Latest news with #NewYorkDailyNews
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
How Ghislaine Maxwell's Father May Have Led Her To Jeffrey Epstein
Nearly three decades before Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan jail, Ghislaine Maxwell mourned the death of another powerful man under mysterious circumstances: her father, Robert Maxwell. In both cases, she alleged foul play. Epstein, she claimed, was murdered; her father was pushed from his yacht. Ghislaine, before making it to the inner circles of Epstein, was known as the glamorous youngest daughter of the British media tycoon. And if it weren't for the influence her father wielded, his daughter, many say, might not even have made it to Manhattan's high society, and decades later, to a courtroom in New York. In November 1991, Maxwell vanished from the deck of his private yacht, the 'Lady Ghislaine', named after his favourite child. The 50-metre vessel was cruising the Atlantic when he disappeared. A few hours later, the Spanish coast guard found his body floating naked off the coast. The official ruling was heart attack, followed by accidental drowning. But some believed he had jumped to avoid financial ruin. Others, including Ghislaine, were certain it was murder. "Ghislaine is the baby of the family and the one who was closest to her father," her mother, Betty, told Vanity Fair. "The whole of Ghislaine's world has collapsed, and it will be very difficult for her to continue." Those onboard said they never saw him fall. The last confirmed sighting of the media tycoon was at 4:25 am. By afternoon, he was gone. What followed was a chain reaction: his companies imploded, and the family was plunged into bankruptcy. Not long after, Ghislaine Maxwell reappeared in New York City. And by the mid-1990s, she was deeply entwined with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier whose wealth and connections rivalled those of her late father. It is widely believed that the connection between Epstein and Ghislaine did not emerge by chance. Robert Maxwell sent her to New York in 1991 to oversee operations after acquiring the 'New York Daily News'. Reports suggest Epstein may have already been in Robert's orbit, possibly helping to manage or shield funds from Maxwell's increasingly unstable businesses. Some claim the pair knew each other before Robert's death. Sources believed Epstein may have laundered Maxwell's money, and then, when Ghislaine turned up in New York, she became very chummy with him almost overnight. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Ghislaine was a fixture of elite Manhattan society. Her guest lists included royalty and political royalty: Prince Andrew, Chelsea Clinton, Donald Trump and more. Behind the scenes, she was becoming more than Epstein's partner. She was his recruiter, and, ultimately, his alleged accomplice. From the mid-1990s onward, she was described as the "lady of the house" at Epstein's estates. Later court proceedings would accuse her of actively aiding in the trafficking of underage girls. Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence, is set to be questioned by both the US Department of Justice and Congress about her ties to Jeffrey Epstein and potential accomplices in his sex trafficking network. Her lawyer has said that she is willing to cooperate and "will testify truthfully."
The Star
a day ago
- Entertainment
- The Star
Jennifer Lopez is 'done' with marriage after 'a few' failures
The Bronx-born pop star, 55, told a crowd at Wednesday's show in Bilbao, Spain that she's hanging up her hopes of happily ever after. Photo: TNS Jennifer Lopez announced she's 'done' with marriage after four divorces, along with a couple broken engagements. The Bronx-born pop star, 55, told a crowd at Wednesday's show in Bilbao, Spain that she's hanging up her hopes of happily ever after, at least one that includes a ring and trip down the aisle, according to fan footage making the rounds. ''J. Lo, marry me?'' the Love Don't Cost A Thing artiste read out a fan's sign. 'I think I'm done with that [laughs]. Yeah, I tried that a few times. Anyway…' J. Lo's remarks follow her latest divorce, from Ben Affleck, which was finalised in January. This time a year ago, the couple — whose early aughts engagement ended without 'I do,' prior to their spring 2021 reconciliation — was at the center of split speculation. Lopez filed for divorce in August 2024, on their second wedding anniversary. Lopez and Affleck's second go at a relationship — following the headline sensation known as Bennifer — came on the heels of the former ending her engagement to Alex Rodriguez. The Grammy nominee first exchanged vows with model and waiter Ojani Noa, to whom she was married from early 1997 to June 1998. She then tied the knot with backup dancer Cris Judd in September 2001, filing for divorce the following summer. Lopez and Affleck got engaged in late 2002, before her divorce with Judd was finalised in January 2003. After their very public romance and split, Lopez wed Marc Anthony in June 2004, divorcing a decade later. The musicians share 17-year-old teens Max and Emme. – New York Daily News/Tribune News Service
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 days ago
- Health
- First Post
Indian-origin doctor in New Jersey charged with offering drug for sex
An Indian origin doctor in New Jersey has been charged with distributing drugs without a legitimate medical purpose to his patients in exchange for sexual favours, according to a press release issued by the US Attorney's Office. read more An Indian-origin physician in New Jersey has been charged with unlawfully prescribing drugs to patients in return for sexual favours, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ritesh Kalra, 51, a resident of Secaucus, allegedly ran a 'pill mill' out of his medical practice, regularly dispensing high doses of opioids such as oxycodone and promethazine with codeine without valid medical reasons, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey said on Friday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Physicians have a serious responsibility—but as alleged, Dr Kalra abused that trust by fuelling addiction, exploiting vulnerable patients for sex, and defrauding New Jersey's public health insurance programme,' said U.S. Attorney Alina Habba in the statement. Kalra, who practised internal medicine in Fair Lawn, is accused of issuing over 31,000 oxycodone prescriptions between January 2019 and February 2025, including some days where he wrote more than 50 prescriptions. Authorities also allege that Kalra submitted fraudulent claims for in-person consultations and counselling sessions that never took place. He appeared in federal court in Newark on Thursday before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. He was released on home confinement and a $100,000 unsecured bond. He has been ordered to close his medical practice while legal proceedings are ongoing. Kalra's lawyer, Michael Baldassar, denied the allegations and criticised the government's statement, telling the New York Daily News that it read 'like a supermarket tabloid.' With inputs from agencies
NDTV
5 days ago
- NDTV
Indian-Origin Doctor Charged With Offering Drugs For Sexual Favours In US
An Indian-origin doctor in New Jersey has been charged with distributing drugs without a legitimate medical purpose to his patients in exchange of sexual favours, according to a press release issued by the US Attorney's Office. Ritesh Kalra, 51, of Secaucus, allegedly operated a "pill mill out of his medical office, where he routinely prescribed high-dose opioids-including oxycodone-and promethazine with codeine to patients," said the press release issued by the US Attorney's Office, District of New Jersey, on Friday. "Physicians hold a position of profound responsibility-but as alleged, Dr Kalra used that position to fuel addiction, exploit vulnerable patients for sex, and defraud New Jersey's public healthcare programme, " US Attorney Alina Habba said in the release. Kalra is accused of issuing more than 31,000 prescriptions for oxycodone, including days when he wrote upwards of 50 prescriptions between January 2019 and February 2025. Kalra, an internist in Fair Lawn, also allegedly billed for false in-person visits and counselling sessions, the release said. He made his initial appearance on Thursday before a US Magistrate Judge in Newark federal court. He was released on home incarceration and an unsecured bond of USD 1,000,00, it added. Kalra is required to shut down his medical practice while the case is pending. His attorney, Michael Baldassar, denied the accusations and said that the government press release reads like a supermarket tabloid, the New York Daily News reported on Saturday.
Vox
7 days ago
- Politics
- Vox
Trump's relationship with Epstein is indisputably scandalous
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A group of young protesters holds pictures of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump outside federal court in New York City on July 8, 2019. Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Democrats want you to know that President Donald Trump definitely might be protecting a cabal of child abusers. Or so the party's recent messaging suggests. For years, extremely online conservatives have been agitating for the release of the 'Epstein Files' — a hypothetical trove of confidential documents that reveal the powerful co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and accused sex trafficker who died in prison in 2019. When Fox News asked Trump last year whether he would release these files upon winning reelection, the Republican said, 'I guess I would.' Upon taking office, the Trump administration hyped the imminent disclosure of these documents. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested in February that a list of famous people who had abused Epstein's trafficked girls was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' Around the same time, Bondi and Trump's FBI released what it billed as the 'first phase of declassified Epstein files.' But these proved to be binders comprised largely of already public information. Then, earlier this month, the Justice Department declared that Epstein did not actually maintain a 'client list,' that he had died by suicide (contrary to the popular theory that he'd been murdered to prevent the exposure of his clients), and that no further files on his case would be made public. This incensed much of the online right. And Democrats have decided to echo its outrage. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. The party's decision to dedicate so much energy to promoting this controversy might seem dubious. For one thing, Democrats' ostensible outrage over the alleged suppression of the Epstein Files is obviously hypocritical. After all, he died six years ago. A Democratic administration was in power from January 2021 through January 20 of this year. If there are secret federal documents about this case that incriminate public figures, then Joe Biden had them at his disposal. Thus, by affirming the notion that incriminating 'Epstein Files' exist, Democrats risk perpetuating the idea that both parties are toxically corrupt — a form of cynicism that Trump has long exploited to excuse his shameless graft and malfeasance. Separately, Democrats have already spent much of the past decade trying to tar Trump's image by spotlighting his scandals. Yet the minority of Americans who are open to supporting Trump — but not dead set on doing so — haven't evinced much concern for his character. Generally, messaging that emphasizes how Trump's policies would materially hurt ordinary Americans has tested better than attacks on the demagogue's shady dealings or authoritarianism. Whatever one may say about the White House's handling of the Epstein case, it does not seem likely to increase Americans' cost of living. By focusing on Epstein, Democrats are thus arguably defraying attention from Trump's true vulnerabilities — such as the tariffs that are raising prices for consumers or Medicaid cuts that will take health insurance from lower-income people. But these worries are misguided. The Democrats' decision to lean into the Epstein controversy is a political no-brainer for several reasons. Trump's relationship with Epstein – and handling of his case – is genuinely eyebrow raising To a degree, the furor over Epstein is rooted in beliefs that are unproven, if not outright false. For instance, there is no public evidence that he kept a labeled list of fellow sexual abusers, much less that such a document is in the government's possession. But the Trump administration has genuine liabilities on this subject, which Democratic advocacy can direct public attention toward. First, the incontrovertible facts about Trump's relationship with Epstein are unflattering and eyebrow raising, even though they are not incriminating. In the 1990s, Trump and Epstein were repeatedly photographed and video taped beside each other at social events. This by itself isn't especially damning. There's no reason to presume that everyone who ever associated with Epstein participated in his sex crimes. Criminals do not generally socialize exclusively with their co-conspirators. But in 2017, Epstein told the journalist Michael Wolff that he had been Trump's 'closest friend for 10 years.' And in 2002, Trump told New York magazine, 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' What's more, on Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal published the text of a letter that Trump sent to Epstein to celebrate the latter's 50th birthday. In that missive, Trump wrote his signature below the following lines of imaginary dialogue, which were typewritten: 'Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,' the note began. Donald: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be anothedr wonderful secret. It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead. It's possible that Trump did not realize quite how young Epstein's sexual targets were. And it's also conceivable that the playful references to 'age' and a 'secret' in Trump's letter reference something innocuous. Yet Trump is more liable to be tainted by these remarks and associations than the average politician, given that the president once boasted about nonconseusally grabbing women's genitals and was found civilly liable for sexual abuse. Making matters worse for him, his own claims about the Epstein controversy are wildly contradictory. In recent days, Trump has claimed that the government does possess secret files with explosive claims about Epstein, but that these documents were forged by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and 'the Losers and Criminals of the Biden administration.' He has also insisted that this whole controversy is dull and deserves no public attention, telling reporters, 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring.' As The Atlantic's Jonathan Chait notes, these two claims are a bit hard to square. On the one hand, Trump suggests that the FBI, CIA, State Department, and the Obama and Biden administrations all conspired to fabricate defamatory documents about an alleged child sex abuse conspiracy. On the other hand, he says that this is a really boring story that shouldn't interest anybody. But an elaborate conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government — and seemingly aimed at politically damaging Trump — seems like something that would quite naturally interest Americans in general, and Trump supporters in particular. What's more, even if we put Trump's conspiracizing to one side, his claim that he doesn't understand why the Epstein case interests people still seems disingenuous. After all Trump, accused former President Bill Clinton of visiting 'the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein' in 2015, and spread allegations that Clinton was behind Epstein's death four years later. Trump subsequently demanded 'a full investigation' into Epstein's death and crimes, telling reporters, 'You have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot.' It seems clear then that Trump knows perfectly well why the Epstein case interests people. The fact that he now feels compelled to claim otherwise, while begging his supporters to stop talking about the controversy, seems rather odd — and also, like an indication that Democrats would be wise to keep attention focused on this matter. Meanwhile, it is clear that Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel deceived the public about the Epstein case — either when they suggested that the government had been suppressing documents about his co-conspirators, or when they later insisted that such documents did not exist. In 2023, Patel suggested that the Biden administration possessed Epstein's 'black book,' and insinuated that this document was not merely a catalog of the financier's contacts, but rather, a list explicitly identifying various famous people as 'pedophiles.' As noted above, Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was sitting on her desk. Now, Patel and Bondi maintain that no such lists exist. This leaves two possibilities: Either America's two top law enforcement officers misled the public about the Epstein case in the past, or they are doing so today. Put more pointedly, Patel and Bondi either cynically promoted conspiracy theories about a Biden administration coverup, despite knowing they lacked evidence for their smears, or they suddenly decided to perpetrate such a coverup themselves. Neither interpretation recommends them for high office. And both readings of their actions make the Trump White House look grossly incompetent. If the administration knew that it had no compelling information about Epstein to unveil — or else, that it possessed explosive information that it didn't wish to make public — why did Bondi spend months hyping the release of the Epstein documents? It's as though the administration cannot anticipate the most obvious consequences of its own actions, or think a single step ahead (a suspicion also raised by Trump's trade strategy). Cuts to Medicaid provider taxes are never going to get more clicks than conspiracy theories about elite child sex abuse rings If the Democratic Party had the power to dictate which topics would trend on social media, then they would be well-advised to pick Trump's Medicaid cuts or tariffs. But they do not have such power. Every Democratic official in the country could spend all day every day talking about Trump's defunding of rural hospitals — posts and podcasts about Medicaid provider taxes still wouldn't outperform content about whether Epstein was a CIA asset. Millions of Americans may vote once every four years on the basis of mundane economic policy concerns. But they are not typically going to entertain themselves by viewing TikToks about the 'de minimis' exemption on a daily basis. Democrats can and should foreground their party's strongest policy arguments in paid media. With a TV or YouTube ad, you can force the public to think about the subject of your choice. But the range of topics that you can get people to post about for free is much narrower. And of all the stories that could plausibly drive weeks of public conversation, Trump purportedly suppressing information about Epstein — to the chagrin of his own allies — seems like one of the most favorable for Democrats. There's a major difference between this scandal and all Trump's prior ones Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. But Trump's base was behind him in all of those instances. Today, by contrast, major right-wing influencers are validating the Democratic Party's narrative that a Republican White House is hiding something. And Trump's attempts to shut down discussion of the Epstein case have gotten him 'ratioed' on his own social media platform. Generally speaking, when you have an opportunity to increase the salience of an issue that divides your opposition, it's wise to do so. This is especially true when that issue also pits your adversary against majority opinion. And in trying to persuade the broad electorate that the Trump administration is mishandling the Epstein case — possibly, for nefarious reasons — Democrats are pushing on an open door. A YouGov/Economist poll released this week found that nearly 80 percent of Americans want the government to 'release all the documents it has about the Jeffrey Epstein case,' while more than two-thirds — including half of Republicans — say that the government is 'covering up evidence it has about Epstein.' Internal Democratic polling tells a similar story. A recent survey from Blue Rose Research found that 70 percent of the public — including 61 percent of Trump voters — believes that law enforcement is 'withholding information about powerful people connected to Epstein.' And a majority of voters agreed with the statement, 'authorities are keeping secret' a list of Epstein's clients to 'protect powerful people like Donald Trump.' There's a broader narrative here about Trump betraying his campaign promises, in service of the powerful Finally, it isn't that hard to weave the Epstein controversy into a broader story that touches on voters' material concerns. And Democrats are already doing this. In the party's telling, Trump's refusal to release documents related to the case reflects a core truth about his presidency: his fundamental commitment is to protecting the powerful, even if doing so requires breaking campaign promises. Hence, Trump's willingness to slash Medicaid — after promising for years that he wouldn't — so as to finance tax cuts for the rich. As Pat Dennis, president of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge, told Politico, the Epstein controversy is 'an interesting foot in the door to the overall case' that Trump 'doesn't have your back on Medicare, on health care, on veterans.' Thus, the Epstein story is a clear boon for Democrats, who've been right to increase its salience. Still, Democrats still have a lot of work to do Even as the party savors Trump's squirming, however, it should not lose sight of its own lackluster political standing. As CNN's Harry Enten noted this week, Democrats' poll numbers are far worse today than at this point in the 2006 and 2018 midterm election cycles — years when the party enjoyed large congressional gains amid a Republican presidency. In the generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by just 2 points today, compared to seven points in 2006 and 2018. All else equal, the Epstein scandal is a helpful development for Democrats. But its impact so far is miniscule. The online right's freakout notwithstanding, 90 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump in a recent Quinnipiac poll. By contrast, Democrats disapprove of their own congressional leadership by a 13-point margin. Democrats can and should continue cultivating distrust in Trump. But to increase faith in their own party, they will need to do more than affirm voters' conspiratorial suspicions about a long dead sex offender.
