A spirited celebration on the track turned sour for California high school athlete Clara Adams, as her celebratory antics led to disqualification.
Breitbart News reported that Clara, 16, was barred from two races due to unsportsmanlike conduct, specifically using a fire extinguisher to mark her victory in the 400-meter event.
The incident unfolded after Clara's victory in the girls' 400-meter race. Overcome with joy, she took a fire extinguisher and began celebrating her win in front of the audience.
Her display, while intended to be spirited, was viewed as unsportsmanlike by California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) officials.
Immediately, a CIF official stepped in, confiscating the fire extinguisher and escorting Clara from the area. This intervention not only cost her the 400-meter win but also prevented her from participating in the 200-meter race, where she was a top contender.
Clara was taken aback by the severity of the sanctions. In disbelief, she expressed her feelings, saying she felt as if she had been robbed of her moment. "I don’t know what’s going through my mind right now," she said, reflecting on the sudden turn of events.
Her father, David Adams, who also serves as her coach, defended Clara's actions. He asserted that the celebration was harmless and should not have warranted such a harsh response from officials. David described the celebration as a joyous moment gone wrong.
David’s argument was based on the atmosphere of the event. According to him, the crowd was thrilled by the display, and there was no opposition left on the field when the celebration occurred. He explained that both the audience and CIF officials initially enjoyed the spectacle.
However, the section of officials responsible for enforcing conduct rules did not share his view. According to CIF’s code of conduct, athletes are expected to demonstrate sportsmanship, including respect and grace in victory. These standards guided the decision to disqualify Clara.
The code of conduct emphasized post-race decorum, which Clara's impromptu celebration violated. Despite the uproar from attendees who enjoyed the show, CIF officials remained firm in their decision to enforce the rules.
David Adams expressed frustration over the decision, suggesting that emotions, rather than objective reasoning, led to the disqualification. He felt that officials reacted emotionally rather than appreciating the celebration's harmless nature.
There has been no official statement from CIF regarding any potential reconsideration of Clara's disqualification. This leaves Clara and her supporters uncertain about future implications and whether there will be any reconsideration of the ruling.
Clara was left reflecting on her efforts and the preparation that went into reaching the podium, only to have it taken away. Her comments highlighted her shock and disappointment at being denied the opportunity to celebrate a hard-fought victory.
While the incident has drawn attention, the focus remains on the principles of sportsmanship and the interpretation of conduct guidelines. Clara Adams’ experience raises questions about the limits of celebration in sports and how athletes express their joy after significant achievements.
In the meantime, Clara continues her training with eyes set on future competitions. Her disqualification serves as a reminder of the strict adherence to codes governing athletic events and the balance athletes must maintain between celebration and decorum.
Hollywood icon Tom Hanks has stepped into the spotlight with heartfelt comments about a deeply personal family matter that’s capturing public attention. His words, shared on a red carpet, offer a glimpse into a story of resilience and raw honesty that’s resonating with many.
Hanks recently addressed his daughter E.A. Hanks’ memoir, The 10: A Memoir of Family and the Open Road, which sheds light on her challenging childhood. As reported by Daily Mail, the actor expressed admiration for her bravery in sharing such intimate struggles during a premiere of his new film, The Phoenician Scheme, on Thursday.
Beyond the headlines, this memoir, released in April, unpacks the life of 42-year-old E.A. as the child of two Hollywood figures—Hanks and his late first wife, Samantha Lewes, who passed away in 2002 from bone cancer. Growing up, E.A. faced a turbulent family dynamic, marked by her parents’ divorce in 1987 when she was just five. Her story, filled with both pain and reflection, provides a window into the complexities of fame and personal hardship that often remain hidden behind the glitz of celebrity life.
Navigating her early years, E.A. recounts a jarring move from Los Angeles to Sacramento, orchestrated by her mother without prior notice. This abrupt change, alongside her brother Colin, now 47, set the stage for a childhood rife with instability. Her memoir paints a vivid picture of a home environment that deteriorated over time, reflecting both emotional and material neglect.
Delving deeper, E.A. describes a stark contrast between her early memories and later struggles in Sacramento. She writes of a once-idyllic white house with a pool that eventually became overrun with filth and decay, mirroring the unraveling of her mother’s mental state. The memoir doesn’t shy away from detailing Samantha’s struggles, which E.A. believes may have stemmed from undiagnosed bipolar disorder, marked by paranoia and delusions.
One particularly harrowing account stands out as a turning point in her young life. At a critical moment, E.A. faced physical violence from her mother, prompting a custody shift back to her father in Los Angeles during seventh grade. This transition, while offering a reprieve, underscored the deep scars left by years of turmoil, shaping her journey into adulthood.
Samantha Lewes, known for her role in the 1984 film Mr. Success, emerges as a complex figure in E.A.’s narrative. Passing away at 50, her life and challenges are pieced together by her daughter through memories and journal entries. E.A.’s quest to understand her mother’s pain led her on a six-month road trip after Samantha’s death, seeking answers to lingering questions.
Among the most disturbing revelations are Samantha’s writings, which allege witnessing a horrific crime by her own father, E.A.’s grandfather. These accounts, described as stream-of-consciousness rather than dated entries, suggest a profound trauma that may have haunted Samantha until her final days. E.A. reflects that if these claims hold any truth, her mother “never stood a chance” against the mental anguish that followed.
Heart-wrenching in its honesty, the memoir captures a daughter grappling with a mother’s unseen battles. E.A. shares the poignant memory of Samantha’s call during her senior year of high school, revealing she was dying. This moment, layered with unresolved emotions, underscores the depth of loss and the search for closure that permeates the book.
Reflecting on his own past, Tom Hanks met Samantha Lewes while studying theater at California State University in Sacramento. Their relationship blossomed quickly, leading to the birth of their son Colin in 1977 before marriage. Struggling as young parents, they moved to a modest, cockroach-infested apartment in Manhattan in 1978, a testament to their early financial and career challenges.
Their union, formalized in 1979, welcomed E.A. in 1982, but cracks soon appeared as Hanks’ acting career gained traction. Extended absences due to filming strained the marriage, culminating in a legal separation in 1985 and divorce in 1987. This period marked a significant shift for the family, with custody arrangements reshaping E.A.’s formative years.
Later, Hanks found love again with actress Rita Wilson, whom he married in 1988 after meeting on the set of Bosom Buddies and reconnecting during Volunteers.
Together, they raised two sons, Chet and Truman, building a new chapter. Yet, his reflections on E.A.’s memoir show a lingering connection to the past, acknowledging the strength it took for his daughter to confront these shared histories.
Tom Hanks, a beloved figure in Hollywood, has openly supported his daughter E.A. Hanks as she unveils her memoir detailing a childhood marked by upheaval and loss. The book, centered on her experiences with Hanks and her late mother, Samantha Lewes, explores a deeply personal narrative of family struggles in the shadow of fame.
Focused on Sacramento and Los Angeles, E.A.’s story reveals the impact of her mother’s mental health challenges and a pivotal move that altered her life’s trajectory. The memoir’s raw honesty, praised by Hanks, aims to foster understanding, while future discussions may continue as readers and family alike process these revelations.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has ignited a bitter new fight in Washington, sharply escalating rhetoric around immigration enforcement. At a press conference this week, Jeffries made comments that have left critics and supporters alike stunned.
According to Breitbart, Jeffries threatened to reveal the identities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents involved in federal immigration law enforcement. These agents, many working undercover, are tasked with arresting, detaining, and deporting illegal aliens—often those convicted of violent crimes.
Jeffries’ declaration, coming amid rising attacks on ICE agents, sent shockwaves through the law enforcement community and Congress. The remarks have been described by critics as inflammatory and unprecedented, while his supporters argue transparency and accountability are overdue for federal agencies.
During the press conference, Jeffries made it clear that Democrats are determined to unmask ICE agents they accuse of “aggressive overreach.” He asserted that efforts by these agents to conceal their identities from the public would ultimately fail, fueling outrage from law enforcement groups.
Jeffries said, “Every single ICE agent who is engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that.” He continued, invoking comparisons to oppressive regimes of the past, stating, “This is America. This is not the Soviet Union. We’re not behind the iron curtain. This is not the 1930s.”
The Democratic leader insisted that identifying ICE agents is a matter of law and transparency. He claimed that revealing their names would hold agents accountable for “crossing the line” in their duties and ensure the American people have the information they need.
Jeffries’ remarks come at a time when ICE agents report a dramatic 413-percent increase in assaults, according to recent Department of Homeland Security figures cited by Breitbart. The surge in violence has raised concerns among rank-and-file agents who already face dangerous situations daily.
Critics of Jeffries’ approach argue that exposing ICE agents’ identities would endanger their safety and compromise ongoing investigations. Many ICE agents work undercover or in sensitive roles targeting dangerous criminal networks. Law enforcement advocates warn that “doxxing” these officials could make them targets for retaliation.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, also a Democrat, drew even sharper criticism recently by labeling ICE as “Trump’s modern Gestapo,” a reference to Adolf Hitler’s secret police. That comparison has been widely condemned by conservatives and police groups as inflammatory and irresponsible.
Conservatives in Congress and law enforcement leaders have blasted Jeffries’ comments as reckless and politically motivated. They argue that ICE agents are simply enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and protecting communities from violent offenders.
Supporters of ICE maintain that transparency should not come at the expense of agent safety or national security. They say publicizing the identities of law enforcement officials who operate in high-risk environments is “crossing a dangerous line” that could have fatal consequences.
Jeffries and his allies, however, argue that unchecked federal power must be scrutinized. They believe that when agents “cross the line,” the public has a right to know who is responsible. Transparency, they say, is essential for holding government accountable—particularly when allegations of misconduct arise.
The controversy over ICE agent identities highlights deep divisions in American politics over immigration and law enforcement. While Democrats push for more openness and reforms, Republicans warn of the dangers of demonizing federal officers.
Jeffries’ remarks have fueled debates over the boundaries of accountability, privacy, and the limits of political rhetoric. As assaults on ICE personnel rise, the stakes are growing for both agents in the field and politicians in Washington.
Law enforcement unions and conservative lawmakers promise to fight any effort to “doxx” ICE personnel. They say such actions would undermine morale, chill recruitment, and force agents to choose between their safety and their jobs.
Chief Justice John Roberts, alongside Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, just made a move that is certain to spark debate across America. Their surprising alignment with liberal justices has many conservatives questioning what’s next for gun rights in the United States.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban, leaving the law—and similar bans in eight other states—intact. According to Breitbart News, the high court’s refusal means the August 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld Maryland’s ban, remains in effect.
This decision drew immediate attention because Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in rejecting the case. Meanwhile, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas openly voiced their disagreement, signaling a deep divide within the Court on Second Amendment rights.
For many conservatives, the most shocking development was the decision of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to side with the liberal bloc. These justices have often been seen as reliable defenders of constitutional gun rights, making their refusal to take up the challenge particularly noteworthy.
Justice Kavanaugh, while siding with the majority, issued a statement clarifying his view. He emphasized the widespread ownership and legality of the AR-15 rifle, the primary firearm implicated in Maryland’s ban. Kavanaugh wrote, “This case primarily concerns Maryland’s ban on the AR–15, a semi-automatic rifle. Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR–15s. And AR–15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier.”
His statement also acknowledged the petitioners’ “strong argument that AR–15s are in ‘common use’ by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller.” Despite this, he ultimately agreed with the decision not to hear the case, frustrating many gun rights supporters.
Justice Thomas went further, expressing his disappointment with the Court’s inaction. He warned that by refusing to decide on this matter now, the Supreme Court risks allowing more restrictive federal measures in the future.
Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates reacted swiftly, warning that the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene could embolden lawmakers to pursue even stricter gun control measures. With bans remaining in place in states like California, New York, and Illinois, critics argue that the Court missed an opportunity to clarify the constitutional limits on state power.
Breitbart News noted that Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas would have taken the case, highlighting the ideological split. Thomas noted, “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.”
Many see the Maryland law as a test case for broader state and federal gun restrictions. Critics argue that Maryland’s ban targets commonly owned firearms by law-abiding citizens, directly challenging Supreme Court precedents like Heller, which affirmed the right to keep arms “in common use.”
Supporters of the ban, however, contend it is a necessary step to curb gun violence and prevent mass shootings. They argue that states should have the authority to pass laws tailored to public safety, even if it means restricting certain types of firearms.
The high court’s decision leaves the door open for future legal battles over firearms. Justice Thomas warned that deferring action could allow for “more egregious ban[s] at the federal level,” suggesting that the issue is far from settled.
The fact that AR-15s remain legal in 41 states but banned in nine highlights the patchwork nature of gun laws across the country. Kavanaugh’s own words acknowledged this divide, noting that Maryland is an “outlier” in its sweeping prohibition.
The Associated Press reported that Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas “publicly noted their disagreement” with the majority’s refusal, indicating that the gun rights debate will continue to be a source of friction within the Supreme Court. As more cases work their way through the lower courts, pressure is likely to mount for a definitive ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Observers point to the unusual coalition of justices as evidence that the Court remains unpredictable on hot-button issues. With President Donald Trump in office, many conservatives expected a stronger defense of gun rights from the bench.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California is under scrutiny after Federal Election Commission revelations about her campaign finance practices. The longtime congresswoman's violations dwarf the alleged infractions that led to 34 felony counts against President Donald Trump during the 2024 election cycle.
According to The Western Journal, Waters violated multiple campaign finance rules totaling over half a million dollars. Federal Election Commission reports released Monday detailed violations including misstatements of receipts and disbursements, acceptance of excessive contributions, and unlawful cash disbursements.
Waters' campaign committee agreed to pay a $68,000 fine while essentially admitting guilt to the violations. Her team stated that any errors were accidental and that steps had been taken to prevent future occurrences, according to the FEC report.
The Federal Election Commission report outlined three specific categories of violations committed by Waters' campaign committee. Misstatements of receipts and disbursements accounted for $262,391 in receipts and $256,165 in disbursements. Additionally, the committee accepted $19,000 in excessive contributions and made $7,000 in unlawful cash disbursements.
Combined, these violations totaled $544,556, representing a significant breach of federal campaign finance regulations. Waters' committee did not deny the allegations but characterized the violations as unintentional mistakes rather than deliberate misconduct.
During the audit process, Waters' team filed amended reports to correct past errors and refunded some excessive contributions. The remainder of excessive contributions were disgorged to the U.S. Treasury as required by federal law.
The contrast between Waters' treatment and Trump's legal challenges during the 2024 election cycle reveals a stark disparity in enforcement approaches. Trump faced 34 felony counts related to alleged hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, with the total alleged campaign finance violation amounting to $130,000. Trump has consistently denied any affair with Daniels occurred.
Waters' admitted violations of $544,556 represent more than four times the amount of Trump's alleged violation. Despite this significant difference, Waters received a fine representing roughly 12.5% of her violation total, while Trump endured months of legal proceedings and felony charges.
The cases differ in their specific legal frameworks and circumstances, making direct comparisons complex. However, the disparity in consequences has drawn criticism from conservative observers who argue that Democratic politicians receive more lenient treatment for campaign finance violations.
Waters' violations come amid broader concerns about campaign finance compliance among Democratic members of Congress. The California representative, known for her outspoken criticism of Republican policies, now faces questions about her own adherence to federal election laws.
Her committee's statement acknowledging the violations while characterizing them as accidental reflects a common defense strategy in campaign finance cases. However, the substantial dollar amounts involved raise questions about oversight and compliance procedures within her campaign organization.
The timing of these revelations, following closely after Trump's legal challenges, has amplified discussions about equal application of campaign finance laws. Conservative critics argue that the disparity demonstrates a two-tiered justice system that favors Democratic politicians over their Republican counterparts.
Representative Waters now confronts scrutiny over campaign finance practices that resulted in violations exceeding half a million dollars.
The Federal Election Commission's findings detail systematic issues with her campaign's financial reporting and contribution handling, leading to a $68,000 fine that her committee agreed to pay without contesting the allegations.
The case highlights ongoing debates about campaign finance enforcement consistency across party lines. While Waters characterizes her violations as accidental errors, the substantial amounts involved and the comparison to Trump's treatment during the election cycle continue to fuel political controversy over prosecutorial fairness and accountability standards for elected officials.
Tom Thibodeau's second stint as New York Knicks head coach has come to an abrupt end following one of the franchise's most successful seasons in decades. The dismissal comes just weeks after the team's Eastern Conference Finals defeat to the Indiana Pacers.
According to the Daily Mail, Knicks President Leon Rose announced the decision in a statement emphasizing the organization's championship aspirations. Rose thanked Thibodeau for his dedication while explaining the team would pursue a different direction moving forward.
The firing marks a stunning reversal for Thibodeau, who guided the Knicks to their first Eastern Conference Finals appearance since 2000. Despite reaching the playoffs in four of five seasons under his leadership, including back-to-back 50-win campaigns for the first time since the 1990s, organizational pressure for championship success ultimately cost him his position.
President Leon Rose delivered a clear message about the franchise's elevated standards in his official statement regarding Thibodeau's dismissal. Rose expressed gratitude for the coach's commitment while emphasizing that championship pursuit necessitated organizational changes.
Rose stated in his announcement: "Our organization is singularly focused on winning a championship for our fans. This pursuit led us to the difficult decision to inform Tom Thibodeau that we've decided to move in another direction." The president acknowledged Thibodeau's contributions while maintaining that difficult decisions were necessary for title aspirations.
The decision reflects heightened expectations following the team's recent success under Thibodeau's guidance. After seven consecutive seasons without playoff appearances before his arrival, the Knicks transformed into legitimate contenders during his tenure, making the organizational standards significantly more demanding.
Several Knicks players and prominent supporters publicly defended Thibodeau following news of his dismissal. Swingman Josh Hart immediately took to social media to express appreciation for his former coach's impact on the organization.
Hart's social media post read simply: "Forever Grateful. Thank You!" The message reflected widespread player sentiment regarding Thibodeau's influence on team culture and competitive success. Support extended beyond the roster to include celebrity fans and former players who witnessed the transformation firsthand.
Actor and longtime Knicks supporter Ben Stiller offered extensive praise for Thibodeau's contributions to franchise revival:
I am a Tom Thibodeau fan. He brought this team back. I felt he gave every bit of himself and was always looking to improve. I will always be grateful for how far he brought the Knicks. They are relevant again. They are championship contenders again. The Knicks became winners again with him. Thank you COACH THIBS.
Multiple potential replacements have already surfaced in early speculation surrounding the Knicks' coaching search. Former Denver Nuggets coach Mike Malone represents an intriguing option, given his New York roots and recent championship experience with the 2023 title-winning Nuggets squad.
Jay Wright's name has generated significant fan interest due to his connections with current Knicks players from his Villanova coaching days. The presence of former Wildcats stars Jalen Brunson, Josh Hart, and Mikal Bridges createsa natural appeal for Wright's potential candidacy among supporters.
Surprisingly, former NBA player Metta World Peace threw his hat into the ring through social media commentary. The Queens native and former St. John's star declared himself "the perfect choice for head coach" despite limited coaching experience, adding an unexpected element to early speculation.
Thibodeau's dismissal coincides with growing questions about the team's roster composition and potential trades during the upcoming offseason. Center Karl-Anthony Towns faces trade speculation after reportedly frustrating teammates and coaches with defensive inconsistencies throughout the season.
According to reports, players and coaching staff grew increasingly frustrated with Towns' defensive lapses and apparent unwillingness to address fundamental problems. These concerns have sparked rumors about potential roster changes as the organization seeks championship-caliber personnel.
The Knicks reportedly join multiple NBA teams interested in pursuing Milwaukee Bucks superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo should he become available. Such pursuit would require significant roster restructuring and potentially involve trading current core players to create necessary salary cap space for a championship-level acquisition.
Former President Joe Biden's last-minute pardons, including those granted to his family members and death row inmates, are now under intense scrutiny from the Department of Justice.
According to The Western Journal, pardon attorney Ed Martin, who previously served as U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., has launched an investigation into Biden's late-term pardons.
The investigation focuses on whether Biden was mentally competent when the pardons were issued and if his signature was misused.
The controversial pardons extended to Hunter Biden, James Biden, Frank Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, and their spouses have raised significant concerns among justice officials. These pardons were particularly notable as they were granted preemptively, before any charges were filed against these family members.
Martin's investigation specifically targets these family-related pardons, along with 37 cases where Biden granted clemency to federal death row inmates. The probe seeks to determine whether these decisions truly originated from Biden himself.
The use of an autopen device, which creates exact replicas of presidential signatures, has become a central focus of the investigation. Reports suggest some Biden aides may have utilized this technology without proper authorization.
A recent book by Axios journalist Alex Thompson has shed new light on Biden's final months in office, revealing a complex power structure within the White House. Thompson's reporting suggests that key decisions were increasingly made by a small group of individuals he dubbed the "politburo."
This inner circle reportedly included First Lady Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, and senior aides Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, and Bruce Reed. These unelected officials allegedly took on significant decision-making responsibilities as concerns about Biden's cognitive decline grew.
Thompson's revelations have sparked additional questions about the legitimacy of executive decisions made during this period. The journalist noted that some staffers justified their actions by viewing them as necessary measures against what they perceived as threats to democracy.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has announced plans to conduct transcribed interviews with key figures from Biden's administration. The committee's investigation targets Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden's physician, and former White House officials including Neera Tanden and Anthony Bernal.
These interviews aim to explore the extent of Biden's mental decline and the potential unauthorized use of the autopen for pardons. The committee's work represents a significant escalation in congressional scrutiny of the former administration's final actions.
The investigation's scope includes examining communication records and decision-making processes within the White House during this period. This represents a broader effort to understand how executive powers were exercised during Biden's final months in office.
The Department of Justice's investigation into Biden's pardons marks a significant development in post-presidential scrutiny. Ed Martin's probe specifically examines the legitimacy of 37 death row clemencies and multiple family pardons signed during Biden's final weeks in office.
The investigation's outcomes could have far-reaching implications for future presidential pardons and executive decision-making processes. Questions about the use of autopen technology and presidential competency may lead to new protocols for authenticating executive actions.
As the Justice Department awaits responses to its inquiries, the investigation continues to examine whether Biden's mental state impacted his ability to make sound decisions regarding these pardons. The probe's findings could potentially influence how presidential powers are exercised and monitored in the future.
The House Oversight Committee's investigation into former President Joe Biden's alleged mental decline has gained powerful new backing from the Department of Justice, with Chairman James Comer praising the expansion of scrutiny into controversial end-of-term pardons.
According to Fox News, the Trump administration's DOJ has launched an investigation into whether Biden was mentally competent when certain pardons were issued and if others potentially took advantage of him through unauthorized use of an autopen signature device.
The probe centers on a series of sweeping pardons granted in Biden's final days in office, including a controversial pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, which contradicted Biden's previous public statements that he would not pardon family members.
The DOJ's involvement marks a significant escalation in examining the circumstances surrounding Biden's last months in office. Their investigation specifically focuses on whether Biden was mentally fit to issue pardons and if staff members potentially overstepped their authority.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer welcomed the DOJ's parallel investigation, viewing it as validation of his committee's ongoing probe into alleged efforts to conceal Biden's declining cognitive state.
"The Trump DOJ is right to open a probe into the potential unauthorized use of autopen at the Biden White House for sweeping pardons and other executive actions," Comer stated. "Americans demand transparency and accountability about who was calling the shots at the White House."
Comer's committee has requested testimony from five former senior Biden aides, including the president's physician Kevin O'Connor, as part of their investigation into what they term a "cover-up" of Biden's mental state.
Sources familiar with the matter indicate that lawyers for all five former staffers are in communication with the committee regarding potential appearances. However, Comer has made it clear that subpoenas remain on the table if voluntary cooperation fails.
The committee chairman emphasized his determination to get answers, stating the investigation "will be talking soon with a large group of former administration and campaign officials, under subpoena if necessary."
Questions about Biden's cognitive abilities, once considered taboo in Washington circles, gained prominence following his widely criticized debate performance against Donald Trump in 2024. Since then, numerous reports have emerged about Biden misremembering longtime allies and losing focus during important meetings.
Biden's recent announcement of stage 4 prostate cancer has added another layer of complexity to the ongoing investigations into his final months in office. Despite his condition, the former president has maintained an optimistic outlook.
These health revelations have sparked renewed interest in examining the decision-making processes during Biden's last days in office, particularly regarding his use of presidential pardoning power.
The dual investigations by the House Oversight Committee and Trump's DOJ signal an unprecedented level of scrutiny into a former president's mental competency and executive actions. Both probes specifically target the use of autopen for pardons and other official documents.
Chairman Comer's investigation continues to expand, with the committee seeking to interview additional former White House officials and campaign staff members. The involvement of Trump's DOJ adds significant weight to these inquiries.
These investigations aim to determine whether Biden's staff potentially overstepped their authority and if proper protocols were followed during the execution of presidential pardons and other executive actions during his final months in office.
President Donald Trump's choice of iPhone lock screen photo has ignited a firestorm of reactions online, revealing an unexpected glimpse into his personal device preferences that are dividing supporters and critics alike.
According to Daily Mail, Trump was photographed holding his iPhone on Friday after departing Air Force One from Pittsburgh, displaying a lock screen image of himself from July 2019 that shows him pointing straight ahead in a commanding pose.
The image was originally captured by Getty Images photographer Chip Somodevilla when the president was heading to a fundraiser at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey. Internet sleuths had previously tracked down this specific photo in 2020 when it first appeared in social media shots.
Democrat Harry Sisson took to X to voice his strong disapproval of Trump's phone customization choice. "Trump's lock screen was spotted on his phone last night—and it was a photo of himself. Is that not one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed things you've ever seen??? Not his family, not his kids, but himself," Sisson wrote.
The lock screen choice sparked heated discussions online, with critics pointing out that Trump opted for a self-portrait rather than photos of his extensive family, including his five children and eleven grandchildren. Many expressed surprise at the omission of family photos, particularly given recent additions to the Trump family.
Trump's latest grandchild, Alexander, born just last month to daughter Tiffany and son-in-law Michael Boulos, was notably absent from the president's phone display, further fueling critics' arguments about his personal priorities.
Conservative influencer Benny Johnson shared the lock screen image with a fire emoji, demonstrating enthusiastic support for Trump's personal choice. His post sparked a wave of positive responses from Trump's base.
Supporters on social media quickly rallied behind the president, with many describing the lock screen as "based" and claiming it possessed "aura." These defenders viewed the choice as a power move rather than a sign of narcissism.
The contrasting interpretations of Trump's phone customization highlighted how even the most personal aspects of the president's life become fodder for political debate and division among Americans.
The viral photo inadvertently revealed more than just Trump's lock screen preferences. A text message from Roger Stone, Trump's longtime advisor who received a presidential pardon during his first term, was visible in the notification area.
Stone's message contained a link to an article titled "Housing market chief Pulte sends blunt message on Fed interest rate cuts" from thestreet.com. The timing of this communication drew attention given Stone's controversial history with the administration.
The message referenced Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), who recently made headlines by alleging that New York AG Letitia James falsified banking documents, adding another layer of intrigue to the exposed communication.
The controversial lock screen photo's emergence coincides with the White House's release of a new official presidential portrait. This formal image shows Trump in a striking close-up shot against a dark background, marking a significant departure from previous presidential portraiture styles.
This new portrait replaced an earlier version that had drawn widespread comparisons to Trump's much-discussed mug shot, signaling a deliberate shift in how the president's image is being presented to the public.
These parallel revelations about Trump's photo preferences—both personal and official—demonstrate how the president's image choices continue to generate substantial public interest and spark intense debate among Americans of all political persuasions.
Former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has leveled serious accusations against Jill Biden and her senior adviser, Anthony Bernal, regarding their alleged involvement in concealing President Joe Biden's cognitive decline during his term.
According to the New York Post, Bernal, often referred to as Jill Biden's "work husband," wielded unprecedented power within the Biden administration and may have played a crucial role in shielding the president from public scrutiny.
The White House press briefing brought these allegations to the forefront when Leavitt stated that the former first lady "needs to answer" for "lying to the American people" and "shielding her husband away from the cameras."
Bernal's influence extended far beyond his official title of "special assistant to the president." As one of only two staffers permitted to relocate to Wilmington during Biden's 2020 campaign basement strategy, he maintained strict control over access to the first family.
Former Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg and ex-White House staffer Deterrian Jones have come forward in a Project Veritas video, describing Bernal as a powerful "Wizard of Oz-type figure" who operated behind the scenes with remarkable authority.
According to Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book "Original Sin," Bernal's close relationship with Jill Biden granted him unprecedented influence among the "Politburo" that controlled her husband's affairs.
White House sources paint a picture of Bernal as a feared and controversial figure. Despite his outward obsequiousness toward the Bidens, he reportedly created a toxic work environment for other staffers.
Multiple sources claim Bernal "bullied and verbally sexually harassed colleagues over more than a decade" but remained "untouchable" due to Jill Biden's unwavering support. His behavior allegedly included making inappropriate comments about colleagues' anatomy.
Bernal enforced strict loyalty tests, interrogating staff members and maintaining a list of allies and enemies with Jill Biden. He controlled everything from the first lady's wardrobe to her Vogue magazine appearances.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has launched an investigation into what he terms a "historic scandal." The probe focuses on whether President Biden was fit to authorize the use of an autopen for signing executive orders and pardons.
Comer has requested interviews with five former Biden aides, including Bernal and Dr. Kevin O'Connor. All have retained legal counsel, with O'Connor's interview scheduled for late June.
The investigation carries significant implications for Trump's agenda, as Comer suggests these executive orders were designed to "Trump-proof" the White House. If Biden's competency during signing is questioned, these orders could potentially face legal challenges.
James Comer's investigation targets multiple figures in the Biden administration, focusing on their potential roles in concealing the president's alleged cognitive decline during his term.
The House Oversight Committee chairman is considering subpoenas for both Jill Biden and Hunter Biden as part of the expanding investigation into the alleged cover-up of President Biden's mental fitness.
Recent developments have raised questions about the true power structure within the White House during Biden's presidency, with particular focus on the influence of Jill Biden and her trusted adviser, Anthony Bernal.