting from the election season and larger political priorities.

From Friends to Fiancés — and Back to Friends

Trump and Guilfoyle began dating in 2018 after years of friendship and announced their engagement in 2022 during the wedding of Tiffany Trump and Michael Boulos. Throughout their relationship, they remained politically aligned and often appeared together at campaign events and conservative media programs.Donald Trump Jr. and Bettina Anderson went public with their relationship in early 2025. Source: Instagram/donaldjtrumpjr

Despite parting ways, both continue to play active roles in the MAGA movement, with Guilfoyle now stepping onto the diplomatic stage, and Trump Jr. remaining a vocal surrogate for his father’s administration.

New Chapters, New Faces

As for what’s next? Trump Jr. is reportedly dating Bettina Anderson, a Palm Beach-based socialite. Trump and Anderson were first spotted holding hands in Palm Beach, Florida, in December 2024, and they made their relationship public in early 2025.“It’s a new relationship. He likes her a lot and has a lot of respect for her,” a source shared. “He’s smitten.”

Guilfoyle, meanwhile, is focusing on her diplomatic role and family. She shares an 18-year-old son, Ronan, with her second husband, Eric Villency. She was previously married to California Governor Gavin Newsom from 2001 to 2006.

Trump Jr. has five children with ex-wife Vanessa Trump: Kai, Donald III, Tristan, Spencer, and Chloe.They may no longer be engaged, but there’s no bad blood, only mutual admiration and a shared history. As Kimberly Guilfoyle takes on an international role and Donald Trump Jr. finds new footing in his personal life, one thing is clear: some bonds don’t need a title to last.

Because fewer than 25 genuine copper 1943 pennies are believed to exist, collectors will pay a fortune for one. But such value also attracts counterfeiters. The most common trick is reshaping a 1948 penny so the “8” looks like a “3.” Another method involves coating a regular 1943 steel penny in copper to mimic the rare version. Fortunately, there’s an easy way for anyone — not just coin experts — to check authenticity. Copper is not magnetic, but steel is. If your “copper” 1943 penny sticks to a magnet, it’s a fake. If it doesn’t, you may be holding a life-changing treasure.

People are often stunned to learn that some of these ultra-rare pennies may still be sitting unnoticed in jars, old wallets, inherited collections, or dusty attic boxes. Soldiers returning from war pocketed coins casually; families saved jars of change for decades; precious pieces of history were quietly forgotten. That means the next valuable find might not be in a museum — it could be in a coffee can beneath your sink. All you need to look for is the date 1943, the wheat-ear design, a copper color, and no magnetic pull.

If you happen to find a penny that passes these simple tests, your next step is professional authentication. Reputable coin graders can confirm whether yours is one of the rare survivors of a wartime mistake. The 1943 copper penny is a reminder that even the smallest, most overlooked objects can hold immense value. So take a moment to sift through your loose change. That one-cent coin you’ve ignored for years just might be worth a fortune — and it could change your life in a single glance.

Pre-owned shoes are a common cause because they rarely fit a new wearer perfectly. Over time, shoes mold to the original owner’s foot shape, creating pressure spots, seams, or worn areas that don’t align with your toes. This mismatch can lead to ongoing irritation, such as:

Friction: Your toe repeatedly rubs against tight, narrow, or stiff areas inside the shoe.

Pressure: Shoes that squeeze the toes—especially the big toe or little toe—apply constant force.

As a defense, the skin thickens, forming a hard, raised area that often looks yellow due to a buildup of dead skin cells (keratin). Hard corns usually develop on the tops or sides of toes and may have a central core that hurts when pressed, often compared to stepping on a small stone.

Other Possible Causes (Less Common)

Blisters: Intense friction can initially cause fluid-filled blisters, which may appear yellowish if infection develops.

Fungal infections: Shoes worn by others can carry fungi that lead to athlete’s foot or nail infections. These typically cause itching, redness, peeling skin, or yellowing nails rather than a firm bump.

Why Second-Hand Shoes Are More Likely to Cause Problems

While new shoes can cause issues during the break-in period, used shoes come with extra concerns:

They’re already shaped to someone else’s feet, creating uneven pressure points.

Poor sanitation can transfer sweat, bacteria, or fungi, increasing irritation or infection risk.

(Images above typically show yellow corns or calluses caused by shoe friction.)

How to Treat It

Most yellow bumps improve with basic home care:

Change footwear: Stop wearing the problematic shoes. Choose well-fitting pairs with roomy toe boxes and good cushioning.

Soak and smooth: Soak your feet in warm, soapy water for 10–20 minutes, then gently use a pumice stone or emery board. Don’t cut the skin yourself.

Reduce friction: Apply corn pads, moleskin, or gel toe protectors.

Moisturize: Use creams containing urea to soften thickened skin.

OTC treatments: Salicylic acid pads can gradually break down corns.

If the area becomes painful, red, swollen, produces pus, or doesn’t improve after a couple of weeks, it’s best to see a podiatrist. They can safely treat the problem and check for underlying causes such as bunions or bone spurs.

Preventing Problems with Used Shoes

Clean and disinfect second-hand shoes thoroughly, ideally with antifungal sprays.

Wear socks to reduce friction and moisture.

Break shoes in slowly.

Choose breathable materials and the correct size.

That yellow bump is your skin’s way of signaling too much friction. Fixing the shoe fit usually solves the problem quickly—and when foot issues persist, professional care can help you get back to comfortable, healthy steps

Brigitte Bardot, the celebrated French actress and one of the most influential cultural figures of the 20th century, has died at the age of 91. Her death was confirmed today by the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, the animal rights organization she founded.

Early Fame and Stardom

Bardot rose from model to global movie star in the 1950s.
She became internationally known after starring in And God Created Woman (1956), a bold film that helped define her image as a free‑spirited screen presence and cultural symbol.

She appeared in more than two dozen films during the peak of her acting career. Then, in 1973, Bardot retired from cinema at just 39.

Life After Hollywood

After leaving acting, Bardot turned her focus toward animal welfare. In 1986 she created the Brigitte Bardot Foundation to protect animals and campaign against cruelty worldwide.Her activism included protests against seal hunts and efforts to improve treatment of farm and wild animals. Over nearly 50 years, she became one of the most recognizable voices in animal rights.

Tributes and Legacy

Following the announcement of her death, tributes poured in from political leaders and cultural figures.
French President Emmanuel Macron called her a “legend of the century,” highlighting Bardot’s impact on French culture and film.

Despite later controversies — including legal convictions related to her political statements — Bardot remained widely known for her early cinematic achievements and her decades‑long commitment to animal causes.

A Life Remembered

Bardot’s legacy covers both her groundbreaking film work and her passionate activism.
She helped shape modern cinema’s image of female independence and later used her fame to raise global awareness for animals.

Her passing marks the end of an era for French cinema and cultural history.

That could reverberate well beyond a federal courthouse in Newark. When Representative LaMonica McIver entered the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility at Delaney Hall in Newark on May 9, the encounter lasted only minutes.

Yet the consequences have unfolded over months — encompassing federal charges, constitutional claims, political aftermath, judicial scrutiny, and a broader debate about how far elected officials can go when confronting executive‑branch power.

At the heart of the controversy is a clash that began as a congressional oversight visit and culminated in a physical altercation outside an immigration detention center.

Prosecutors allege McIver assaulted and interfered with federal officers as they attempted to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who had joined the delegation.

The government’s position is that McIver’s conduct crossed a legal line — converting what was claimed as oversight into criminal interference with law enforcement.

Her defense, by contrast, frames her actions as lawful, constitutionally protected oversight made chaotic by confusion, restricted access, and heightened tensions at the gate of the facility.

The Incident and Its Aftermath
On May 9, 2025, McIver arrived at the Delaney Hall ICE facility in Newark with fellow Democrats to conduct what they characterized as an unscheduled congressional inspection — a form of oversight that members of Congress are legally empowered to carry out to monitor federal agencies.

Federal prosecutors say a confrontation erupted when federal agents attempted to arrest Mayor Baraka outside the secured area.

According to charging documents, McIver then “forcibly impeded and interfered” with officers and made physical contact with at least two law enforcement personnel.

The indictment lists three counts under federal assault statutes, including allegations that she “slammed” her forearm into an agent and pushed past another officer using her forearms to strike him.

If convicted, McIver faces up to 17 years in prison — eight years for each of the primary counts and an additional year for a third count.

Mayor Baraka himself was briefly taken into custody on a misdemeanor trespassing charge, but that charge was later dropped by prosecutors.

Baraka and other local officials swiftly denounced the arrest as unwarranted and excessive.

At her arraignment, McIver pleaded not guilty to all charges, signaling her intent to dispute the government’s allegations vigorously.

Her legal team has rejected suggestions that she acted unlawfully and insists her actions were part of her duty to oversee immigration enforcement practices.

The Political and Legal Battleground
What began as a standoff over conduct at a detention center soon spiraled into a broader argument about congressional authority, prosecutorial discretion, and political messaging.

McIver’s defense has argued that the charges are politically motivated, asserting that the prosecution exists in stark contrast to how other politically contentious cases have been handled — particularly those involving participants in the January 6 Capitol riot, many of whom received pardons from former President Donald Trump or had charges dropped.

McIver’s legal filings have pointed to perceived selective enforcement and vindictive prosecution as part of their effort to have the charges dismissed.

The case also began to draw attention as a test of the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which ordinarily protects members of Congress from prosecution for their legislative acts.

McIver’s attorneys claimed her actions were part of legitimate oversight that should enjoy constitutional immunity. Prosecutors countered that her conduct — physically impeding law enforcement — had no legal connection to protected legislative activity.

In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper issued a significant ruling: he denied McIver’s motions to dismiss most of the charges, finding that her actions were not shielded by legislative immunity and that there was insufficient evidence that the prosecution represented vindictive or selective enforcement.

By doing so, Judge Semper cleared the way for two of the three felony counts to proceed to trial.

His decision underscored the principle that legislative duties cannot be used as a blanket defense for conduct that falls outside the ordinary scope of oversight.

However, Judge Semper has pushed back against aspects of the government’s strategy outside the courtroom. During pre‑trial arguments in October, he sharply criticized Department of Homeland Security (DHS) social media posts disparaging McIver and other Democratic officials involved in the incident.

The DHS had described the group’s actions as a “reckless stunt by sanctuary politicians” and linked them to broader narratives about domestic extremism — language the judge said was “prejudicial” and could taint any potential jury pool.

He ordered several of those posts removed, signaling concern about how public messaging by law enforcement agencies can intersect with — and potentially undermine — the fairness of judicial proceedings.

Tensions Over Oversight and Enforcement
At its core, the McIver case reflects a deeper, ongoing tension between legislative oversight and executive enforcement.

Members of Congress have long asserted the right to conduct unannounced visits to federal facilities, including ICE detention centers, as a core component of their constitutional responsibilities.

Organizations such as Amnesty International USA have publicly supported this right, warning that criminalizing oversight risks chilling such activities and sets a troubling precedent for how federal agencies respond to congressional scrutiny.

Supporters of McIver argue that the environment that day — with a newly opened detention center, lack of clear access protocols, and heightened public opposition — contributed to confusion among both lawmakers and law enforcement.

They contend that tensions escalated not because of misconduct by McIver and her colleagues but because of how ICE and DHS handled the situation once officials arrived.

Critics, including federal prosecutors and some law enforcement voices, argue that even if oversight rights exist, they do not extend to interfering with arrests or engaging in conduct that obstructs officers performing their duties.

In their view, laws against assaulting, resisting, impeding, or interfering with certain officers apply regardless of a person’s political office or oversight purpose.

This legal interpretation formed part of the government’s rationale for moving forward with charges against McIver, even after dismissing the mayor’s lesser charge.

Broader Reactions and Political Stakes
The stakes of the McIver case have drawn commentary from across the political spectrum. Nationally, the situation has been characterized by some political figures as an attempt to intimidate or punish elected officials for criticizing federal immigration policy.

Democratic lawmakers, including fellow representatives from New Jersey, have publicly condemned the charges, arguing that they set a chilling precedent for elected officials carrying out their oversight duties.

Conversely, supporters of the prosecution argue that no one — elected official or not — should be above the law when it comes to physical altercations with federal agents.

Some commentators have compared McIver’s alleged conduct to situations where individuals face consequences for resisting or obstructing law enforcement, emphasizing that constitutional oversight rights cannot be used as a shield for violence or interference.

The controversy also intersects with broader debates about immigration enforcement, detention practices, and the governance of facilities operated by or on behalf of federal agencies.

The Delaney Hall center has been criticized by local officials for lacking proper permits and oversight, contributing to ongoing friction between local leaders and federal authorities.

Implications for Constitutional and Institutional Norms
As Judge Semper weighs potential pre‑trial motions, evidentiary issues, and the path to a November trial date, the outcome of the McIver case will likely reverberate beyond the particulars of this incident.

If the charges proceed to trial and result in conviction, it could raise questions about how assertively members of Congress can engage in oversight when faced with active law enforcement operations.

If the charges are dismissed or partially dismissed, the precedent might affirm broader protections for elected officials conducting oversight — even in contentious environments.

The case underscores a central constitutional question: where does legitimate oversight end and unlawful interference begin? That question has no simple answer, especially in an era of intense partisan polarization and heightened scrutiny of federal enforcement actions.

Yet the resolution of this dispute — in a federal courtroom, through legal argument and judicial interpretation — will help define the boundaries of power for years to come.

A Crossroads of Narrative and Justice
Ultimately, the McIver case illustrates how quickly political narratives can shape public perception long before courts have established facts.

Statements on social media, public denunciations, and political framing by various advocates and officials alike have added layers of complexity to an already fraught legal process.

Judge Semper’s insistence on curbing prejudicial government statements reflects the judiciary’s recognition that fair trials depend on minimizing external influence — even when the underlying issue is inherently political.

As the trial approaches and motions continue to unfold, the outcome will not only determine McIver’s personal and political future but also clarify how power is checked, how dissent is treated, and how justice functions when politics, enforcement, and constitutional prerogatives collide.

The case serves as a stark reminder that in the United States, laws, institutions, and legal norms are continually tested by real‑world tensions — and that how those tests are resolved helps define the nation’s legal and democratic character.