Child sex offender Epstein introduce Melania to Trump? Biographer makes EXPLOSIVE claim; Melania's book....
How did Donald Trump and Melania meet? In a fresh controversy that has surrounded US President Donald Trump, Trump's biographer Michael Wolff has stirred controversy by claiming that Jeffrey Epstein may have introduced Melania Trump to Donald Trump. The assertion has spread across the US media like a world fire. However, it should be noted that the claim contradicts Melania's own account and other credible sources that deny Epstein's involvement in their relationship. How did Donald Trump and Melania meet?
As per a report by the Times of India, Wolff had claimed that Epstein played a key role in the Trumps' meeting, claiming Melania was part of Epstein's social circle through modeling industry connections.
'She's introduced by a model agent, both of whom Trump and Epstein are involved with… Epstein knew her well,' Wolff said.
However, in contrast to the claim, Melania has consistently stated that she met Donald Trump in 1998 at a Fashion Week party hosted by modeling agent Paolo Zampolli in Manhattan. Also, both Zampolli and Melania have publicly denied any role played by Epstein in their introduction. Melania has also rejected the claim in her book. How is Donald Trump connected to Jeffrey Epstein?
Notably, Donald Trump's links to Jeffrey Epstein came to the spotlight after The Wall Street Journal reported that attorney general Pam Bondi told Donald Trump that his name had come up in justice department files connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 minutes ago
- First Post
‘This happens in a banana republic': Trump's Greece and China-like reaction to job data draws flak
History shows that when political leaders manipulate or interfere with economic statistics, the results are often disastrous. read more US property mogul Donald Trump leads a media event on the sand dunes of the Menie estate, the site for Trump's proposed golf resort, near Aberdeen, north east Scotland, May 27, 2010. File Image/Reuters When President Donald Trump received disappointing jobs numbers on Friday (August 1), his response was swift and alarming: he fired Erika McEntarfer, the Senate-confirmed head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This unprecedented move has raised concerns among economists and experts, who warn that meddling with government data can have far-reaching consequences. History shows that when political leaders manipulate or interfere with economic statistics, the results are often disastrous. Why is Labor Department's independence critical? The BLS, though officially part of the Labor Department, operates independently to produce nonpartisan data on critical metrics like employment, prices, and wages. This impartiality is vital, as reliable statistics help make sound decisions in both the public and private sectors. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For instance, the Federal Reserve relies on BLS data on inflation and unemployment to set interest rates, which directly impact the cost of mortgages and car loans for millions of Americans. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell recently stressed at a news conference, 'Good data helps not just the Fed, it helps the government, but it also helps the private sector.' He added, 'The United States has been a leader in that for 100 years, and we really need to continue that in my view.' Trump's decision to dismiss McEntarfer has drawn sharp criticism, with many seeing it as a step toward undermining the integrity of economic data. Former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chair Janet L. Yellen called the move deeply troubling, stating, 'This is the kind of thing you would only expect to see in a banana republic.' Lessons from history History offers stark warnings about the dangers of manipulating government data. In the early 2000s, Chinese local authorities fudged economic figures to meet Beijing's growth targets, rendering official data unreliable. Analysts and policymakers were forced to turn to alternative measures to understand the true state of China's economy. Similarly, Greece's government falsified deficit numbers for years, a deception that fueled a crippling debt crisis requiring multiple international bailouts. When the head of Greece's statistical agency insisted on reporting accurate figures, he faced criminal prosecution. Perhaps most notoriously, Argentina systematically understated inflation rates during the 2000s and 2010s, leading the international community to dismiss its data entirely. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These examples show the chaos that ensues when political pressures compromise data integrity. Economists warn that Trump's firing of McEntarfer risks setting the US on a similar path, eroding trust in the numbers that guide critical economic decisions.
Deccan Herald
13 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
India's energy strategy through the lens of game theory
The Donald Trump administration's recent threat of penalty in response to India's continued oil imports from Russia is a textbook case of trade-offs between returns and risks. The United States has also announced a 25 per cent tariff on imports from India. The US tariff threats target high-value and/or labour-intensive exports, including electronics, pharmaceuticals, and the magnitude of the risk in India's oil procurement strategy has increased: approximately $87 billion in India's export revenue from the US now faces a potential slowdown. In comparison, India saves around $5-7 billion annually in energy costs from Russian strategic move in crude oil procurement — from negligible Russian oil purchases before 2022 to over 2 million barrels daily (about 40 per cent of crude oil imports) has saved the country billions of dollars over the last three how should India mitigate risks from US sanctions while managing its energy needs?.The strategic a game theory perspective, India faces three primary strategic choices, each with distinct payoff structures and risk compliance with the US demands would require the termination of Russian oil imports and the sourcing of oil from alternative suppliers. This is neither feasible nor likely. The specifics, scope, and implementation of any trade deal with the US, if India were to comply with US demands, are unclear. The recent experience of other countries that have entered trade deals with the US serves as a cautionary example of potentially inequitable terms in such compliance would also signal an acceptance of the US pressure, inviting similar coercion across other policy domains, undermining India's strategic autonomy in defence procurement, technology partnerships, and regional contrast, full defiance means continuing current Russian oil import levels, regardless of US threats, while maximising short-term energy cost savings and accepting potential US initial arbitrage opportunity for India in 2022 was compelling, as Russian crude oil was available at a discount of approximately $30 per barrel relative to the Brent benchmark. Even last year, India's oil import bill contracted despite stable volumes, reducing current account deficit pressures and inflation pass-through effects on the domestic ability to offer sustained deep discounts now, however, is structurally limited. Sanctions pressure, higher production costs, and freight insurance premiums, as well as competing demand from China and Turkey, are likely to keep discounts low. Recently, India's State-owned refiners seem to have paused new Russian contracts as margin compression makes procurement uneconomical. With the cost-benefit trade-off once again tapering against benefits, full defiance is neither a wise option for India nor economically middle third strategy would involve strategic diversification, gradually reducing Russian oil share to 15-20 per cent of total imports over the next two years while expanding alternative supplier relationships. The mixed strategy preserves partial cost advantages from Russian discounts while limiting the magnitude of the US experiences also suggest that the Trump administration's threats may represent pressure tactics rather than a policy that is fully implemented. Tariffs on imports from India and other countries are too disruptive to the US economy, resulting in higher costs of intermediate inputs for US firms and higher prices for final goods imports for US citizens, which in turn lowers domestic demand. This will lead to an eventual slowdown in the US economy — a risk that the US administration will have to the probability-weighted expected costs of the tariff and the penalty threats to India and other countries depend critically on the credibility of the threat when the US economic slowdown begins. If threats lack credibility, India will have more time to diversify its oil energy security needs long-term of the US sanctions and penalty threats, diversification reduces single-supplier dependence, and improves energy security. Over-concentration in any single supplier creates systematic vulnerabilities that rational energy procurement policy should energy demand, which is projected to increase rapidly, requires reliable and scalable supply relationships. Diversified procurement is likely to create competitive pressure among suppliers, potentially resulting in better long-term pricing compared to relying on a single supplier. Rather than choosing sides between the US and Russia, India can preserve relationships with multiple partners while avoiding excessive dependence on any single a game theory perspective, therefore, strategic diversification emerges as India's dominant strategy across multiple scenarios. Whether or not the US implements threatened penalties, diversification provides superior risk-adjusted returns compared to binary compliance or defiance for sustained economic growth and competitiveness, India should voluntarily adopt freer trade as part of its development strategy, rather than as a concession to external demands. The Budget 2025 announcements, with a move toward tariff rationalisation and the lowering of trade barriers, are a step toward acknowledging the same. .Vidya Mahambare is Union Bank Chair Professor of Economics and Director, Research, Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘It's not a genocide… it's a war': US President Donald Trump on Israel-Gaza conflict
US President Donald Trump Monday said he doesn't think the war in Gaza is a 'genocide', asserting that 'some horrible things happened' during the Hamas-led attack that triggered the war on October 7, 2023. Trump's response came after he was asked by the reporters whether he characterises Israel's response as a genocide. 'I don't think it's that,' he said, adding, 'They're in a war.' The US President also said that he wants 'Gazans to be fed' and US is the only country that's really doing that. 'We want the people fed — and we're the only country that's really doing that. We're putting up money to get the people fed… We want Israel to get them fed,' Trump said before boarding Air Force One in Allentown, Pennsylvania. 'We don't want people to starve, and there's some bad things happening,' he added. The UN has accused the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) saying its aid efforts put civilians in danger. More than 1,000 people have been killed while trying to get aid from GHF points since the group began operating in Gaza in May, with most reportedly shot by Israeli forces near those sites, it said. President Donald Trump's US envoy, Steve Witkoff visited Gaza on Friday (August 1) to get a clear picture of the humanitarian situation and help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza. It was the first visit by a senior US official to Gaza since the war began last October. Witkoff's visit came a day after he met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel has been facing growing criticism over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, where more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began, according to Gaza's health ministry. More than a dozen former senior Israeli officials have called for an end to the war in Gaza, arguing that the fighting has dragged on for political reasons and Israel has racked up more losses than victories. In a joint video, the officials argued that the war in Gaza could have ended long ago. They also demanded Israel to agree to a permanent ceasefire with a comprehensive deal that will allow release of the remaining hostages.
