Today marks the start of the trial against rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs. The 55-year-old is charged with sex trafficking and extortion, among other things.
Combs has faced a series of allegations since late 2023, including from his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, who accused him of a decade of abuse. Last year, charges were added for serious crimes including sex trafficking, pimping, and extortion. Among other things, the rapper is alleged to have used violence to force women to take drugs and participate in so-called “Freak Offs”, which involved sexual acts that were filmed. In total, there are said to be around 60 lawsuits against the 55-year-old.
In an anonymous lawsuit, rapper Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter, 55, is also accused of assaulting a drugged 13-year-old girl together with Combs.
Extortion with firearms
The trial against Combs begins today, reports the BBC. The trial will start with the selection of twelve jurors and six alternates. The defense will review approximately 150 people. Combs is charged with two counts of human trafficking for sexual purposes, two counts of transporting persons for prostitution, and extortion. The extortion charges include kidnapping and coercion to perform sexual acts and take drugs, sometimes involving firearms or threats of violence against the victims.
Opening statements will then be made on May 12, and the trial is expected to last eight weeks. If convicted on all five counts, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Combs has been in custody in New York since September 2024 and denies all charges.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Venezuelan opposition politician Maria Corina Machado gives Donald Trump “something of a carte blanche” to overthrow Venezuela’s government, warns peace researcher Frida Stranne.
She is harsh in her criticism of the laureate, who has supported sanctions against her own people and advocated for foreign military interventions in violation of international law.
Frida Stranne, associate professor in Peace and Development Research at Halmstad University in Sweden, reacts strongly to this year’s peace prize and argues that the award to Machado is an example of how international institutions have fundamentally changed.
“The institutions we have built to protect freedom, democracy and human development have one by one become tools for forces whose purpose is to preserve an order where the strong can behave essentially however they want while others are expected to meekly fall in line. This year’s peace prize rewards exactly that”, she writes resignedly on Facebook.
She emphasizes that there are good reasons to wish for change in Venezuela but simultaneously stresses that the core of democracy is about different views on governance being able to coexist. Her main criticism is directed at how the prize risks legitimizing violent regime changes.
“If you are a true democrat and simultaneously support international legal principles, you can never accept an order where the US and its allies repeatedly take the right to violently replace regimes that somehow stand in the way of their system”.
She believes this year’s peace prize risks rewarding exactly that.
“No unifying force”
Stranne is also very critical of Machado herself and argues that the opposition politician has been more of a divisive force than a force for stability and peace in Venezuela.
She urges interested parties to research for themselves what the Nobel laureate stands for and what political contacts she has.
“The laureate is not some innocent dove or unifying political force”, she states.
The peace researcher points out that the politician has advocated strategies that violate international law and supported sanctions against her own people “which have cost both suffering and death”.
An American puppet?
Perhaps the strongest warning concerns what the prize could mean for the future. Stranne sees a direct connection to Donald Trump and American interests in the region.
“With the peace prize in one hand – she will not oppose an American ‘intervention’ for regime change – with the other hand”.
The peace researcher warns that the prize gives Trump “something of a carte blanche to replace (through direct military attacks or CIA-led covert operations) the sitting government” and that Machado will likely become his puppet going forward.
In her conclusion, Stranne is harshly critical of Western actions.
“The Western world seems to be doing everything to undermine itself and its principles. 2025 will be the year when we made ourselves completely irrelevant to the rest of the world”.
María Corina Machado, born in 1967, is an industrial engineer with a master's degree in economics and founder of the Venezuelan electoral monitoring organization Súmate. She led the opposition party Vente Venezuela and served as a member of Venezuela's National Assembly from 2011 to 2014 before being expelled by the government.
Politically, Machado is a liberal conservative who advocates for privatizing Venezuela's state-owned oil industry and free-market policies. She has maintained close ties with the United States since the Bush era and is supported by Republican politicians such as Marco Rubio. After receiving the Nobel Prize, she dedicated the award to Donald Trump.
Machado has openly called for foreign military intervention in Venezuela, supported US sanctions against the country, and participated in the 2002 coup attempt against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez. Critics describe her as an advocate for regime change through violent means.
During his speech in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, on Monday, Donald Trump drew attention to his largest financial backer, Israeli-American casino magnate Miriam Adelson – and simultaneously revealed a sensitive question he had asked her.
— Look at her sitting there so innocently,” he said. “I’m going to get her in trouble with this — but I actually asked her once, ‘So Miriam: I know you love Israel. What do you love more, the United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That means that might be an issue, I must say, Trump said to muted laughter in the parliament.
Adelson, who was sitting in the gallery, received a standing ovation when Trump praised her support for Israel and noted that she had made “more trips to the White House than anybody else”.
The 80-year-old invested $106 million in her pro-Trump super PAC Preserve America ahead of the 2024 election. Together with her late husband Sheldon, the Adelson family has donated over $600 million to Trump’s three presidential campaigns and other Republican candidates since 2015.
After her husband’s death in 2021, Miriam took over majority control of Las Vegas Sands, which operates major casinos in Singapore and Macau. She also owns one of Israel’s most widely read newspapers, Israel Hayom, and the basketball team Dallas Mavericks. Her fortune is estimated at over $60 billion.
Trump asked dual citizen Miriam Adelson, a billionaire running nasty ads against me in Kentucky, “what do you love more, the United States or Israel?” She refused to answer him. He says that might mean she loves Israel more.
Born in Tel Aviv in 1945 to Jewish immigrants from Poland, Adelson trained as a physician before becoming one of the Republican Party’s most important financiers. As a committed Zionist, she has long used her economic influence to shape US policy toward Israel.
The Adelson family was instrumental in getting Trump to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize Israeli control over the Golan Heights, and Trump awarded Miriam the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018.
Her rhetoric hardened further after the attack on October 7, 2023.
“Foreign fans of Hamas are our enemies, the ideological enablers in the West of those who would go to any length to eradicate us from the Middle East. And, as such, they should be dead to us”, she wrote in her own newspaper.
At a campaign event in September, she urged Jewish voters to support Trump “in gratitude for everything he has done and trust in everything he will yet do”.
Ukrainian crypto investor and influencer Konstantin Galich was found dead in Kyiv over the weekend, and police are investigating the incident as a possible suicide. The death comes in the wake of a sharp downturn in the cryptocurrency market.
On October 11, the body of 32-year-old Konstantin Galich, known as crypto influencer Kostya Kudo, was found in his car in Kyiv’s Obolonskyi district. A gunshot wound to the head was confirmed, and a registered weapon was found beside him.
A police investigation is underway and the incident is being investigated as a possible suicide, reports The Economic Times.
According to reports, Konstantin Galich had suffered significant financial losses during one of the cryptocurrency market’s largest crashes.
Over $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated globally within 24 hours, creating widespread uncertainty among investors.
Ukrainian Crypto Influencer Konstantin Galich Dies by Suicide After Market Crash
The last Instagram video of Ukrainian crypto entrepreneur Konstantyn Hanin (Kudo) before his death.
Just a reminder – your life is the highest value. No money, profit, or loss is ever worth it pic.twitter.com/qrhPMbD01q
Local Ukrainian news channels have reported that Galich showed signs of financial difficulties and that he published farewell messages shortly before his death.
Konstantin Galich was a well-known market analyst and educator in cryptocurrency trading. Through his Telegram and YouTube channels, he shared insights on blockchain technology and trading strategies, which made him popular among his followers.
His death has sparked widespread grief and reflections on mental health within the crypto community.
Ukrainian authorities are now investigating the circumstances surrounding the death and awaiting results from autopsy and technical examinations to determine the cause of death and circumstances.
US President Donald Trump says Ukraine could receive long-range Tomahawk missiles if the war is not resolved. He acknowledges that such arms deliveries would constitute “a new step of aggression” toward Russia.
President Donald Trump announced during an appearance on Sunday that he is prepared to bring up the issue of delivering Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine in discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, if the war does not end in the near future.
– If this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, according to reports from Associated Press.
He emphasized at the same time that he would like to understand what Ukraine intends to do with the weapons, to avoid an unwanted escalation in the war.
Like Trump himself, however, several sources have expressed reservations about an actual delivery. Reuters reports that it is unlikely the US will send Tomahawks to Ukraine, as existing stockpiles are already earmarked for the Navy and other military purposes.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has long desired Tomahawk missiles from the US. Montage. Photo: IAEA, Matt Johnson/Right Cheer/CC BY 2.0
Could strike targets deep inside Russia
Tomahawk missiles have an estimated range of approximately 2,500 km (1,550 miles), which would give Ukraine the capability to strike targets deep inside Russia – including Moscow – if the deliveries become reality.
Some critics and analysts question, however, how much such a weapon could affect the conflict on the ground. According to reports, Trump’s closest advisers are skeptical that Tomahawk missiles would significantly change the combat dynamics.
The Kremlin is now issuing strong warnings about consequences if Tomahawks are delivered to Ukraine. Russian representatives claim that such an action would dramatically escalate the conflict and set the stage for a new chapter in the war.
Russia further argues that Ukrainian forces would not be able to handle such a sophisticated system without direct American participation.
Previous statements from Vladimir Putin have also indicated that delivery of such weapons would represent a “qualitatively new stage“ in the conflict.
The rhetoric between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump increasingly strained. Photo: US Department of Defense
Trump: “Sort of made a decision”
Trump has previously hinted that he has “sort of made a decision“ regarding delivery of Tomahawks, but that he wants more information about what Ukraine actually plans to do with them. He has also emphasized that the weapons would not be sent directly by the US to Ukraine, but rather through the NATO alliance.
If an agreement is reached and the weapons are actually delivered, difficult technical, organizational and diplomatic challenges remain to be solved.
Ukraine would need operational capacity, training, target selection systems and support to handle long-range offensive capability.
The threat to arm Ukraine with Tomahawks marks a clear shift in rhetoric from the Trump administration and an increased willingness to use the war’s heaviest symbols in diplomatic pressure.
Between words and reality stand logistical constraints and political concerns – not least from Moscow.
If the decision is made – and the weapons are delivered – we may face a new escalation in the conflict where the risks of direct confrontation between the great powers could become reality.
