CRIME HUNTER: New Mafia movie Alto Knights focuses on Costello-Genovese war
'This is for you, Frank,' the young hitman snarled before firing at mob boss Frank Costello outside New York's Waldorf-Astoria.
The bullet only grazed Costello – known as the Prime Minister of the Underworld for his diplomatic skills – but it was enough to send him into retirement, leaving the reins of the Luciano Crime Family to arch-rival Vito Genovese.
The rivalry between the two gangsters is the premise of a new mob movie, Alto Knights, starring Robert DeNiro playing both arch-criminals. In addition to DeNiro, the crime drama also stars Debra Messing, Cosmo Jarvis, Kathrine Narducci, and Michael Rispoli.
The film – directed by Barry Levinson and was written by Nick Pileggi, who also penned GoodFellas – was out Friday.
***
The year 1957 was a blockbuster year in the American underworld.
Costello was hit in May by up-and-coming gangster Vincent 'The Chin' Gigante, later called The Oddfather by the New York tabloids. Costello never pointed the finger at 'The Chin' and decades later the former boxer would become boss of the Genovese family.
Once Costello was out of the way, the greedy, violent and ambitious Genovese was looking to tie up loose ends. One of those loose ends was Albert Anastasia. Known as the Mad Hatter and Lord High Executioner for his volatile demeanour, the 55-year-old ran what would become the Gambino crime family.
'A glare from Genovese's dark eyes from beneath bushy eyebrows intimidated the bravest mafioso,' mob expert Selwyn Raab wrote in Five Families: The Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of America's Most Powerful Mafia Empires.
Costello found himself in the Genovese's crosshairs. The bloodthirsty rebel wanted to be capo di tutti capi – boss of bosses. That meant taking over the commission, the board of directors of the national crime syndicate.
Genovese and Carlo Gambino decided to take out Murder Inc. founder Anastasia.
On Oct. 25, 1957, while getting a shave in the barber shop of New York's posh Park-Sheraton Hotel, two gunmen entered and shot Anastasia to death as he rested in the barber's chair. Everything was going Genovese's way.
Three weeks later, on Nov. 14, 1957, Genovese ordered a summit of the nation's mafia leaders for what he hoped would be his coronation. The meet would be held at the rural home of mobster Joseph 'Joe the Barber' Barbara in Apalachin, New York, west of Binghampton.
On the agenda were drugs, loansharking, Cuba and divvying up the spoils of Albert Anastasia's empire. Around 100 mobsters from the U.S., Canada and Italy were in attendance.
Then it all came off the rails when a local state trooper noticed all the limos with out-of-state licence plates.
Cops moved in and more than 60 gangland czars were pinched. Some were jailed, and some were hit with hefty fines, but the true damage was that Cosa Nostra was no longer in the shadows.
The debacle was the beginning of the end for Genovese.
***
Vito Genovese's throbbing resentment toward Costello went back nearly three decades, according to author Tony DeStefano, who wrote the 2018 book Top Hoodlum: Frank Costello Prime Minister of The Mafia, followed in 2021 by The Deadly Don: Vito Genovese, Mafia Boss.
Both criminals had been under the command of Mafia visionary Lucky Luciano during the days of prohibition.
'I think the main problem was that Genovese felt envious of Costello, who was the more polished, politically connected and more astute businessman,' the author said. 'For those reasons, Costello was given the leadership of the family by Luciano after Genovese left for Europe in the face of the murder rap.'
And that grated on the petty Genovese.
'Upon his return to New York City in 1945, [Genovese] realized he had missed out on many opportunities in the rackets and wanted Costello to compensate him a share, which didn't happen,' DeStefano told MobMuseum.
He added: 'Genovese saw Costello in the 1950s as the main impediment to his control of the family. So Genovese got Gigante to try and kill Costello in the failed assassination attempt.'
***
Genovese's ride at the top didn't last long. In 1959, the cold-blooded killer was convicted on narcotics conspiracy charges for peddling heroin. There has long been a belief among cops and gangsters alike that Genovese was set up by his old boss, Lucky Luciano.
According to the narrative, Luciano – by then living in exile in Rome – had soured on Genovese for his machinations and belief he was bad for business. So the mobster paid $100,000 to a Puerto Rican dope dealer to falsely implicate his former protege.
Genovese got 15 years in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. There, he gave longtime trusted soldier Joe Valachi the infamous kiss of death.
Valachi flipped and gave the feds a birds-eye view of the Cosa Nostra's inner workings and with the publication of the Valachi Papers, a pop culture star.
Genovese died of a heart attack in 1969.
HUNTER: Mob-like Morris Conte dismemberment murder a personal affair
LAMEFELLAS: Mafia bosses moan about 'low' calibre aspiring wiseguys
MOB WAR: Bloodbath feared in Mafia heartland after scion's murder
***
Unlike Genovese, Costello remained respected elder statesman in the underworld. The Godfather character of Don Vito Corleone was long-reputed to be based on Costello.
Four years after Genovese pegged out in a Missouri prison, death came for the Prime Minister of the Underworld. Costello died quietly of natural causes in 1973. He was 82.
'If ever there was an organized crime figure who came out pretty good, it was Frank Costello,' screenwriter Nick Pileggi said.
bhunter@postmedia.com
@HunterTOSun
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why are ICE agents running amok? Because they can.
As the Trump administration pushes for more mass deportations, law enforcement officers from the Department of Homeland Security are suddenly everywhere. In San Diego, Homeland Security officers conducted a SWAT-style raid on a restaurant, handcuffing 19 employees over an hour and slamming the manager against a wall in the process. Eventually, they arrested four people. The raid was so heavy-handed that the officers had to deploy flashbang grenades to escape from the angry crowd that gathered in response. Even members of Congress aren't safe. Last week, Homeland Security officers forced their way into Rep. Jerry Nadler's (D) New York office without a warrant. When one of the staffers protested, she was handcuffed and detained. The cases you hear about are only the tip of the iceberg. Federal officers are fanning out across the country, conducting raids, traffic stops, even scooping people up at courthouses when they appear for immigration hearings and carting them away in leg irons and shackles — harsh treatment that you seldom see even when felons are arrested. This heavy-handedness and cruelty isn't a glitch — it's intentional, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Tom Homan, President Trump's border czar, attempt to frighten immigrants into leaving the country. Even legal residents and American citizens are getting caught up in the crackdown. And the worst part is, while things like barging into a congressman's office and detaining his staffers aren't legal, there is nothing anyone can do about it. If Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents force their way into your house without a warrant, slap you around and detain your family at gunpoint while conducting an illegal search, you have no way of getting your constitutional claims into federal court. As a practical matter, these agents are above the law and cannot be held accountable for violating your constitutional rights. Why this is true is yet another example of our system of checks and balances failing to appreciate the risk of a president deciding to simply the the law. After the Civil War, to ensure that states abided by the Constitution, Congress passed 42 U.S. Code 1983, giving individuals the right to sue in federal court when their constitutional rights had been violated under color of state law. At the time, it was inconceivable that there should be a similar need to sue for constitutional violations by the federal government. For one thing, law enforcement was almost exclusively under state control — the FBI was not founded until 1908. Moreover, the federal government was seen, generally, as the perennial good guy and the guarantor of constitutional rights, a position it held right through the civil rights era. As the federal government and federal law enforcement grew, this became more and more untenable. So in 1971, in a case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, the Supreme Court created what is known as a 'Bivens action' as an analogue of section 1983, giving individuals the right to sue in court when their Fourth Amendment rights were violated under color of federal law. Since then, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to extend the reach of Bivens, ultimately holding in 2022 that no one could ever bring a legal claim for excessive force — or any constitutional claim — against a federal officer enforcing immigration laws. This is dangerous, especially now. The rule of law is not supposed to run on the honor system. Section 1983 and Bivens actions are not just about monetary damages. They are a way for citizens to hold their government accountable. Officers' understanding that they may someday have to explain their actions is a powerful deterrent to bad behavior. Nobody likes accountability, but it makes all of us, including police officers, better people. The current system of 'what happens in ICE, stays in ICE' is the opposite of that. Unchecked by the courts, ICE's behavior will only get worse over the next three and a half years. Even the most well-meaning bureaucracies are subject to mission creep, so you can expect Noem's troops to expand their activities well beyond detaining immigrants. The Homeland Security officers who invaded Nadler's office were hunting for protesters, and Homan has already threatened state officials and even members of Congress with arrest for 'interfering' with ICE. When it comes to constitutional rights, no man is an island. The threats, performative cruelty and denials of basic due process are not attacks on immigrants. They are attacks on the rule of law itself. You should be just as upset and concerned by the Guatemalan snatched off the street and hustled onto a plane with no notice and no due process as you are by the sobbing staffer handcuffed in Nadler's office. In the eyes of our Constitution, they are all of us. Chris Truax is a charter member of the Society for the Rule of Law and an appellate attorney. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. man arrested, put in psychiatric hospital, reportedly leaves Russia
Joseph Tater, a U.S. citizen arrested in Russia in August 2024 after an apparent tussle with hotel staff and then forcibly admitted to a psychiatric hospital in April this year, without ever standing trial, has left Russia, according to the country's state-run TASS news agency. TASS said Tater, 46, was discharged from a psychiatric facility in Moscow, where he spent over a month. In April, TASS reported that Tater had been examined by doctors and diagnosed with a mental disorder, and then admitted for compulsory psychiatric treatment. Tater was accused by Russian authorities of abusing hotel staff in Moscow upon his initial arrest. Officials later said he was also being investigated on suspicion of assaulting a police officer, a charge that could have seen him face up to five years in prison. Tater claimed during a court hearing that he was being persecuted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and was seeking political asylum in Russia. Russia imprisoned several Americans as tensions with Washington soared in recent years. Paul Whelan, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and teacher Marc Fogel were all designated wrongfully detained by the U.S. government, along with dual U.S.-Russian national Ksenia Karelina. All four of those Americans have been freed in prisoner swaps with Moscow. Among the U.S. nationals still jailed in Russia is U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Gordon Black, whose three-year, nine-month prison sentence for robbing and threatening his Russian girlfriend was reduced in April by seven months. Robert Gilman, 72, is currently serving a 3 1/2-year sentence in Russia for assaulting a police officer, and Travis Leake, a musician convicted on drug charges, was sentenced to 13 years in prison last summer. A Russian court sentenced another 72-year-old American, Stephen Hubbard, to nearly seven years in prison in October for fighting alongside Ukraine's military. TASS quoted Tater's lawyer, Polina Vlasyuk, as saying she had no information regarding his whereabouts or circumstances. Musk alleges Trump's name appeared in Epstein files as feud escalates What to know about President Trump's travel ban on nationals from 12 countries Trump says he's disappointed by Musk criticism of budget bill, Musk says he got Trump elected
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he has no evidence to justify his unprecedented Biden investigation
Late Wednesday, Donald Trump broke new ground, directing the Justice Department to launch a wide-ranging investigation into Joe Biden and officials in the Democrat's administration, based on Republican conspiracy theories about the former president's mental health. It was an unprecedented move: An incumbent American president had never before publicly ordered a federal probe of his predecessor. There was a degree of irony to the circumstances. After his defeat in the 2020 election, Trump spent years insisting that Biden had ordered an investigation into him — an odd conspiracy theory for which there is literally no evidence. As of this week, it's Trump who's doing exactly what he falsely accused his predecessor of doing. The day after the incumbent president delivered his directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi, as NBC News reported, a reporter asked Trump a good question. Trump said he does not have evidence to support his claims of illegal autopen use during the Biden administration. Asked by NBC News whether he has uncovered any evidence that anything specific was signed without Biden's knowledge or that someone in the former president's administration acting illegally, Trump said, 'No.' The Republican specifically said, 'No, but I've uncovered, you know, the human mind. I was in a debate with the human mind.' He went on to say, 'So, you know, it's just one of those things.' In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, he debated Biden last year; the Democrat struggled; so the Justice Department should investigate the former president and his team to see if White House aides secretly signed laws, orders, directives and pardons without Biden's knowledge. In this country, federal law enforcement is supposed to launch investigations when presented with evidence of wrongdoing. As of now, however, the Trump administration is less concerned with the existence of evidence and more concerned with a president who believes he's 'uncovered, you know, the human mind.' I can appreciate why this might seem like the latest in a series of head-shaking 'Trump being Trump' stories, but it has a broader significance. A sitting American president, effectively by his own admission, just ordered the attorney general to launch an unprecedented fishing expedition against a former American president because on the basis of a flubbed debate performance. What's more, this week's White House offensive marked the third time in three months that Trump has ordered baseless investigations into Americans he perceives as political foes. The story was soon eclipsed by dozens of other administration controversies, but in April, Trump signed two first-of-their-kind executive orders targeting a pair of officials from his first term who defied him. There was barely a pretense in the orders that the targeted former officials — Christopher Krebs, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, a former high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official — had done anything wrong. Indeed, the closer one looked at the stated rationales in support of the directives, the more ridiculous they appeared. Nevertheless, the president directed Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security to launch a 'review' into Krebs, while simultaneously ordering DHS to investigate Taylor. A week later, The New York Times' Jonathan Swan reminded White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, 'The president has long said that it would be an abuse of power for a president to direct prosecutors to investigate him. Last week, President Trump explicitly directed the Justice Department to scrutinize Chris Krebs to see if it can find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. How is that not an abuse of power, to direct the Justice Department to look into an individual, a named individual?' Leavitt struggled badly to defend Trump's move, and for good reason: The directives were indefensible. That did not, however, stop the Republican president from pushing the problem to a new level by going after his immediate predecessor. I can appreciate why the media landscape is crowded, but I continue to believe this should be more than a one-day story. Trump — who ran on an authoritarian platform, who's trying to concentrate power while expressing indifference to the rule of law — has now ordered three investigations into Americans he doesn't like. He has an enemies list, and he's using the power of the presidency to target people on that list, despite the inconvenient fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of actual wrongdoing. If the pushback is muted, Trump will do what he's always done: assume that he can get away with such an abuse, while preparing to go even further down the same radical and dangerous path. Not to put too fine a point on this, but if the president can sic the Justice Department on his critics and perceived enemies and this isn't seen as a dramatic scandal, who'll be next? How far down his enemies list will he go? I'm reminded anew of J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar put on the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush who published a Bluesky thread on the orders against Krebs and Taylor, calling them 'shameful' and 'constitutionally corrupt' and accused Trump of 'palpably unconstitutional conduct.' The more routine this becomes, the greater the severity of the offense. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
