Senator Amy Klobuchar , a Minnesota Democrat, said Sunday that she's "not a fan" of preemptive pardons that President Joe Biden is reportedly weighing to issue before he leaves office in January. Politico and NBC News reported last week that Biden is considering issuing preemptive pardons for prominent critics of President-elect Donald Trump , including Democratic Senator-elect Adam Schiff of California, Dr. Anthony Fauci and former GOP Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming. Trump has repeatedly suggested some of his prominent critics should face investigations and be jailed, spurring fears that his Justice Department may follow through on his threats. A preemptive pardon is a pardon that is granted before any formal legal proceedings against the individual have begun. This compares to the more traditional form of pardons, which are issued during legal proceedings, or after a conviction. Klobuchar pushed back on the idea in an interview with MSNBC on Sunday. She also criticized Biden's controversial decision to issue a pardon for his son, Hunter Biden . "I am not a fan of these [preemptive pardons]," the senator said. "I didn't like the pardon of the president's son. I didn't think that that was prudent. But I also am very concerned about this idea of the preemptive pardons." Although she said she is "very concerned" about Trump's incoming Justice Department, Klobuchar added that Schiff specifically had told her he does not want a preemptive pardon. "He believes that this is a nation of laws and that there are judges that make decisions all the time, including during the last Trump administration, including Republican appointees from many different administrations, who did the right thing in many cases under the law," the Minnesota Democrat said. Last month, Schiff told NPR about preemptive pardons: "I would urge the president not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary." Newsweek has reached out to the White House and Trump's transition team on Sunday via email for comment. In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Meet the Press that aired on Sunday, Trump reiterated that he believes some of his political opponents should be jailed . He specifically mentioned Cheney, as well as other members of the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Biden's decision to pardon his son after previously saying that he wouldn't has already drawn criticism from leading Democratic lawmakers, although some have defended the decision as well. Hunter was due to be sentenced in December in his two criminal cases involving federal tax fraud and a gun charge. He was facing up to 25 years in prison as he was found guilty on three felony charges. "If I have to have a bias in this area, it's a loving parent who wants to protect his child," Senator Dick Durbin , an Illinois Democrat, told CNN on Sunday , defending the president's controversial decision. Other Biden defenders have pointed out that Trump issued a number of pardons for prominent allies, including the father of his son-in-law and key White House adviser Jared Kushner . Jared Kushner's father, Charles Kushner, was also announced at the end of November as Trump's pick to be U.S. ambassador to France.
Rachael 'Raygun' Gunn has been accused of cultural appropriation for claiming ownership of the "kangaroo dance" after the Olympian's legal team shutdown a musical about the breaker. Stephanie Broadbridge announced on Saturday her trial show for Raygun: The Musical had been cancelled just hours before it was due to begin after the 37-year-old's lawyers contacted the venue to threaten legal action . In a video shared to Instagram, Broadbridge said Raygun's lawyers trademarked her poster and advised the comedian she was not allowed to do the kangaroo dance because the viral Olympian "owns" it. “That one did puzzle me, I mean, that’s an Olympic level dance. How would I possibly be able to do that without any formal breakdancing training?” Broadbridge said, with a degree of humour. Broadbridge received an influx of support in response to her video, with many taking aim at Raygun's apparent attempt to claim ownership of the kangaroo dance. “Is (Raygun) going to sue every Indigenous person in Australia that does that dance?” one social media user asked. "Wouldn't it be funny if our Aboriginal brothers and sisters were to commence legal proceedings for stealing the roo dance and bringing culture into disrepute," another said. A third accused the Olympian of cultural appropriation over the use of the dance move. “She is claiming intellectual property on a 'kangaroo dance' which is very similar to that of many indigenous people’s, which goes back thousands and thousands of years,” they said. “It’s layers and layers of cultural appropriation.” While another social media user, a self-described Wiradjuri woman who was "sick of cultural theft", pounced on the moment to mock Raygun for thinking she owned the "roo hop" while believing she had a brand "that can be damaged". "She's the gift that keeps on giving!" she wrote. According to the Australian Curriculum website on the storytelling practices of Indigenous people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders use dances which depict "movements and costumes to represent land animals". "The kangaroo is depicted in the dance of many cultural groups across Australia," the online resource says. Other social media users criticised Raygun for trying to "profit" from her ridiculed Olympics performance. "Raygun mocked the Olympics and her competitors with her performance and is now trying to profit from it," one wrote. "Raygun and her team thought the musical would be damaging to her brand. They ever heard of the Streisand effect?" another said. Raygun’s manager Stephanie Scicchitano said the legal letter was designed to protect Raygun’s image. "While we have immense respect for the credible work and effort that has gone into the development of the show, we must take necessary steps to safeguard Rachael's creative rights and the integrity of her work," the statement said. "This action is not intended to diminish the contributions of others, but rather to ensure her brand is properly represented and protected in all future endeavours." The management team also revealed they had lodged an application to register "Raygun" as a trademark, which they believe will accepted. “In addition to the application, Rachael holds significant common law rights and goodwill in her stage name 'Raygun', further strengthening her position,” Raygun’s management and legal said. “It has come to our attention that the use of the ‘Raygun’ name by a comedian without approval has caused confusion among the public, potentially leading them to believe that ‘Raygun The Musical’ had Rachael’s endorsement or approval. “This misuse of intellectual property is not only misleading but also jeopardises Rachael’s other commercial ventures, which rely on the integrity of her brand.” Under the Copyright Act 1968 (s. 41A), the use of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work does not constitute an infringement of copyright if the use is fair and is for the purpose of parody or satire. Speaking to 9News over the weekend, Broadbridge said the musical would have been “good for her brand”, adding her initial feeling was “shock” when asked on her reaction to receiving the legal letter. "I didn't expect to be on anyone's radar at this stage in the process of being this very small musical project,” she said. In the caption for her Instagram video, Broadbridge said she would be back with a “whole new story arc” to add to the musical. SkyNews.com.au has contacted Broadbridge for further comment.Philippine dollar reserves fall below $109 billion
Juan Soto to Mets means there's a new Boss in town: Steve Cohen
Biden wrong to choose his son over his countryThe 1% Club has returned with bang - and wiped out a staggering 20 contestants within the first minute. Fans were left gobsmacked when the players were quickly eliminated as the popular quiz show returned to ITV for a new run. Host Lee Mack was also stunned as one fifth of the contestants lost their place in the game over a very "simple" first question. Lee had shown a graphic of a person holding the strings of a puppet. He asked: "In order to move the puppet's left arm, does the puppeteer need to move their own left hand or right hand?" As the '90 per cent question', 90 out of the 100 players in the audience were expected to get it right. But a whopping 20 got it wrong. The correct answer was 'right hand'. Gasping, Lee exclaimed: "Holy flips! We've lost 20 people!" He added: "I don't think we've ever had such a loud, 'Oh my God' on the show before!" One player who answered incorrectly was a micro pig trainer called Scarlett. She told Lee: "I don't actually know my left and right so it was just close my eyes and guess." Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, fans of The 1% Club were quick to share their amazement. One wrote: "20 already?!" Another added: "Unreal that 20 got that wrong!" A third said: "Wtf 20 out on the 1st simple question." And another chimed in: "They lost 20 people on THAT? What literal Muppets!" The 1% Club returned to ITV1 on Monday evening. The episode finished with three contestants correctly answering the 1% question, which won them each a share of the £98,000 prize pot. This week, four new episodes are running on the channel from Monday to Thursday evening (December 12). Two 1% Club Christmas specials will also air this month, while Lee will front another episode in support of Soccer Aid. The 1% Club first hit screens in 2022 and has fast become one of TV's most popular game shows. In September, it won Best Quiz Game Show at the National Television Awards for the third year in a row. It faced stiff competition but still beat The Wheel, Beat The Chasers, Richard Osman’s House of Games, and Ant and Dec’s Limitless Win.
None
By MICHELLE L. PRICE and ROB GILLIES NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s recent dinner with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his visit to Paris for the reopening of the Notre Dame Cathedral were not just exercises in policy and diplomacy. They were also prime trolling opportunities for Trump. Related Articles National Politics | Trump names Andrew Ferguson as head of Federal Trade Commission to replace Lina Khan National Politics | Biden says he was ‘stupid’ not to put his name on pandemic relief checks like Trump did National Politics | Biden issues veto threat on bill expanding federal judiciary as partisan split emerges National Politics | Trump lawyers and aide hit with 10 additional felony charges in Wisconsin over 2020 fake electors National Politics | After withdrawing as attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz lands a talk show on OANN television Throughout his first term in the White House and during his campaign to return, Trump has spun out countless provocative, antagonizing and mocking statements. There were his belittling nicknames for political opponents, his impressions of other political figures and the plentiful memes he shared on social media. Now that’s he’s preparing to return to the Oval Office, Trump is back at it, and his trolling is attracting more attention — and eyerolls. On Sunday, Trump turned a photo of himself seated near a smiling first lady Jill Biden at the Notre Dame ceremony into a social media promo for his new perfume and cologne line, with the tag line, “A fragrance your enemies can’t resist!” The first lady’s office declined to comment. When Trudeau hastily flew to Florida to meet with Trump last month over the president-elect’s threat to impose a 25% tax on all Canadian products entering the U.S., the Republican tossed out the idea that Canada become the 51st U.S. state. The Canadians passed off the comment as a joke, but Trump has continued to play up the dig, including in a post Tuesday morning on his social media network referring to the prime minister as “Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada.” After decades as an entertainer and tabloid fixture, Trump has a flair for the provocative that is aimed at attracting attention and, in his most recent incarnation as a politician, mobilizing fans. He has long relished poking at his opponents, both to demean and minimize them and to delight supporters who share his irreverent comments and posts widely online and cheer for them in person. Trump, to the joy of his fans, first publicly needled Canada on his social media network a week ago when he posted an AI-generated image that showed him standing on a mountain with a Canadian flag next to him and the caption “Oh Canada!” After his latest post, Canadian Immigration Minister Marc Miller said Tuesday: “It sounds like we’re living in a episode of South Park.” Trudeau said earlier this week that when it comes to Trump, “his approach will often be to challenge people, to destabilize a negotiating partner, to offer uncertainty and even sometimes a bit of chaos into the well established hallways of democracies and institutions and one of the most important things for us to do is not to freak out, not to panic.” Even Thanksgiving dinner isn’t a trolling-free zone for Trump’s adversaries. On Thanksgiving Day, Trump posted a movie clip from “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” with President Joe Biden and other Democrats’ faces superimposed on the characters in a spoof of the turkey-carving scene. The video shows Trump appearing to explode out of the turkey in a swirl of purple sparks, with the former president stiffly dancing to one of his favorite songs, Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” In his most recent presidential campaign, Trump mocked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, refusing to call his GOP primary opponent by his real name and instead dubbing him “Ron DeSanctimonious.” He added, for good measure, in a post on his Truth Social network: “I will never call Ron DeSanctimonious ‘Meatball’ Ron, as the Fake News is insisting I will.” As he campaigned against Biden, Trump taunted him in online posts and with comments and impressions at his rallies, deriding the president over his intellect, his walk, his golf game and even his beach body. After Vice President Kamala Harris took over Biden’s spot as the Democratic nominee, Trump repeatedly suggested she never worked at McDonalds while in college. Trump, true to form, turned his mocking into a spectacle by appearing at a Pennsylvania McDonalds in October, when he manned the fries station and held an impromptu news conference from the restaurant drive-thru. Trump’s team thinks people should get a sense of humor. “President Trump is a master at messaging and he’s always relatable to the average person, whereas many media members take themselves too seriously and have no concept of anything else other than suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome,” said Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director. “President Trump will Make America Great Again and we are getting back to a sense of optimism after a tumultuous four years.” Though both the Biden and Harris campaigns created and shared memes and launched other stunts to respond to Trump’s taunts, so far America’s neighbors to the north are not taking the bait. “I don’t think we should necessarily look on Truth Social for public policy,” Miller said. Gerald Butts, a former top adviser to Trudeau and a close friend, said Trump brought up the 51st state line to Trudeau repeatedly during Trump’s first term in office. “Oh God,” Butts said Tuesday, “At least a half dozen times.” “This is who he is and what he does. He’s trying to destabilize everybody and make people anxious,” Butts said. “He’s trying to get people on the defensive and anxious and therefore willing to do things they wouldn’t otherwise entertain if they had their wits about them. I don’t know why anybody is surprised by it.” Gillies reported from Toronto. Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.Washington Nationals win lottery for No. 1 pick in next amateur baseball draft, Angels No. 2Supreme Facility Management Ltd. to Launch Rs 50 Crore IPO on NSE Emerge
College Football Playoff's first 12-team bracket is set with Oregon No. 1 and SMU in, Alabama outAfter-hours movers: Intuit, NetApp, Ross Stores, GAP
MLB NOTESBy REBECCA SANTANA WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea. Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.” He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Related Articles National Politics | Trump has flip-flopped on abortion policy. His appointees may offer clues to what happens next National Politics | In promising to shake up Washington, Trump is in a class of his own National Politics | Election Day has long passed. In some states, legislatures are working to undermine the results National Politics | Trump taps his attorney Alina Habba to serve as counselor to the president National Politics | With Trump on the way, advocates look to states to pick up medical debt fight Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.” Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.December 8, 2024 (ENTEBBE, Uganda) – A Sudanese civilian coalition has definitively rejected a proposal to form a government-in-exile, a leading member said Sunday. The proposal, put forward by the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) during a leadership meeting earlier this month, faced strong opposition from within the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) coalition. SRF leader Hadi Idris reportedly withdrew his support for the idea. Groups like the SPLM-N Revolutionary Democratic Current, other political parties such as the National Umma Party and the Sudanese Congress Party, and the resistance committees expressed their disapproval. “The matter has been settled,” Shahab Ibrahim, an FFC leader, told Sudan Tribune. “The proposal will not be pursued due to the divisions it would cause.” While acknowledging initial support for the idea, Mohamed Ismat, head of the United Federal Party, emphasized the need for thorough examination by governance, administration, economics, and international relations experts. He suggested that any future government, whether in exile or on the ground, should consider reinstating the December Revolution government led by Abdallaا Hamdok, the former prime minister. Ismat framed his support for the proposal as resistance against the Islamist movement’s alleged agenda to divide the country. However, heated debates within the coalition revealed sharp divisions. Some leaders proposed that the supporters of this government-in-exile leave the coalition because they would not follow them. Sources within the FFC indicated that some figures like Khalid Shawish and Saleh Ammar opposed the proposal, believing former Sovereign Council member Mohamed al-Hassan al-Taishi and Justice and Equality Movement leader Suleiman Sandal drove it. Ultimately, the proposal was referred to a political committee, with the final decision resting with FFC leader Abdalla Hamdok. Resistance committees, civil society groups, and professionals rejected the idea outright. Sources revealed heated exchanges between Sandal and a major political party leader within the coalition. A coalition group intervened, urging supporters and opponents to study the proposal through a political committee, which ultimately rejected it. In a post on the X platform on December 6, the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, warned against unilateral declarations of new governing structures in Sudan, saying, “Such an action would be profoundly destabilizing for the region and risk fragmenting Sudan.” A senior FFC member told Sudan Tribune that the coalition’s current priorities are to expand the civilian front by including all parties opposed to the war and to hold a roundtable discussion to address Sudan’s critical issues. The source acknowledged that while some members believe a government-in-exile is necessary due to the lack of legitimacy of the warring factions, others fear such a move would further divide Sudan and empower those responsible for human rights abuses. The discussions concluded that implementing the proposal would risk dividing Sudan and embolden the warring parties, leading to further chaos and fragmentation.
