National Basketball Association (NBA) player Lebron James had an on-court meltdown over the weekend.
Fox News reports that the incident happened on Saturday night, when James' team - the Los Angeles Lakers - faced off against the Minnesota Timberwolves.
James' team lost to the Timberwolves by the final score of 108 to 106.
LeBron James letting the refs know that his shot was a three👀pic.twitter.com/xgQPuG787c
— ClutchPoints (@ClutchPoints) December 31, 2023
James' meltdown took place during the final seconds of the game. The situation is captured in the above video, which is roughly 20 seconds long.
Fox explains what happened, writing:
With under 5 seconds to play, James made what he thought was a game-tying 3-pointer. But the NBA’s replay center had a different view. James’ shot was called a 2-pointer. As the PA announcer at the Target Center told the crowd of the call, James and Anthony Davis ran to the monitor on the scorer’s table and pointed to the screen to try to plead his case.
The above video specifically captures James' reaction after the referees decided to call his shot a 2-pointer rather than a 3-pointer.
James runs to the television monitor, where the referees reviewed the positioning of his feet during the shot, and pointed at it. Exasperated, James calls his teammates over to also look at the screen.
James and his teammates then have some words with the referee. James could be seen continuing to point at the screen while yelling at the referee. But, it was all for naught - the shot was called a 2-pointer and the Lakers went on to lose.
James' meltdown did not end with the game. Rather, it continued on into the post-game press conference.
For those unfamiliar with NBA replays, the decision is made by replay officials located at their headquarters in Secaucus, New Jersey. It is these replay officials who James targeted after the game.
"The Secaucus, whatever, over there in the replay center or whatever, somebody over there eating a ham sandwich or somebody made the call," James said.
James added, "It’s super frustrating in the sense of what the hell we got a replay for? What do we have replay for if even the replay gets it wrong? It’s like, who’s the part of the replay center? Like, do we got robots in there that's making the Teslas? What’s going on? If you don’t see that, that is clear, that is clear."
If you are familiar with James, at all, then you will likely know that this sort of meltdown is not out of the ordinary for him. James, on the same day as the game, celebrated his 39th birthday.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has weighed in on the exclusion of Donald Trump from the Maine presidential ballot, suggesting that a similar action could be justified against President Joe Biden in Florida.
DeSantis expressed his views on Fox News, criticizing the unilateral removal of a candidate from the ballot by an executive branch official, calling it an inappropriate interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
DeSantis Floats Having Biden Struck Off the Ballot in Florida, But Predicts Maine Decision Reversed by SCOTUS https://t.co/IQzoW0DfqA
— Brooklyn (@FlorabamaB) December 31, 2023
DeSantis raised the question of whether Biden could be struck off the Florida ballot due to the border crisis of an "invasion of 8 million people," including individuals from enemy nations.
He suggested that such a move could become a response to the exclusion of Trump in Maine.
The decision to remove Trump from the Maine ballot was made by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, who cited Trump's alleged promotion of a false narrative of election fraud to incite his supporters.
DeSantis expressed skepticism about the decision's validity and anticipated that it would be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. He characterized the move as a stunt by a liberal official seeking attention.
Despite DeSantis qualifying for the Maine ballot and leading other active candidates in polls, he believes the decision to exclude Trump will not stand.
DeSantis first raised the concept of striking Biden from the ballot during a Fox interview on Thursday, emphasizing the potential consequences for constitutional due process.
“Well, obviously, to have one executive branch official unilaterally striking someone off the ballot is not an appropriate interpretation of the 14th Amendment,” he said.
“We could have — in Florida, what, are we going to have Biden struck off the ballot because he’s allowed an invasion of 8 million people, including enemy nations have sent people in? This could just be — end up being a tit-for-tat. So I think it’ll get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think it’s more of a stunt that you have a very liberal person in that position who’s just trying to play for cheap clicks.”
“But, ultimately, I don’t think it’s grounded in a proper interpretation of the Constitution,” DeSantis added.
He argued that the notion of a bureaucrat unilaterally disqualifying someone from office challenges constitutional principles that have been upheld for over 200 years.
DeSantis also pointed out the irony of Florida Democrats excluding Biden opponents from the primary ballot this year, citing their failure to appear at a state convention for nomination purposes.
The controversy over Trump in Maine continues to have a nationwide impact as DeSantis and other leaders sound off over the extreme decision to remove the former president from the GOP primary ballot.
In a pivotal moment for the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court now grapples with a decision that holds immense consequences for the future of America.
The fate of former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for president in 2024 rests in the hands of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, individuals appointed by Trump.
Editorial: Trump’s appointees — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — now hold his and America’s fate in their hands https://t.co/1d7JTLUwcZ
— The Denver Post (@denverpost) December 21, 2023
A significant ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, spanning 213 pages, asserted that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, during the Capitol riot.
The case of Anderson v. Griswold argued that Trump's actions disqualify him from seeking the presidency.
The Colorado Supreme Court, in a detailed decision, defined insurrection as a public use or threat of force to hinder or prevent the execution of the U.S. Constitution.
Trump's role in promoting election fraud claims, orchestrating a rally culminating in the Capitol breach on the day of the Electoral College count and pressuring Congress members were used as the basis for the ruling.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone participating in insurrection while holding public office is disqualified from future office, without necessitating a criminal conviction.
The historical context of the 14th Amendment, rooted in the aftermath of the Civil War, underscores the seriousness of the matter.
The amendment, conceived to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding federal office, emphasizes a deliberate separation between determinations of insurrection and criminal proceedings.
The intent is to address threats to the nation's democratic foundation, an intent reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in upholding the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's role extends beyond criminal proceedings, encompassing the broader impact of the 2024 presidential election.
If Trump's appointees rule against him, it could lead to other states banning the former president from the ballot, leading to his loss.
If they rule for him, many on the left will blame the court for interfering in the election process.
There will be no easy response for the court as conservatives argue Trump should remain on the ballot and allow the voters to decide the outcome.
The 2024 election will be a controversial one but the court's ruling will serve as a large part of what will transpire in the months ahead as Trump seeks a comeback bid as president against President Joe Biden.
Former President Barrack Obama is receiving some serious criticism for the movies that he picked to be on his "favorite movies of 2023" list.
Why? You may ask.
Because, among other things, the former president selected several films that were produced by his and former First Lady Michelle Obama's movie production company.
Earlier this year, writers and actors went on strike to advocate for better working conditions and protections. It led to important changes that will transform the industry for the better.
Here are some films that reflect their hard work over the last year — including some like… pic.twitter.com/TMH9LeQgsT
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) December 27, 2023
As you can see in the above message, Obama put Rustin, Leave the World Behind, and American Symphony at the top of the list of his favorite movies. The former president did admit that his production company made these movies.
"Here are some films that reflect their hard work over the last year — including some like Rustin, American Symphony, and Leave the World Behind that we were proud to release through @HGMedia," Obama wrote.
For those unfamiliar with "HGMedia," it stands for Higher Ground Productions, and it was founded in 2018 by the Obamas.
Other movies that made Obama's favorite films of the year list include The HOldovers, Blackberry, Oppenheimer, American Fiction, Anatomy of a Fall, Monster, Past Lives, Air, Polite Society, and A Thousand and One.
In a subsequent X message, Obama also added The Color Purple to his list. He wrote, "Update: I just saw The Color Purple and loved it. I'm adding it to this list as one of my favorite movies of the year."
Many X users responded with criticism to Obama's list of favorite films. The criticism came from several directions.
On the one hand, many users criticized Obama for not including Barbie in his list. Other users criticized Obama for essentially using the list to advertise the films produced by his own production company.
Still, other users were a bit more blunt with their criticism, with one directly telling Obama that he "got no taste" and another telling the former president that he has "horrible taste."
Obama has been making lists - such as his favorite films of the year, or favorite books of the year, etc. - for many years now.
Overall, the criticism was about what one would expect considering just how controversial of a figure Obama is.
A Florida family's Christmas Eve turned fatal, leaving a family member dead and one injured after a holiday brawl over presents.
According to ABC News, a family spat turned deadly after a pair of brothers, 14 and 15, eventually fired off rounds from pistols they produced.
One of the brothers, who was apparently jealous of how many Christmas gifts his older brother received after shopping with their mother, ultimately shot his older sister in the chest and killed her.
The oldest brother, 15, confronted the brother who had just shot their sister and ultimately shot him in the stomach. He's in stable condition at a local hospital.
The spat began while the teens were shopping with their mother. The argument spilled over to when the teens were at their grandmother's house, and the older sister, Abrielle Baldwin, 23, attempted to break it up.
ABC News noted:
The 14-year-old then allegedly produced a pistol and pointed it at his older brother, declaring that he was going to shoot him in the head and attempting to get his brother to fight him, which the older brother refused to do. Their uncle, who was also in the home, then separated the brothers and took the younger brother out into the driveway, according to Gualtieri.
Baldwin stepped in and demanded the brothers quit fighting, given that it was Christmas.
Her line of reasoning escalated the argument, which resulted in the 14-year-old threatening to shoot her as she was holding an infant child.
He then shot her in the chest, and she later died at the hospital.
ABC News noted:
The 15-year-old then walked outside the home with another firearm and allegedly shot his younger brother in the stomach because he had shot their sister. He then left the scene, tossed the firearm into a nearby yard and fled to a relative's house, Gualtieri said.
Both teens now face serious charges, according to local authorities.
The 14-year-old, who shot and killed Baldwin, faces "first-degree murder, child abuse and being a delinquent in possession of a firearm" charges.
The 15-year-old, who shot his younger brother, was "charged with attempted first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence."
Both brothers reportedly have extensive criminal histories, ranging back to early childhood. They have reportedly been involved in multiple car burglaries, which is where police believe they obtained their handguns used in the shootings.
Former President Barack Obama has been in the press a lot lately as he tries to lift President Joe Biden’s campaign out of the doldrums—and now the press that loved him while he was in office has taken to writing about his past, both far and recent, in glowing terms.
A recent piece on wealth and investing site Finurah discussed Obama’s past financial struggles, including the fact that there was a time when he couldn’t afford discount Chicago Bulls tickets.
Obama was a young community organizer in the 1980s in Chicago trying to go to law school when Michael Jordan began with the NBA playing for the Bulls, and he said he couldn’t afford to go see a game even though he was a huge fan.
“When Michael first came to town, I didn’t have the money to buy tickets for a Bulls game, even the discount ones back in the day,” he recalled to Sports Illustrated. “I was pretty broke.”
An American success story
He couldn’t have been too badly off since he ended up at Harvard in 1988 and at the law school in 1991.
He married Michelle in 1992 after graduating and became a professor at University of Chicago Law School, where he stayed until 2004, when he was already a state senator.
In 2005, he got a multi-million dollar, multi-book deal with Random House and that was the end of any money troubles he and his family had.
In between being elected president twice, he has managed to milk book publishers and the Netflix streaming site for over $65 million.
The net worth of the Obamas is now around $70 million, and could reach more than $200 million, according to some estimates.
They own three homes, including a nearly 7,000 square-foot compound in Martha’s Vineyard they bought for almost $12 million and an $8 million mansion close to Washington, D.C.
Of course, Obama had his talents as a politician and plenty of important connections in the Democrat party eager to push him into the spotlight as a trailblazer for diversity and minority achievement.
This potent combination allowed him to cash in on his success in ways other politicians could not, at least legally.
Readying the base
There has been rampant speculation that Michelle Obama could become a last-minute stand-in for Biden if his poll numbers don’t improve.
Maybe this is why the left-wing media has been falling all over themselves to write puff pieces about Barack Obama, many of which have mentioned his wife as well.
It’s almost like they are laying the groundwork for people not to be blindsided if Michelle jumps in.
Former prosecutors weighed in on whether former President Donald Trump's appeal of a rejected immunity claim could very well succeed in delaying the trial on charges he conspired to overturn the 2020 election.
Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor with decades of experience at the US Justice Department, said the decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal on an expedited basis before the federal appeals court does is a "huge setback for Jack Smith on the scheduling front."
"However, his request for expedited review was a noble attempt to move this trial along," he added. "Mr Trump, whose immunity appeal is not strong, will not face the 6 January music for multiple months."
Rossi thinks the trial may be pushed back to July or August, during or after Trump's likely selection as the GOP nominee for 2024, given that he has a 30 to 40-point lead in polling.
At issue is whether Trump has immunity from prosecution on the charges since he was acting in his capacity as president to protect election integrity. In addition, he argued that double jeopardy applies to the case because the Senate already acquitted him of the same charges during an impeachment that took place after January 6, 2021.
Chutkan quickly rejected those arguments, hoping to keep the trial on track, but the appeal could take months to get heard by the Supreme Court even though the appeals court has decided to hear expedited arguments starting January 9.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has paused all proceedings while the appeal plays out, which makes sense because if the appeals court or Supreme Court decides that Trump did have immunity or that double jeopardy does apply, the case is effectively over.
Smith must be fuming about the delay, since he really wants to get a conviction against Trump before the election.
But as the BBC pointed out, even though all of their experts said the delay was a win for Trump, it could backfire for him if he ends up facing a conviction much closer to the election.
It could also end up hurting him if the case is hanging over his head as voting takes place.
Another problem is that Trump will need to be in court on a daily basis while also needing to campaign and possibly attend the Republican National Convention at the same time.
This is why Republicans have accused Smith, Chutkan and other partisans of election interference for bringing the charges and insisting on a timeline before the election.
So far, Trump has been helped rather than hurt by the indictment and three others that have him facing 91 total charges.
His supporters see them all as politically motivated and as an attempt to subvert the will of voters--a very serious offense in a democracy like the U.S.
Former President Donald Trump and his legal team have asked a federal appeals court to toss out the so-called election interference case that has been brought against him.
The Guardian reports:
Donald Trump has asked an appeals court in Washington DC to throw out charges that he sought to subvert the 2020 election, in the latest of a series of high-stakes legal maneuvers between the former president’s lawyers and the US department of justice.
This regards the criminal case that special counsel Jack Smith has brought against Trump in Washington, D.C. Smith alleges that the former president committed various crimes by attempting to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has maintained his innocence.
This latest move from Trump and his legal team comes after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant Smith's petition for an expedited appeal.
Smith had asked the justices to skip the usual appellate process and to determine whether or not Trump is protected from criminal prosecution by the doctrine of presidential immunity. Smith argued that the expedited appeal was necessary given the political implications of the case. It is clear that Smith is attempting to obtain a conviction of Trump - the Republican Party's 2024 frontrunner - before the 2024 general election.
The justices, however, told Smith that he needs to go through the normal appellate process before bringing his case before the Supreme Court.
The justices did not explain their decision.
Trump and his legal team, on Saturday, asked a federal appellate court to dismiss the case against him on the grounds that he is protected by presidential immunity.
The Washington Examiner reports:
Trump asked the appeals court on Saturday to overturn the ruling from a lower court that rejected his claims that his actions related to the 2020 election and Jan. 6, 2021, cannot be criminally prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith. The appeals panel is now weighing the former president's request.
The Examiner goes on to provide some details about Trump's argument.
The outlet reports, "Trump's filing to the appeals court repeats similar claims asserted by his lawyers — that Trump was working to "ensure election integrity" in his official capacity as president and therefore should have immunity in Smith's case . . ."
The Examiner adds, "The former president's lawyers argue that the criminal indictment against their client is unconstitutional, as presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for 'official acts' unless they are convicted by the Senate or impeached."
Oral arguments in this case, at the federal appellate court level, are expected to take place on Jan. 9.
It is unclear how the court will rule. But, it seems very likely that, regardless of how the court rules, the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A recent article by ProPublica attempts to construct a negative narrative around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, but upon closer inspection, the allegations lack coherence and substance.
ProPublica's five-person bylined piece seizes on an offhand complaint by Justice Thomas about his salary in 2000, spinning it into a baseless conspiracy.
The latest ‘hit’ on Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t even make sense https://t.co/paSEXvZkty pic.twitter.com/TISPOqrTH8
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) December 23, 2023
The article suggests that Thomas' gripe triggered significant activity, conveniently reducing it to a solitary memo discussing the potential salary increase for justices.
Using journalistic language, such as "newly unearthed documents," ProPublica aims to portray its content as investigative reporting rather than activism, a common tactic in articles critical of the Supreme Court.
The piece attempts to paint Justice Thomas' associations and activities as unusual and suspicious, portraying him as part of an "ultrarich" circle attending exclusive conferences and enjoying luxury amenities.
This tactic of framing innocuous behavior as unethical is a recurring theme in attempts to smear Justice Thomas.
The article subtly insinuates that Thomas can be influenced by money, raising questions about the motives behind the financial support he receives. ProPublica suggests that the reason behind such support is unclear, creating an atmosphere of innuendo.
The majority of the article revisits ProPublica's earlier stories about Justice Thomas' association with Harlan Crow, emphasizing their friendship without providing evidence of unethical behavior benefiting either party.
The hit piece fails to demonstrate any impropriety or misconduct on Justice Thomas' part.
It is crucial to note that justices are allowed to attend conferences, have friends, and express concerns about their salaries. The article, if anything, underscores Justice Thomas' willingness to express dissatisfaction about financial matters rather than engaging in unethical behavior.
The broader significance lies in the compounding smear strategy, mirroring the approach seen in previous attempts to discredit conservative Supreme Court justices. The goal is to flood the media landscape with allegations, creating an illusion of an emerging story while providing no conclusive evidence.
This compounding smear enables media outlets to casually mention "ethics controversies" surrounding Justice Thomas and allows pundits to exaggerate perceived threats to democracy from the Supreme Court. The article contributes to the broader effort to delegitimize the high court, particularly targeting conservative justices like Clarence Thomas.
Despite the lack of substantial evidence, the smear campaign against Justice Thomas persists, fueled by ideological bias and disdain for his unwavering commitment to conservative principles and adherence to the Constitution.
A former Sacramento Kings G League player was arrested Friday on murder charges related to a woman killed in Las Vegas.
Chance Comanche, 27, was charged with first-degree kidnapping and murder charges along with his girlfriend, Sakari Harnden, 19.
"The case in question reportedly concerns Marayna Rodgers, a 23-year-old medical assistant from Washington state. Her loved ones said she was last seen Dec. 6 during a visit to Las Vegas with friends," Yahoo Sports reported.
"The Stockton Kings played the Henderson, Nevada-based G League Ignite on Dec. 5, the day before Rodgers' reported disappearance," it added.
👀 This Chance Comanche story is pretty wild!!! 😬🤯https://t.co/yfrfbwyOMx
— Memphis Spence 🏈🏀⚾ (@MemphisSpence) December 18, 2023
"The Stockton Kings played the G-league Ignite at the Dollar Loan Center in Henderson on Dec. 5, the day before loved ones said that Rodgers disappeared. It is unclear how long Comanche had been in Las Vegas," 8 News Now reported.
"The Stockton Kings played the Rip City Remix in Portland, Oregon on Dec. 7," the report continued.
Comanche was present at the Portland game.
"Harnden, 19, was taken into custody on a first-degree kidnapping charge on Dec. 13, as 8 News Now Investigators first reported. She was arrested in Las Vegas. As of Sunday morning, she remained in a downtown Las Vegas jail with $500,000 bail," it noted.
Comanche is expected to appear in court on Tuesday in Sacramento regarding the case, according to the jail's records.
Police continue to investigate the case and have requested assistance from the public regarding any additional information or evidence that could be of help.
The tragic death of the woman who was killed has now led to a high-profile arrest involving a professional basketball player and his girlfriend in a tragic case that could lead to penalties of up to a life sentence pending an investigation and trial for Comanche.