accusation

Hamas says US claim is ‘unfounded’, calling it ‘an attempt to justify further reduction of already limited’ aid in Gaza.

Hamas has denied accusations by the US Central Command (CENTCOM) that the Palestinian group looted aid trucks in the Gaza Strip.

CENTCOM had published drone footage that allegedly showed an aid truck being looted in the enclave. It said in a statement that the drone observed suspected Hamas operatives looting the truck that was travelling as part of a humanitarian convoy in northern Khan Younis on October 31.

On Sunday, Hamas called the United States’ accusations “unfounded” and “part of an attempt to justify the further reduction of already limited humanitarian aid, while covering up the international community’s failure to end the blockade and starvation imposed on civilians in Gaza”.

“All manifestations of chaos and looting ended immediately after the withdrawal of the [Israeli] occupying forces, proving that the occupation was the only party that sponsored these gangs and orchestrated the chaos,” it added.

Hamas said more than 1,000 Palestinian police and security forces had lost their lives and hundreds were wounded while trying to provide protection for humanitarian aid convoys and ensure that assistance reaches those in need.

It affirmed that none of the international or local institutions, nor any driver working with the aid convoys, has filed any report or complaint about looting by Hamas.

“This clearly demonstrates that the scene cited by the US Central Command is fabricated and politically motivated to justify blockade policies and the reduction of humanitarian aid,” it said, blaming the US for failing to document the ongoing Israeli attacks following the ceasefire agreement that killed 254 Palestinians and wounded 595.

CENTCOM said that the MQ-9 aerial drone was flying overhead to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.

“Over the past week, international partners have delivered more than 600 trucks of commercial goods and aid into Gaza daily. This incident undermines these efforts,” it said in the statement.

Hamas said the average number of aid trucks entering Gaza daily does not exceed 135, while the rest are commercial trucks bearing goods that Gaza’s population cannot afford “despite our repeated calls to increase the number of humanitarian aid trucks and reduce commercial shipments”.

“The US adoption of the Israeli narrative only deepens Washington’s immoral bias and places it squarely as a partner in the blockade and the suffering of the Palestinian people,” it said.

The ceasefire took effect on October 10 under US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.

Phase one of the deal includes the release of the captives in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. The plan also envisages the rebuilding of Gaza and the establishment of a new governing mechanism without Hamas.

Since October 2023, Israel’s war on Gaza has killed more than 68,500 people and wounded over 170,600 across Gaza.

The Great British Bake Off judges Dame Prue Leith and Paul Hollywood have opened up about their judging roles on the popular Channel 4 show and how they’re perceived by viewers

Prue Leith has leapt to the defence of her fellow judge, Paul Hollywood, over his so-called “horrible” image on The Great British Bake Off. Speaking from the iconic tent at Welford Park in Berkshire, the Bake Off judges shed light on their roles and how they’re seen by fans of the Channel 4 programme.

Prue, a South African-born restaurateur, pointed out that they’re perceived quite differently by the public, with her being seen as “kind” and Paul as “horrible”, but when it comes down to the brass tacks of scoring, they’re pretty similar.

The chef disclosed that their chat about the bakes in Cake Corner is generally to “inform and remind” the viewers, as, in reality, Prue and Paul could “do it in two seconds”.

Prue told Radio Times magazine: “The audience often say that I’m kind and Paul’s horrible, but if you look at our scores out of 10, we’re never more than one point apart. I think I’ve given one 10 in nine years… I can’t remember to who though!”.

She continued: “I used to say, ‘It’s not worth the calories’. That is my absolute judgment about any baking, because you know it’s full of fat and sugar, so: ‘Do I really want to eat this? Am I prepared to get fat?'”

However, it appears Prue had a change of heart regarding this particular remark, as people would say they “felt judged” for enjoying cake and thought she was being “fattist”.

Paul stated: “I’ve never given a 10, only a 9.5. A handshake is very close to a 10. These are amateur bakers, but if they get a handshake from me, it means it’s very professional.”

Prue added that Paul often claims he won’t be giving out any handshakes, but inevitably his hand will “come out” when a bake is so impressive that he “can’t resist”. She also mentioned the idea of her own version, the “Prue pat”.

In other developments, Paul, who has been on the show since 2010, reportedly showed a different side away from the cameras. Briony May Williams, who came fourth in the 2018 series, broke down in tears when “every element” of her showstopper went awry.

On the show, the chef labelled her creation “a disaster” as she “overcooked” the mirror glaze and was unfortunately left with uncooked pastry. However, Paul’s off-camera actions revealed a gentler side.

She disclosed: “I never got a [Paul Hollywood] handshake. I did, however, get a Hollywood hug off-camera when I was really upset about my cake on Cake Week, my showstopper, because it was really bad.

“I was upset, I was sat on my bench crying and I realised someone was stood behind me and I turned around and it was Paul.

“He gave me a really big hug and he said, ‘It’s okay it’s only a f*****g cake’. And yeah, that just really made me laugh.”

You can catch The Great British Bake Off: An Extra Slice on Channel 4 on Friday, October 24, from 8pm to 9pm.

Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner are taking legal action to snuff out accusations that they are the subjects of a federal criminal racketeering investigation — claims publicized by the former’s ex-boyfriend Ray J.

Attorneys for the “Kardashians” reality stars and businesswomen sued the “One Wish” singer Wednesday for defamation and false light publicity. The 13-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stems from numerous comments Ray J made this year about his old flame and her family in a TMZ documentary and on a Twitch livestream.

“Ray J’s public statements are blatantly false,” the lawsuit says. “No such federal investigation exists; no law enforcement agency has initiated any criminal proceedings or investigations related to racketeering charges against Ms. Kardashian or Ms. Jenner; and no credible evidence whatsoever supports these inflammatory allegations.”

Neither representatives for the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” alumnae nor Ray J (born Ray Norwood Jr.) immediately responded to requests for comment.

The complaint alleges that Ray J — younger brother to singer-actor Brandy — first publicly suggested the mother-daughter duo’s involvement in a RICO investigation in May 2025, when he appeared in the TMZ documentary “United States vs. Sean Combs: Inside the Diddy Trial.” The TMZ special chronicled the developments in the rap and alcohol-branding mogul’s high-profile federal sex-trafficking case. The 44-year-old singer linked Combs’ case to his ex-girlfriend and her famous family, stating in the special, “If you told me that the Kardashians was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it,” the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Jenner, 69, and Kardashian, 44, allege Ray J’s comment “was designed to plant the seed in the public mind” that the reality stars are comparable to Combs, who was accused of drugging women, violence against ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and orchestrating orgies known as “freakoffs.” “To date, Ray J has not retracted his knowingly false and disparaging statement,” the lawsuit says.

Months after appearing on the TMZ special, Ray J doubled down on his claims during a Twitch livestream with rapper Chrisean Rock in late September. The “Sexy Can I” musician declared last week, “The federal RICO I’m about to drop on Kris and Kim is about to be crazy,” according to court documents. During the livestream Ray J also allegedly said “the feds is coming, there’s nothing I can do about it” and claimed the stars’ supposed RICO case is “worse than Diddy[‘s].”

“I’m talking about, I’m on the news every day. I’m gonna say a lot of s—,” he said about the scale of the RICO case, the complaint says.

Elsewhere in the livestream, he urged his followers: “Anybody that is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now, the rain is coming, the feds is coming.”

Infamously, Kardashian and Ray J were an item in the early 2000s. Though they broke up in 2006, their sex tape was leaked in 2007, the same year “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” premiered on E!

Attorneys for Jenner and Kardashian cast Ray J’s accusations as his latest attempts to stay relevant. The lawsuit alleges he has a history of “making false, sensationalized claims about high-profile individuals” to gain attention, citing an online incident with rapper Sexxy Red. Earlier this year, Ray J hinted he got intimate with the “Sticky” rapper. He apologized for the claim and clarified that they just sat near each other on the same flight. “I went out of control and I said that I slept with Sexxy Red,” he said.

The lawsuit says Jenner and Kardashian — who recently completed her legal training — “suffered reputational harm” that has taken and will continue to take a professional toll. They are seeking a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages exceeding $35,000.

As news of the lawsuit spread Wednesday, Ray J seemingly stood firm in his accusations. In a video shared to his Instagram story Wednesday, he asserted, “I’m not about to be silenced.” He also said he spoke with Jenner-Kardashian attorney Alex Spiro, who allegedly asked him “crazy questions,” including whether he spoke to “feds.”

“Honestly, like, y’all should be super scared because I’m not backing down. I’m tired of it,” Ray J continued. “The rain is coming, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

In another Instagram story shared Wednesday evening, he announced to followers that he would be going live on Twitch at 2 a.m., “that’s 5 o’clock New York Time, perfect time for ‘The Breakfast Club’ to be stalking my page and see what I’m gonna say.”

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina is running for governor, entering a GOP primary in which competition for President Trump’s endorsement — and the backing of his base of supporters — is expected to be fierce.

Mace, who last year won her third term representing South Carolina’s 1st District, made her run official during a launch event Monday at The Citadel military college in Charleston. She plans to start a statewide series of town halls later this week with an event in Myrtle Beach.

“I’m running for governor because South Carolina doesn’t need another empty suit and needs a governor who will fight for you and your values,” Mace said. “South Carolina needs a governor who will drag the truth into sunlight and flip the tables if that’s what it takes.”

Mace told the Associated Press on Sunday she plans a multi-pronged platform aimed in part at shoring up the state’s criminal justice system, ending South Carolina’s income tax, protecting women and children, expanding school choice and vocational education and improving the state’s energy options.

Official filing for South Carolina’s 2026 elections doesn’t open until March, but several other Republicans have already entered the state’s first truly open governor’s race in 16 years, including Atty. General Alan Wilson, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Rep. Ralph Norman.

Both Wilson and Evette have touted their own connections to the Republican president, but Mace — calling herself “Trump in high heels” — said she is best positioned to carry out his agenda in South Carolina, where he has remained popular since his 2016 state primary win helped cement his status as the GOP presidential nominee.

Saying she plans to seek his support, Mace pointed to her defense of Trump in an interview that resulted in ABC News agreeing to pay $15 million toward his presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit. She also noted that she called Trump early this year as part of an effort to persuade GOP holdouts to support Rep. Mike Johnson to become House speaker.

“No one will work harder to get his attention and his endorsement,” she said. “No one else in this race can say they’ve been there for the president like I have, as much as I have, and worked as hard as I have to get the president his agenda delivered to him in the White House.”

Mace has largely supported Trump, working for his 2016 campaign but levying criticism against him following the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the U.S. Capitol, which spurred Trump to back a GOP challenger in her 2022 race. Mace defeated that opponent, won reelection and was endorsed by Trump in her 2024 campaign.

A month after she told the AP in January that she was “seriously considering” a run, Mace went what she called “scorched earth,” using a nearly hourlong speech on the U.S. House floor in February to accuse her ex-fiancé of physically abusing her, recording sex acts with her and others without their consent, and conspiring with business associates in acts of rape and sexual misconduct.

Mace’s ex-fiancé said he “categorically” denied the accusations, and another man Mace mentioned has sued her for defamation, arguing the accusations were a “dangerous mix of falsehoods and baseless accusations.”

“I want every South Carolinian to watch me as I fight for my rights as a victim,” Mace said, when asked if she worried about litigation related to the speech. “I want them to know I will fight just as hard for them as I am fighting for myself.”

Mace, 47, was the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the state’s military college, where her father then served as commandant of cadets. After briefly serving in the state House, in 2020 she became the first Republican woman elected to represent South Carolina in Congress, flipping the 1st District after one term with a Democratic representative.

“I’m going to draw the line, and I’m going to hold it for South Carolina, and I’m going to put her people first,” Mace said.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

It’s a bitter feud the likes of which are seldom seen in law enforcement circles — or at least those that boil over into public view.

For over seven years now, Orange County’s top prosecutor and a decorated former cop have been locked in an acrimonious dispute that shows little sign of abating. Both parties have accused the other of fractured ethics and corruption, and even an independent arbitrator likened the situation to a simmering cauldron.

Damon Tucker, a former supervising investigator for the county, has alleged in a lawsuit that he uncovered potential evidence of money laundering, terrorist threats and extortion by his then-boss, Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer. Tucker claims in his lawsuit that Spitzer and others quashed the probe and then fired the investigator as an act of retaliation, leaving him humiliated and shunned by law enforcement.

Spitzer has publicly called Tucker a “dirty cop,” and accused him of working with his opponents — including former Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas — to launch an investigation to hurt him politically. Tucker’s behavior, Spitzer says, was a “disgrace to the badge.”

Now, in yet another escalation of this Orange County drama, Tucker has called on the California attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Bar of California and other agencies to investigate Spitzer; the OCDA Bureau of Investigation Chief Paul Walters; and former Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson, who is now an Orange County Superior Court judge.

“These allegations must be fully investigated,” Tucker wrote in a letter to those agencies.“Failure to investigate these men casts a shadow over our system of justice.”

Tucker’s call for an investigation of events dating back nearly a decade comes as the district attorney’s office is already facing increased scrutiny over its treatment of employees. Both Spitzer and Nelson face a potential civil trial next week over accusations they retaliated against female employees who say they were sexually harassed by former Senior Assistant Dist. Atty. Gary LoGalbo, a onetime friend of Spitzer’s who is now deceased.

Spitzer and Walters have declined to discuss Tucker’s accusations with The Times. Nelson, through a court spokesperson, also declined, saying judges were prohibited by ethical rules from discussing cases before the court or in media reports.

The California Attorney General’s office confirmed that it is reviewing Tucker’s complaint but would not comment further. The State Bar has also begun a review of the allegations and has requested more information and documentation, according to a letter reviewed by The Times. A spokesperson for the State Bar declined to comment or confirm whether a complaint was received, adding that disciplinary investigations are confidential.

The U.S. Department of Justice would neither comment nor confirm that it had received the letter. Tucker said he also sent a letter to California’s Commission on Judicial Performance. The commission also declined to comment.

A veteran investigator of nearly 30 years, Tucker was fired from the DA’s office in December 2020 over allegations he had initiated a unilateral investigation into Spitzer shortly after he took office.

Tucker sued the county — alleging he was fired and retaliated against for uncovering corruption — and in 2022 he won his job back, along with lost wages. Last year, he received a $2-million out-of court settlement from the county, according to Tucker’s attorney.

Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said a non-disparagement agreement signed by Tucker and Spitzer as part of the settlement prevented the office from commenting.

Tucker’s accusations date to an inquiry that was begun in October 2016, when another district attorney investigator, Tom Conklin, was assigned to assist the Fair Political Practices Commission in looking into allegations of campaign finance irregularities by Spitzer, who was at the time an Orange County supervisor but was considering a run for district attorney.

In his recent letter to multiple agencies, as well as in his lawsuit, Tucker alleges the investigation into Spitzer was left unfinished and, even though he and another investigator at one point suggested it should be forwarded to the FBI or state attorney general, the investigation was never referred to an outside agency.

A year after the 2016 investigation began, Conklin’s report was leaked to the Orange County Register, and the newspaper reported that Conklin had been unable to corroborate the allegations.

The leak came at a key time for Spitzer, who had just announced his campaign for district attorney. At the time, he told the Register the investigation had been politically motivated by his political rival, Rackauckas, and that nothing had been found. At the time, a spokesperson for Rackauckas confirmed the investigation but declined to comment on the allegations.

The leak sparked an internal investigation in the district attorney’s office and, when the initial investigator retired, Tucker was ordered to finish the case.

Tucker was tasked with finding out who leaked the report, but after reviewing the case, Tucker concluded that Conklin’s investigation was incomplete.

At least 10 identified witnesses in the case were never interviewed, and several leads had not been followed, according to an investigative summary written by Tucker, and given to a senior deputy district attorney he consulted with in the case.

During his investigation, Tucker reached out to superiors and colleagues at the district attorney’s office and said the allegations against Spitzer needed to be sent out to an outside agency, such as the FBI, for an impartial review.

Tucker said that as he continued to investigate and prepared to send the case to an outside agency, things suddenly changed.

The day after Spitzer was elected district attorney in 2018, Tucker said Walters ordered him to stop digging into the accusations, and to remove any mention of Spitzer’s name from questions in his investigation, according to an investigative summary and sworn depositions, taken in Tucker’s lawsuit against the county. Two days later, Tucker was removed from the case.

In a sworn deposition, Walters confirmed he ordered Tucker to remove questions about Spitzer from his investigation the day Spitzer became the district attorney-elect.

“That’s where I have to tell Tucker, ‘You can’t be asking all these questions about Spitzer,” Walters testfied. “It’s not the case. And I make him redact all that stuff.”

Tucker maintains that, up until the election, Walters supported his investigation.

“I was doing the right thing,” Tucker told The Times. “This should have been sent out.” Walters declined to respond to The Times about that accusation.

However, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said it was Tucker who refused to turn over the investigation.

“He was given the opportunity and declined to do so,” said Edds, the D.A’.s spokesperson. “He was offered the opportunity repeatedly.”

Tucker disputes that assertion.

Spitzer has characterized Tucker’s investigation as being politically motivated, and has pointed out in sworn depositions that Tucker had donated to his opponent, Rackauckas, and was friends with Rackauckas’ chief of staff, Susan Kang.

According to county records, Tucker made a $2,000 donation to Rackauckas’ campaign in August 2018, after he’d been assigned to investigate the leak.

Tucker had also been critical of Spitzer during the campaign in multiple Facebook posts, before and after he took up the case.

“I think they sent him off on this fishing expedition to get something on me after the primary election in 2018,” Spitzer said in a deposition. “He’s investigating me while he’s making a major campaign contribution to my opponent? That’s not objective.”