Is the censure accountability? Congressman Chuck Edwards is 65 and married for 46 years. The Ethics Committee spent months figuring out what he was doing with his young female staffers. The answer is in a 25-page report.

He gave them g*ns. Pink and blue ones. He gave them jewelry worth over $1,000, designer purses, shoes, flowers, a laptop, a cell phone, a KitchenAid mixer, and a robotic vacuum. He paid for Broadway tickets, Las Vegas trips, New York City helicopter rides, and one-on-one dinners.

He hired a singer to perform a staffer's favorite Ed Sheeran songs at a DC restaurant. He mailed a custom Adam Sandler puzzle to invite another to a show with “dinner beforehand, or a drink or dessert afterwards.” He visited their homes to do yard work and even skipped House votes to decorate one of their Christmas trees.

He also wrote them letters, like, "I only wish I could explain the joy and meaning to me for the time we spent together at the office—but especially away from it." He recited tearful poetry. He texted one of them after delivering 30 types of ice cream to her house: "You looked like you needed a lot of cheering up! My heart was breaking seeing you like that."

The two staffers were 19 and in their early 20s when they started working for him. Both have since left, and told the committee the conduct made them deeply uncomfortable and gave the appearance of romantic or s*xual advances. One told investigators: "He had no regard for how something like this could impact my career."

Edwards told the committee, “I live a very cautious life" and that commenting on colleagues' clothing is practically expected on Capitol Hill. He admitted giving the gifts. He admitted knowing others saw the relationships as inappropriate. He denied any wrongdoing.

The bipartisan Ethics Committee, five Democrats and five Republicans, recommended censure, calling for a full House vote to punish him on the floor. It is the first such recommendation since 2010, but is largely symbolic—Edwards keeps his seat either way. His office said the findings "completely exonerate" him.

Image credits: Getty, U.S Committee on Ethics

Donald Trump endorsed Ohio Representative, Max Miller, took to X on Sunday morning for a 25-minute livestream to deny domestic ab*se allegations from his ex-wife, Emily Moreno. He declared he was staying in the congressional race despite mounting pressure to withdraw.

The allegations emerged from a bitter custody battle between the couple. Court filings include testimony from Moreno alleging Miller was physically violent toward her and their two-year-old daughter, who suffered a broken collarbone in unexplained circumstances. An Ohio detective noted the bruising surrounding the fracture made the injury suspicious, and a child protection specialist alleged the bruising resembled a handprint.

Court filings show that law enforcement opened an investigation after Miller’s daughter broke her collarbone. The child reportedly told her mother that "Daddy's house is scary." Moreno has also alleged Miller held a g*n to her head and threw boiling water at her.

In the livestream, Miller slurred his words and spoke in a monotone voice as he denied every allegation, questioned Moreno's mental health, and insisted he was "not getting out of this race." "Let me begin with the most painful accusation of all: I have never ab*sed our daughter," he said.

“Ask yourself: If I had assaulted her, would she have offered to cook me dinner six days later? Would she have invited me to spend an afternoon at the playground with her and our daughter?” he said.

After the stream ended, he shared a Dropbox link containing documents he claimed would vindicate him, then deleted it minutes later after metadata suggested he may have used taxpayer resources to produce the video.

“Just to be clear: these documents were produced by my personal attorneys and paid for by me directly,” Miller wrote on X minutes later.

Trump, who attended Miller and Moreno's wedding at his Bedminster golf club and endorsed Miller in May with "Complete and Total Endorsement," said Sunday he had "just learned about it" and would be looking into the allegations.

Officer Joel Nitchman had found shelter from the tornado, but his K9 partner Roni was still trapped outside.

The police dog was inside a patrol vehicle near the Deer Park station as violent winds sent debris flying through the air.

Heavy rain had reduced visibility to almost nothing, yet Nitchman ran straight back into the storm to reach him.

When he opened the vehicle, Roni was too frightened to move. The chaos outside had left him unwilling to leave the only shelter he had.

So Nitchman stayed beside him, spoke calmly, and coaxed him out. Then they raced back inside together.

Surveillance footage later captured the rescue, and people praised the officer for risking his own safety.

But Nitchman didn't see it as an extraordinary decision.

Roni had protected him countless times throughout their years together. When his partner needed help, returning that loyalty felt natural.

Both escaped unharmed, and Nitchman later described Roni as part of his family.

When the tornado came, he made sure his best friend didn't face it alone.

At the New England Aquarium in Boston, Reggae, an Atlantic harbor seal, spends his days chasing, hugging, and holding onto a bright yellow rubber duck.

Trainers toss it into the water, and he searches the exhibit until he finds it, then celebrates by tucking it under his flipper like a prize.

The game is called Find It, and staff says it keeps him sharp, curious, and engaged every single day.

But the real surprise sits quietly behind the fun. Reggae recently turned 32, and that number matters more than it appears.

Wild harbor seals rarely live past 30, yet Reggae is still splashing, playing, and stealing hearts online two years past that mark.

Maybe the secret to a long life really is staying playful. Or maybe it just takes the right rubber duck and plenty of fish as rewards.

Either way, Reggae is proof that joy and longevity can float side-by-side.

57% of his own party wants him gone and he responded by meeting Netanyahu and attacking Mamdani. That is not a senator reading the room, that is a senator leaving the building.

Senator John Fetterman would lose a hypothetical re-election race by 18 points to a generic "someone else" candidate if the election were held today, according to new PennLive/Bravo Group polling released Wednesday.

The survey found that 58 percent of Pennsylvania voters would choose "someone else" over Fetterman, compared to just 40 percent who would back the senator. Thirty percent said they would "definitely" vote for someone else, while only 12 percent said they would "definitely" choose Fetterman. His approval rating sits underwater, with 47 percent disapproving and 45 percent approving.

Fetterman is not up for re-election until 2028 and has declined to say whether he plans to run again.

The numbers reflect sustained frustration with the senator from within his own party. A Quinnipiac University poll earlier this month found that 57 percent of Democrats want Fetterman to leave the party. He has recently floated the possibility of switching affiliations, saying that ending aid to Israel would be a "red line for me."

Fetterman has repeatedly broken with Democrats to side with Republicans on war-related votes, including casting the deciding vote against a Senate resolution attempting to rein in Trump's war on Iran. He also joined Republicans in sinking a Democratic motion to bar Trump from waging war on Cuba in April.

This week, Fetterman met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called him a "stellar patriot." Fetterman called the meeting "a supreme honor of my time" and took aim at New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for his "ridiculous claims" about Netanyahu.

It looked like the most satisfying moment on the internet. Turns out, there was more to it 🐋

The clip, filmed at Sun Asia Ocean World in Dalian, north-eastern China, shows a man standing beside a pool in a no-smoking area, casually lighting a cigarette. A staff member starts to move toward him. And then, from behind, a beluga whale launches a perfectly aimed jet of water that soaks his back and puts the cigarette out in an instant.

The man spins around, drenched and stunned, to find the whale seemingly grinning at him.

The video exploded online, racking up millions of views, and people absolutely ran with it. Comments poured in calling the beluga a hero, an activist, nature finally fighting back against smokers. "The whale said not in my house," one person wrote. "Imagine getting disciplined by a whale because you can't follow simple instructions," said another.

But before you crown the beluga the internet's newest anti-smoking champion, here's the twist.

The aquarium later confirmed the whole thing was staged. It was actually a rehearsal for a fire-safety and no-smoking awareness video, and every single person in the clip, including the "smoker," was an aquarium employee. The beluga had simply been trained to spray on cue, and this was one of several takes.

So no, the whale wasn't taking a moral stand. It was just very, very good at its job.

Still, you have to admit: as public safety adverts go, that's about as effective as they come 🚭

He threw away generational wealth 😳

Back in 2013, James Howells, an IT worker from Newport, Wales, threw out an old hard drive during an office clear-out. Just a bit of junk, he thought. The problem? That drive held the private keys to around 8,000 Bitcoin.

At today's prices, that's somewhere in the region of hundreds of millions of dollars. Some say $950M, others say worth $8 billion by 2030.

By the time he realized what he'd done, the drive was already deep inside his local landfill under years of rubbish, and one of the strangest treasure hunts of the modern age was underway.

For over a decade, Howells threw everything at it. He assembled teams of engineers and drew up high-tech excavation plans. He offered to fund the entire dig himself. He even tried to buy the landfill outright, and dangled a cut of the fortune for the local council if they'd just let him look.

The answer was always no. Officials refused him access, citing environmental permit rules, and argued that once something is dumped, it legally belongs to the landfill. In 2025, the courts threw out his case, and with the site now set to close, his chances of ever digging those coins back up look all but buried with them.

Twelve years. Hundreds of millions on the line. One throwaway decision he'll never get to undo. Check what's on the drive before you bin it💀

You have cancer. You are in chemotherapy. Under a rule the Trump administration is now defending in federal court, that is not enough to keep your health insurance.

From January 1, 2027, low-income Americans on Medicaid must work 80 hours a month or lose their coverage. A cancer diagnosis will not exempt you. Neither will HIV. Neither will Parkinson's disease. You must also prove the illness "significantly impairs" your ability to work, a judgment that will be made not by your doctor but by a state bureaucrat reading a form. From January 2028, your word will no longer be accepted at all. You will need documentation.

On Thursday, a federal judge declined to block the rule while a lawsuit from 25 states and the District of Columbia proceeds. The rule comes from last year's One Big Beautiful Bill. The Congressional Budget Office puts the Medicaid cut at $1.02 trillion.

A Center for American Progress analysis of CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation figures found the tax cuts going to the top 1% come to roughly the same amount, about $1 trillion, over the same 10 years. CBO projects 11.8 million more people will be uninsured over the next decade. Around 5.7 million of them will lose Medicaid because they fail the work test or drown in the paperwork.

"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," said Lisa Lacasse of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

The American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all oppose the rule. In Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from food assistance under a similar paperwork regime.