Latest news with #controversies
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Matt Hardy Highlights How Hulk Hogan's Lack Of Accountability Could Impact His Legacy
Last week, the wrestling world was saddened by the news of the passing of The Immortal 'Hollywood' Hulk Hogan. The WWE Hall of Famer has had an illustrious wrestling career. At the same time, he has also been embroiled in some controversies in recent years. Recently, while speaking on the Extreme Life of Matt Hardy podcast, Matt Hardy shared his honest thoughts on Hulk Hogan and his string of controversies. 'He definitely stepped in a hornet's nest and made a lot of people angry and probably the best thing he could've done is just been straight-forward and been accountable and just said 'I'll try and be better, please give me another opportunity,' but he kinda danced around everything you try to not take full accountability for it and I think that's what pissed most people off.' Matt Hardy then went on to share that there will be some people who will be holding grudges against the WWE Hall of Famer. But at the same time, he is confident that the majority of people will look past the controversies and appreciate Hogan for his contributions in the professional wrestling business. 'I think there's gonna be some people that are going to hold a bit of a grudge against him but I think the majority of the people are going to look back and look at his wrestling contributions and what he did for wrestling, how he made wrestling a mainstream sports-entertainment entity and what not and I think that's what he'll be credited with and what he'll be remembered for,' Matt Hardy said. [H/T Wrestling Inc.] Read More: Chelsea Green Leaves Social Media Amidst Backlash Over Hulk Hogan CommentsThe post Matt Hardy Highlights How Hulk Hogan's Lack Of Accountability Could Impact His Legacy appeared first on Wrestlezone. Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
22-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win. But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein. First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.) 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published. But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.) Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface. The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files. In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down. That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes. 'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.' The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light? Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ. Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.) Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein? Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.) There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say. That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020. In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps. But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences. Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless. The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms. She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say. And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up. The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something. Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.
CNN
22-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win. But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein. First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.) 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published. But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.) Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface. The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files. In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down. That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes. 'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.' The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light? Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ. Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.) Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein? Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.) There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say. That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020. In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps. But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences. Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless. The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms. She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say. And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up. The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something. Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Where Is Stacey Dash Now? All About the 'Clueless' Alum's Controversies and Life 30 Years After the Movie Was Released
Stacey Dash is just as well-known for her controversies as she is for her iconic role as Cher Horowitz's blunt-yet-caring bestie Dionne Davenport in the hit movie Clueless, which celebrated its 30th anniversary on July 19. The actress, former Fox News contributor and one-time congressional hopeful is infamously outspoken — even at the expense of her career. In 2018, Dash spoke to The Guardian about the backlash she faced for expressing her conservative viewpoints, claiming that it had affected her career as an actress. 'I've been blacklisted,' she said at the time. 'I don't even get to auditions.' Three years later, in March 2021, Dash apologized for many of her previous inflammatory remarks in an interview with The Daily Mail. 'I've lived my life being angry, which is what I was on Fox News. I was the angry, conservative, Black woman,' she explained. 'And at that time in my life it was who I was." According to Dash, her viewpoint on the world has since changed and she said she felt "sorry" for some of the "angry" and "arrogant" things she'd said. Dash has also been open about her past experiences with drug addiction and being physically abused, telling PEOPLE in 2016 that there was a time when she "didn't even want to live anymore." So, where is Stacey Dash now? Here's a look at her life 30 years after Clueless put her on center stage. Who is Stacey Dash? Dash is an American actress who played Dionne Davenport in 1995's Clueless and the subsequent TV show of the same name, which ran for three years from 1996 to 1999. She also starred in various movie and television projects, including 2009's The Game and 2011's Single Ladies. In 2014, the film star pivoted her focus from acting to politics, joining Fox News as a contributing commentator. Dash was also a congressional hopeful, having filed paperwork in February 2018 for a seat in the California House of Representatives under a campaign called 'Dash to D.C.' 'I want to be a catalyst for change,' she told The Guardian at the time. She withdrew from the campaign one month later. What is Stacey Dash known for? In addition to her roles in the Clueless franchise, Dash is known for her outspoken viewpoints on everything from her conservative politics to racism. Fox News hired Dash in May 2014 to share her controversial takes on-air. 'Dash will offer cultural analysis and commentary across various daytime and primetime programs,' the news network said in a press release at the time. During her time at the network, Dash made many inflammatory remarks about President Barack Obama, Black History Month and more. The Hollywood Reporter reported that Fox chose not to renew Dash's contract in 2017. What controversies was Stacey Dash involved in? Dash has been involved in a number of controversies over the course of her career. In 2015, she was suspended from her role as a Fox News contributor for two weeks after using profanity in an on-air criticism of Obama. Dash responded to her suspension in a post on X, writing, 'Consequences. Some of us have to pay them. Gladly.' The following month, the actress received backlash for calling the 2016 #OscarsSoWhite boycott 'ludicrous' on a January 2016 episode of Fox and Friends. In the same episode, she simultaneously called for the end of Black-inclusive networks and awards shows. 'Either we want to have segregation or integration,' she said. 'If we don't want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the [NAACP] Image Awards, where you're only awarded if you're Black.' Dash also doubled down on her belief that there shouldn't be a Black History Month on the segment — a topic she previously wrote about in an October 2015 Patheos blog post. 'We're Americans. Period,' she stated. In June 2016, Dash targeted members of the LGBTQ+ community while addressing statements she made in her memoir, There Goes My Social Life: From Clueless to Conservative, which criticized Caitlyn Jenner's use of women's bathrooms. Later that month, Dash criticized Jesse Williams' BET Humanitarian award speech after he delivered a powerful message about social injustice, claiming his words were "racist" and an "attack on White people." NBC News reported in September 2019 that Dash was arrested for allegedly slapping her ex-husband, Jeffrey Marty, during an argument. According to the outlet, she pleaded not guilty to a domestic battery charge, which was dropped the next day, as reported by KTVH. Though Dash retreated from the public eye for a time, she told The Daily Mail that she is 'not a feminist' while apologizing for her previous controversial comments. 'Right now I feel like women need to support men, lift them up, love them and respect them,' she said, adding, 'On the other hand, it's a two-way street. If men want us to do that, they have to respect us, cherish us, adore us, love us. We can't do one without the other. We need each other.' Where is Stacey Dash now? Dash previously struggled with an addiction to Vicodin, telling Dr. Oz in October 2021 that she was taking between 18 and 20 pills a day at one point. At the time of the interview, Dash said she was celebrating five years of sobriety after going to rehab. 'Not only have I been able to be honest with myself and become a better person, I've been able to understand my parents and that they did love me,' she said, explaining that her parents were addicts too. Deadline reported in March 2022 that Dash was working on a new series, A New Thing — With Stacey Dash, that would focus on Dash's return to the public eye and her new life as an interior designer with Debbe Daley Designs. However, it is unclear whether production has halted on the show. That same year, Dash reunited with costar Alicia Silverstone in a TikTok of them mouthing along some of their lines from the 1995 classic. Since then, Dash has continued to post videos on both Instagram and TikTok, where she has over 300,000 followers. In May 2025, she gave fans a look at her well-being with a simple message on Instagram, writing, 'So much joy and peace.' If you or someone you know is struggling with substance abuse, please contact the SAMHSA helpline at 1-800-662-HELP. Read the original article on People
The Independent
11-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Colorado newsreader's comparison between candidates' ‘controversies' goes viral
A Colorado newsreader's comparison between two candidates running for Congress's 'controversies' has gone viral. A 9News broadcast delivered by Kyle Clark on Wednesday (9 July) slammed Democratic State Rep. Manny Rutinel for using a picture of the Rocky Mountains in British Columbia, Canada, as his cover photo on X. Mr Clark said the controversy is the 'biggest development in that race since last week when the Republican incumbent voted to cut about a trillion dollars in funding for Medicaid and other health programmes'. Earlier this month, Republican State Rep. Gabe Evans voted in favour of Donald Trump 's federal budget bill. 'With 16 months til the midterms we will be watching closely to see whether Manny Rutinel's photo error or Evans' vote to cut Medicaid impacts that race,' Mr Clark concluded.
