From Sydney Sweeney to Steele Dossier w/ Byron York and Lucas Tomlinson
Then, Washington Examiner's Byron York joins to dig into the latest 'Russiagate' revelations, John Brennan's central role, and why accountability remains elusive.
Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson offers insight into the political fallout and analysis of the Commander's football and Wide Receiver drama.
Finally, a full review of Marvel's Fantastic Four , breaking down what the studio got right, why family-friendly storytelling works, and how Marvel may have just upstaged Superman at the global box office.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kylie Kelce Reveals One of the Most 'Underrated, Difficult Parts' of Being a Parent
The podcaster and her husband Jason Kelce share four daughters togetherNEED TO KNOW Kylie Kelce is sharing one of the most "underrated, difficult parts of parenting" The podcaster is a mom of four daughters, whom she shares with her husband Jason Kelce The Not Gonna Lie host recently became a mom of four with the birth of her daughter Finnley in MarchKylie Kelce is sharing one of the most "underrated, difficult parts of parenting." On the Thursday, July 31 episode of her Not Gonna Lie podcast, the mom of four, 33, candidly opened up about one of the hardest parts of parenthood: feeding your children. Kylie, who's a mom to four daughters with her husband Jason Kelce, said that since she became a mother, she has had to refrain from doing a low-effort "girl dinner." "I would say that feeding your children is one of the most underrated, difficult parts of parenting," she said. "It's difficult because before I had children, I could do 'girl dinner.' I could slice off a few slices of cheese. I could eat a handful of Tostitos chips. I could eat an apple with peanut butter, and that could constitute my dinner." "But that's not how the world works anymore, and now we have to eat three meals a day. And the decision-making is overwhelming. I will tell you that," she added. "Also, the need for being prepared. It's just — it's so much. It's so much. It takes up so much of my brain." Kylie and the retired NFL player, 37, who announced his retirement from the NFL in March 2024, are the proud parents of four daughters: Finnley 'Finn' Anne, 4 months, Bennett Llewellyn, 2, Elliotte Ray, 4, and Wyatt Elizabeth, 5. On the Thursday, July 17, episode of the Not Gonna Lie podcast, the podcaster opened up to her guest, actress Mandy Moore, about some of the "more honest or humbling things" her daughters have said to her. Kylie recalled a particular moment where her oldest daughter commented on her stomach. "I also like to share some of the more honest or humbling things my girls have said to me," she began. "I've been told that I have a big butt. My oldest called me evil a couple weeks ago. Yesterday, specifically, she pressed on my stomach and said, 'it looks like you still have a baby in there.'" The couple's oldest daughter is constantly catching her mother off guard. At the start of the Thursday, June 19, episode of the Not Gonna Lie podcast, the podcaster shared how Wyatt expertly responded to her Zillennial slang. "I'm not gonna lie, yesterday, I was caught off guard because I asked Wyatt, 'Are you for real for real?' and she said, 'No it's pretend pretend,' " she said. "I had to stifle a laugh on that one because she was deadass." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Life as a mom of four under 5 years old can get a bit hectic sometimes. During another episode of her podcast, Kylie revealed that her older daughters, Elliotte and Wyatt, would be going to camp for the first time. Since they are still young, she said that it was only going to be for a couple of hours and not for the full week; however, the ultimate goal was to simply get them out the house. "My kids are officially done with their school year, so I thought I'd get honest about summer break as a parent. Everybody knows that when school lets out, that means we have all day every day at home with each other," Kylie began. "This summer is the first summer where the girls are actually going to do some camps. And when I say camps, I mean, they're 5 and 4 guys. It's like a three- to four-day situation." "I think it's maximum three hours," she continued. "We're really it's just to get them out somewhere else, anywhere else, and moving around." She went on to express the hardships of finding an activity that all of her children could enjoy, before sharing how she plans to manage summer break as a mom of four. "I will say that our age range right now, 5 to — I don't even know how old the youngest one is," she paused, before continuing, "I don't know. You get it. She's new. It's hard to find an activity for everyone." "So, as long as I can hook Finn to the front of me and everybody else has their shoes on, we just we get the heck out," she added. Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump
Brown University has settled with the Trump administration, which is currently waging war on elite institutions of higher education. Under the guise of combating antisemitism on campuses—an important problem, though not one the federal government is well-suited to address—President Donald Trump's Education Department has gone after Columbia University, Harvard University, and also Brown. Brown's deal with the federal government has been described as more favorable to the university than Columbia's; Harvard has yet to reach an agreement at all, but is reportedly willing to spend up to $500 million to settle the matter. Large sums of money are at stake for all three universities, as the federal government is responsible for doling out billions of dollars in research grants. Brown is the recipient of $510 million in public funding. So it's not surprising that Brown wanted to make a deal. It's unfortunate, of course, that the Trump administration is using the threat of a funding reduction to dictate terms to what is ultimately a private institution. This is obviously a version of jawboning, in which political figures use non-legislative means to achieve some sort of policy end. When the Biden administration threatened social media companies and browbeat them into making different moderation decisions, it was swiftly recognized as a free speech issue by many conservatives, libertarians, and even some on the left. It's similarly vexing when the Trump administration—which has pledged to restore free speech and end federally driven censorship—does this. It's true that institutions of higher education are not entitled to federal funding, which, after all, is paid by taxpayers. The Trump administration, or any administration, could decide, in a moment of unusual frugality, that the U.S. is too indebted to continue sending billions of dollars to wealthy private organizations that have their own massive endowments. But the government shouldn't use the threat of a funding cut as a form of coercion. That's no different from how the Obama administration handled Title IX enforcement: Obama's Education Department instructed campuses to adopt policies that were hostile to free speech and due process, and they implied that federal research dollars would evaporate in the event of noncompliance. Indeed, the extent to which the Obama higher ed coercion blueprint has been adopted by Trump is under-acknowledged. All that said, the details of the Brown settlement are disturbing in their own right. It's true that Brown avoided some of the harsher penalties that Columbia got stuck with, and it's good that the settlement recognizes that the government has no "authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, complains that the settlement includes "no barrier to government interference in faculty hiring," but the only thing it really says about hiring is that it must be race neutral. The Supreme Court has already held that race-based hiring and admissions policies are almost always impermissible, so this is hardly some unreasonable, out-of-nowhere demand. But Dubal is also concerned about a provision of the settlement that permits the feds to collect and read Brown faculty course evaluations, and that's legitimately concerning. In fact, it speaks to the most troubling aspect of the settlement: It lends itself toward the creation of a campus antisemitism police that will be laser-focused on identifying, cataloguing, and eliminating uncomfortable and offensive speech that is nevertheless clearly protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Trump administration is directly encouraging the formation of campus safe spaces. The settlement instructs Brown to survey students on their feelings of emotional safety. The survey questions are really something, and include: "whether they feel welcome at Brown; whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown; whether they have experienced harassment on social media." These are vague questions that will prompt subjective answers. Social media harassment is a particularly fraught topic; what constitutes harassment? If one student is being unkind to another student on Instagram or TikTok, is it really the university's job to intervene? Brown should act to counter identity-based harassment in cases where it's egregious, criminal, or abjectly violates the code of conduct. If students are drawing swastikas on Jewish people's doors, the university should certainly intervene. But the language in the settlement is too non-specific, and almost requires university administrators to overreach. No one should be naive about this, because it's obvious what's going to happen: An anti-Israel student will go after a pro-Israel student on social media, the pro-Israel student will say they are being harassed, and Brown will feel obligated to respond. No student should be made actually unsafe—i.e., be a victim of violence—because they are Jewish, or for any other reason. But it should be self-apparent to everyone who criticized the liberal safe space trend of the 2010s that re-orienting the campus speech police around the protection of Jewish students' subjective feelings of discomfort is not a positive development. This will produce the same sort of histrionics that existed when campus authorities were dedicated to policing speech that was perceived to be anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc. There will be an uptick in bias incident reports as students discover that they can weaponize the process against perceived enemies, as students absorb the idea that the administration is responsible for making them feel emotionally well at all times. I really thought the idea was to undermine the ideological foundations of the safe space mentality, not expand its identity-based reach. The Trump administration is erecting an edifice that would have been much to the liking of all those Play-Doh-loving, coloring-book-needing, puppy-hugging, safe-space liberals circa 2015. I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss South Park's jokes about Trump, the latest Epstein Files news, Sydney Sweeney, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D–Texas), and more. It has begun: My Nintendo Switch 2 arrived last night. I bought the system, one extra set of Joy-Cons, the Pro Controller, and three games: Donkey Kong Bananza, Mario Kart World, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. (The grand total was in the $800 range.) I spent most of the night transferring my data from the old Switch to the new one, and I've only had time to play about 20 minutes of Donkey Kong, so the full report will have to wait until next week. The post Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump appeared first on
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives Mexico 90-day tariff reprieve as deadline for higher duties looms
By David Lawder and Aida Pelaez-Fernandez (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal but was expected to issue higher final duty rates for most other countries as the clock wound down on his Friday deal deadline. The extension, which avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow," Sheinbaum wrote in an X social media post, adding that the Trump call was "very good." Approximately 85% of Mexican exports comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico's economy ministry. Trump said that the U.S. would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminum and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis. "Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post without providing details. Trump is expected to issue tariff rate proclamations later on Thursday for countries that have not struck trade deals by a 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) deadline. South Korea agreed on Wednesday to accept a 15% tariff on its exports to the U.S., including autos, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that includes a pledge to invest $350 billion in U.S. projects to be chosen by Trump. But goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India's agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India's purchases of Russian oil. Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country's labor-intensive farm sector, triggering outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee. TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES Trump hit Brazil on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America's largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies. The run-up to Trump's tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump's use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing U.S. trade deficit and impose his "reciprocal" tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency. The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further skepticism. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," Judge Jimmie Reyna said at one point during the hearing. CHINA DEAL NOT DONE U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is "not 100% done," and still needs Trump's approval. U.S. negotiators "pushed back quite a bit" over two days of trade talks with the Chinese in Stockholm this week, Bessent said in an interview with CNBC. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. (Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; Editing by Nick Zieminski) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
