Today in History: Dr. Jack Kevorkian carries out his first publicly assisted suicide
Today in history:
On June 4, 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian carried out his first publicly assisted suicide, helping Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old Alzheimer's patient from Portland, Oregon, end her life in Oakland County, Michigan.
Also on this date:
In 1812, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its first war declaration, approving by a vote of 79-49 a declaration of war against Britain.
In 1919, Congress approved the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which said that the right of Americans to vote 'shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.' (The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification.)
In 1940, during World War II, the Allied military completed the evacuation of more than 338,000 troops from Dunkirk, France.
Also in 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill declared in a speech to the House of Commons: 'We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.'
In 1942, the World War II naval Battle of Midway began, which resulted in a decisive American victory against Japan and marked a turning point in the war in the Pacific.
In 1986, Jonathan Jay Pollard, a former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, pleaded guilty in Washington to conspiring to deliver national defense information to Israel. (Sentenced to life in prison, Pollard would be released on parole in November 2015.)
In 1989, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pro-democracy demonstrators and dozens of soldiers are estimated to have been killed when Chinese troops crushed a seven-week-long protest held by occupying demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square.
In 1998, a federal judge sentenced Terry Nichols to life in prison without parole for his role in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people.
Today's Birthdays: Actor Bruce Dern is 89. Golf Hall of Famer Sandra Haynie is 82. Singer-actor Michelle Phillips is 81. Jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera is 77. Actor Parker Stevenson is 73. Actor Keith David is 69. Singer El DeBarge is 64. Opera singer Cecilia Bartoli is 59. R&B singer Al B. Sure! is 57. Actor Scott Wolf is 57. Comedian Horatio Sanz is 56. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is 54. Actor Noah Wyle is 54. Actor Angelina Jolie is 50. Actor-comedian T.J. Miller is 44. Olympic figure skating gold medalist Evan Lysacek is 40.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: The 2-state delusion must be scrapped — a ‘jihadist' state would solve nothing
Just months after Adolf Hitler started World War II, Winston Churchill smartly summarized why Europe's hopes for peace had been shattered. 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last,' the new prime minister said in a speech. His stark imagery mocked the foolish efforts to head off war, infamously led by Churchill's predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, who insisted Hitler really wanted peace. Chamberlain was delusional and the global conflict that followed turned his name into a permanent warning about the wages of weakness. Yet here we go again, with the current leaders of Britain, France and Canada falling into the trap. Their delusion is that Palestinians, including Hamas and other terror groups, really want peace and will live in harmony with Israel once they have a nation of their own. The clamor for a Palestinian state is the appeasement of our times. It travels under the disguise of a 'two-state solution.' Who can be against a solution? 'River to the sea' Except a Palestinian state wouldn't solve anything. Quite the opposite, it would set the stage for another round of bloodletting. As such, think of it as the two-state delusion. That's what it is because too many Islamists, from Iran to Arab lands and around the world, remain committed to destroying the Jewish state. They don't want to live in peace with Israel. They want to eliminate it. That's the essence of the antisemitic chant heard on American college campuses: 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' Translation: Palestine will be free of Jews, and Israel will be no more. That isn't a problem at the Jew-hating United Nations, which held a two-day conference on the topic last week. Prime Minister Keir Starmer calls Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky from his office. It was little noted that Palestinians already have a state of their own. Instead of living in peace with their Jewish neighbors, they turned Gaza into a terror state. Nearly two years after their barbaric invasion of Israel, and while they continue to hold some of the 250 hostages they took on Oct. 7 of 2023, the push to give them a nation isn't just foolish — it's obscene. As President Trump correctly said last week, 'You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded.' Thankfully, he added that the US is 'not in that camp,' referring to support for a Palestinian state by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney. Each is beset by radical Islamist immigrants, and so their pandering illustrates Churchill's observation about feeding the crocodile in hopes of being spared. They are aided and abetted by the Western media outlets that have fallen for the two-state ruse. 'A Hamas state' Typical is the nakedly anti-Israel coverage of The Associated Press, which described the UN conference as a serious bid 'to end one of the world's longest conflicts.' It claimed 'the plan would culminate with an independent, demilitarized Palestine living side by side peacefully with Israel.' That's a fairy tale, and at least deserves the caveat that it would be necessary to enforce a peaceful Palestinian state to guarantee Israel's security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Getty Images Good luck persuading the Israelis that their security can be outsourced to the United Nations. Jews there and around the world have said for decades: 'If Palestinians lay down their guns, there will be peace. But if the Israelis lay down our guns, there will be no Israel.' The Jewish nation's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said last week that Israel would not cave in to the 'international pressure.' 'Establishing a Palestinian state today is establishing a Hamas state. A jihadist state,' said Sa'ar. 'It ain't gonna happen.' The only positive development to come out of the conference was that the Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, condemned for the first time Hamas' 2023 invasion and called on the terrorists to release all hostages, disarm and end their rule of Gaza. But even that progress was undercut by a tone of both-sideism that included outrageous attacks on Israel because of how it responded to the invasion. The final declaration also urges Israel to cooperate with UN agencies, including UNRWA, whose employees openly fanned the flames of Hamas terror. It also defends the Gazan Health Ministry, which acts as a Hamas mouthpiece in distorting Palestinian casualties. 'Right of return' farce Worse, the conference supported the Palestinians' so-called 'right of return' to places in Israel they left or were expelled from during the 1948 creation of Israel. That would undermine Israel's security and its existence as a Jewish state. My view about the push for a Palestinian state is informed by 25 years of covering the topic. In the summer of 2000, I was on my first trip to Israel just before its Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat were scheduled to meet with President Bill Clinton at Camp David to iron out the terms and boundaries of such a state. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The American Embassy had helped arrange an interview for me with a top aide to Arafat in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the West Bank. The night before the interview, the late Martin Indyk, then the US ambassador to Israel, suggested a question I might ask. It ran something like this: If Arafat can't accept the 92% of the West bank Barak's government is offering, how would Arafat feel when a more conservative government offers as little as 72% of the West Bank? When I asked the question, the Arafat aide responded with a phrase he'd used in response to other questions about Arab violence. 'Well, you know,' he said, 'there are these groups we can't control.' He didn't name names, but his meaning was clear: There will be violence against Israelis, but don't blame Arafat because he can't stop it. No partner in peace It was a convenient lie, but the terror leader obviously feared for his own life if he signed a deal. Much to the shock of Clinton and Barak, Arafat walked away from Camp David without accepting a Palestinian state. Since then, several Israeli governments have made similar offers of a Palestinian state. All have been rejected in part because of the Sadat example. Recall that Egypt's bold leader, Anwar-el Sadat, was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist extremists two years after signing a peace treaty with Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a process facilitated by President Jimmy Carter at Camp David. Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize. Yet 47 years later, there is still no Palestinian state because no Palestinian leader has felt safe enough to recognize Israel's right to exist in its own secure borders. Hamas has made it clear it will never accept Israel. Its leaders have promised that given the chance, the horrors of Oct. 7 will be repeated again and again. The threats prove that a point Israelis have made about Palestinians still prevails: We have no partner for peace.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What are the Jeffrey Epstein files and will they be released?
A trove of documents related to the child sexual abuse offender Jeffrey Epstein are at the center of a splinter between Donald Trump and his rightwing allies. While campaigning, Trump said he would release the so-called 'Epstein files', the documents about criminal investigations into his former friend, who died in jail by hanging in 2019. But since taking office, Trump has appeared to have broken that promise, rankling ardent Maga allies who have spent years calling for the documents' release. Epstein knew powerful people of all political persuasions and counted them as friends. Releasing the documents has become a rallying cry to reveal more details about Epstein, including how he made his money, and the extent of involvement by those who supported him in his criminal activity, especially those with wealth and political sway. Earlier in July, the US justice department said it would not be releasing more documents, saying it could harm victims and insisting there was not a 'client list'. Democrats have seized on the schism on the right, calling for Congress to compel the release of the documents and calling out Trump's hypocrisy. Congress may intervene to obtain the documents. This week, a Democratic-led effort to subpoena the justice department for Epstein-related materials was passed by the House oversight subcommittee, but the leaders of the House Republican party have also blocked other efforts to release the documents. What are the 'files'? What kinds of documents? The federal government has a 'truckload' of documents from and about Epstein related to his criminal cases, according to reported comments of Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. This includes his flight logs for private planes and contacts, which is sometimes referred to as his 'black book' – which has already been publicly posted online. A memo released by the justice department in July said the agency searched through its databases, hard drives and physical areas to find Epstein-related information, locating 'more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence'. Within those files were images and videos of Epstein and his victims, some of whom are minors, and more than 10,000 downloaded videos and images of 'illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography'. Some documents related to Epstein are under court-ordered seals. For instance, a federal judge this week denied a request from the justice department to unseal grand jury transcripts in a south Florida criminal investigation. Some of those that were once sealed have been unsealed, including some unsealed in early 2024 that identified names of people included in depositions and motions who previously were listed as John Does. 'Much of the material is subject to court-ordered sealing,' the justice department memo said. 'Only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial, as the seal served only to protect victims and did not expose any additional third parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing.' There are also serious concerns about identifying victims if some documents are released. The department said Epstein had harmed more than 1,000 victims, some minors, all of whom 'suffered unique trauma'. 'Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history,' the memo said. Is there a 'client list'? In its memo, the department says there was no 'client list', despite it being a longtime claim and rallying call for those embedded in the Epstein case, especially on the right. 'There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,' the memo says. 'We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.' Julie K Brown, an investigative journalist with the Miami Herald who has been uncovering the Epstein case for years, said earlier this year that there was 'no Jeffrey Epstein client list. Period. It's a figment of the internet's imagination – and a means to just slander people.' In an interview with the Atlantic, Brown said the list idea was a 'red herring' that seems to have been born out of a phone directory Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, compiled, often referred to as the 'black book'. People such as Trump and other celebrities were in the directory, but so were Epstein's gardeners, barbers and others, Brown said. What has Trump said about the files? After Epstein's death by suicide, Trump shared a tweet that claimed the Clintons were involved in his death. He also told reporters at the time that he had questions about whether Bill Clinton went to Epstein's infamous island. While campaigning for the 2024 election, Trump said, when asked, that he would declassify the Epstein files, though he prioritized them below files about September 11 and the John F Kennedy assassination. 'You don't want to affect people's lives if there's phoney stuff in there, because there's a lot of phoney stuff with that whole world,' he said then. Bondi said earlier this year that the justice department would be releasing a list of Epstein's clients, telling Fox News that it was 'sitting on my desk right now to review' – though she later said she was talking about case files and not a client list. The department released some information, dubbed a 'first phase of files', to rightwing influencers, though those files did not contain much new information. Trump has grown increasingly angry at those calling for the files to be released, and dismissed the entire controversy as 'boring' and a 'hoax', something that 'nobody cares about'. 'I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country's history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax,' he wrote on Truth Social on 16 July. Is Trump named in the files? Recent reporting by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal said that the justice department briefed Trump that his name and the name of other well-known people were found as the department searched through the files. The Journal said Trump's name 'appeared multiple times'. Trump is known to be a one-time friend of Epstein's. His name's inclusion in the documents does not mean he was a party to any of Epstein's criminal activity. Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew are expected to be named among the documents, as both were known to be in Epstein's circles to some degree. Elon Musk, the world's richest man who was a Trump cheerleader until the two fell out, tweeted in early June amid a fight over the Trump tax bill that Trump 'is in the Epstein files' and 'that is why they have not been made public'. He has since deleted the tweet. What questions could these files help answer? There are many legitimate questions that the files could shed light on about Epstein and his circle. How Epstein made his money is still of much interest, as is how he financed his extensive sex-trafficking operation. Often referred to as a financier, he had vast wealth, owning expensive real-estate including two private islands, and a private jet. Ron Wyden, the Democratic senator from Oregon who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate finance committee, told the New York Times that four major banks had 'flagged more than $1.5bn in transactions – including thousands of wire transfers for the purchase and sale of artwork for rich friends, fees paid to Mr Epstein by wealthy individuals, and payments to numerous women'. Questions still swirl over potential ties to the intelligence community. Bondi told reporters: 'To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that.' The former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett denied Epstein was an Israeli agent, a frequent claim made without evidence. 'The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false,' Bennett said. And suspicion over the manner of Epstein's death is still in the mix. The justice department released an 11-hour video of jail footage in the hours before and after his death, though there seems to be almost three minutes of footage missing, leading to further scrutiny. Bondi has said that missing footage is because the Bureau of Prisons was resetting video. There is also much to be discovered on how Epstein was able to evade justice for so long. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter, told the Atlantic her 'one nagging question' goes back to 2008, when the justice department decided not to fully go after Epstein after local and state authorities first were looking into his crimes. 'Who were the people behind that in the beginning?' Brown said. 'Because if they had done their jobs, of all these people in 2006, 2007, and 2008 – if all those people working for us, the American public, had done their jobs, we wouldn't be sitting here right now. A lot of those victims would've never been victimized.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ghislaine Maxwell demands immunity before testifying to Congress
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, says that she is willing to testify before Congress but only if certain conditions are met, including being granted immunity, according to a new letter sent to the House oversight committee by her lawyer on Tuesday. Last week, the House committee on oversight and government subpoenaed Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, to testify via deposition next month at a federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida, where she is currently in custody. But in a new letter on Tuesday addressed to James Comer, a Republican who chairs the House committee, Maxwell's lawyer, David Markus, said that Maxwell was willing to testify but that testifying 'from prison and without a grant of immunity' were 'non-starters'. Markus wrote that their initial reaction to the subpoena was that 'Maxwell would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and decline to testify at this time.' 'As you know, Ms Maxwell is actively pursuing post-conviction relief – both in a pending petition before the United States Supreme Court and in a forthcoming habeas petition,' Markus wrote. 'Any testimony she provides now could compromise her constitutional rights, prejudice her legal claims, and potentially taint a future jury pool.' But, in the following paragraph, he states: 'However, after further reflection, we would like to find a way to cooperate with Congress if a fair and safe path forward can be established,' adding: 'Several conditions would need to be addressed for that to be possible.' Related: Ghislaine Maxwell asks US supreme court to overturn conviction The conditions in the letter include a grant of 'formal immunity', that the interview not take place at the correctional facility, that the committee's questions be given to her in advance, and that the deposition not be scheduled until after the 'resolution of her Supreme Court petition and her forthcoming habeas petition'. 'Ms Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity,' the letter states. In the letter, Maxwell's lawyer said that if the demands were not met, Maxwell 'will have no choice but to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights'. In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesperson for the oversight committee said that the committee 'will respond to Ms Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony'. At the end of the letter from Maxwell's lawyer on Tuesday, her lawyer also made a plea for clemency. 'Of course, in the alternative, if Ms Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing – and eager – to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, DC,' the letter states. 'She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning.' Last week, officials from the Department of Justice met with Maxwell over two days, amid growing pressure on the Trump administration to disclose more details about the Epstein case. This comes as earlier this month, the justice department drew bipartisan backlash, including from some Trump supporters, after announcing that it would not be releasing further documents from the Epstein case, despite earlier promises by Trump and the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, to do so.
