New documentary spotlights Britney Spears’ conservatorship

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Attorneys Alex Swoyer and Robert Patillo discuss the legal battle on ‘Fox News @ Night.’

Recommended Stories

  • Prince Harry says Meghan Markle made him realize he was 'trapped' in royal life

    Prince Harry told Oprah Winfrey "I was trapped, but I didn't know I was trapped" in a candid sit-down interview with his wife, Meghan Markle.

  • Why worrisome coronavirus mutations may soon hit their limit

    The novel coronavirus that sparked the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will continue to evolve over time, but it may be running out of the type of worrisome tricks seen in mutations first sequenced in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, Dr. Dhruv Khullar writes in The New Yorker. All three variants are troubling because of a change to the "spike" protein that allows the virus to latch on to humans' ACE-2 receptor and enter human cells more easily, making it more transmissible. And the Brazilian and South African variants carry an additional mutation which diminishes the ability of antibodies to bind to and neutralize the virus, possibly rendering previous infection and vaccines less effective, Khullar writes. There is good news, though — at least in the eyes of Jason McLellan, a structural biologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who believes such mutations may be few and far between going forward. "There's just not a lot of space for the spike to continue to change in ways that allow it to evade antibodies but still bind to its receptor," McLellan told Khullar. "Substitutions that allow the virus to resist antibodies will probably also decrease its affinity for ACE-2," he continued, adding that because the variants "have independently hit on the same mutations" it's likely "we're already seeing the limits of where the virus can go." McLellan expanded on his fairly hopeful outlook, telling Khullar that the virus will indeed keep mutating, but likely into a less lethal version. "This is what we think happened to viruses that cause the common cold," he said. "It probably caused a major illness in the past. Then it evolved to a place where it's less deadly." Read more at The New Yorker. More stories from theweek.comTrump is still voting by mailBritain's tabloids, vilified by Harry and Meghan, are all agog over the 'devastating' Oprah interview7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversy

  • Republican National Committee rejects cease-and-desist demand from Trump attorneys

    The Republican National Committee dismissed a cease-and-desist demand from former President Trump's attorneys Monday after Trump's lawyers told the organization to stop using Trump's name and likeness, Politico reports.What they're saying: The RNC "has every right to refer to public figures as it engages in core, First Amendment-protected political speech, and it will continue to do so in pursuit of these common goals," chief counsel Justin Riemer wrote in a letter sent Monday afternoon.Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets. Subscribe for freeThe RNC letter highlights Trump's "close" relationship with RNC chair Ronna McDaniel and states that Trump personally approved the use of his name for fundraising."The RNC is grateful for the past and continued support President Trump has given to the committee and it looks forward to working with him to elect Republicans across the country," Riemer wrote.The RNC did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.Trump attorneys sent a letter on March 5 requesting that the RNC "immediately cease and desist the unauthorized use of President Donald J. Trump’s name, image, and/or likeness in all fundraising, persuasion, and/or issue speech."It was one of many cease-and-desist demands, which the Trump team sent to GOP committees including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.The big picture: Trump worked closely with the RNC during the 2020 campaign, raising over $366 million together, according to Politico.Trump is expected to speak at the RNC's upcoming donor retreat in Palm Beach, a portion of which has been moved to Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club, per the Washington Post.Like this article? Get more from Axios and subscribe to Axios Markets for free.

  • Accused child killer Barahona ‘jumped,’ beaten by fellow inmates in Miami jail

    Five jail inmates beat up notorious accused child killer Jorge Barahona at the Miami-Dade jail because “of the nature of his pending charges,” according to a newly released police report.

  • Paul Walker's daughter walks fashion show, gets shoutout from dad's co-stars

    The 22-year-old modeled in a Givenchy fashion show over the weekend.

  • QAnon Shaman's '60 Minutes' interview backfired. Judge cites interview when ruling he must remain jailed until trial.

    Jacob Chansley's perception of his actions on January 6 show a "detachment from reality," a federal judge argued in new court documents.

  • Calls to #AbolishTheMonarchy went viral after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Oprah interview

    Calls for the abolition of the British monarchy were made on social media following Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah.

  • Ohio college student dies after alleged hazing incident

    Stone Foltz, 20, a sophomore at Bowling Green State University and a new member of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, was allegedly hazed during an initiation event when he was made to drink alcohol.

  • Papa John's founder says he's been working to get the N-word out of his vocabulary for the 'last 20 months'

    The former CEO of Papa John's is assuring the public he's been working on not using racist language, an effort that has apparently been ongoing for nearly two years. John Schnatter, the Papa John's founder who in 2018 stepped down as chairman after admitting he used the N-word during a conference call, told One America News Network the pizza chain's board has painted him "as a racist" when "they know he's not a racist," per Mediaite. From there, Schnatter described his "goals," evidently including no longer saying racial slurs. "We've had three goals for the last 20 months," Schnatter said. "To get rid of this N-word in my vocabulary and dictionary and everything else, because it's just not true, figure out how they did this, and get on with my life." The former pizza boss also told OANN he "used to lay in bed" after his ouster wondering "how did they do this," and he called on Papa John's to come out and declare that it "didn't follow proper due diligence" and that he actually "has no history of racism." Schnatter stepped down as Papa John's chair after Forbes reported that he "used the N-word on a conference call" that had been "designed as a role-playing exercise for Schnatter in an effort to prevent future public-relations snafus." He apologized at the time, saying "racism has no place in our society." Shortly after, though, Schnatter said he resigned because the board asked him to "without apparently doing any investigation" and that he now regrets doing so. Later, Schnatter would vow that a "day of reckoning" would come in a bizarre 2019 interview, in which he also famously declared he's eaten "over 40 pizzas in the last 30 days." Update: In a statement on Monday, Schnatter said he has been seeking to eliminate "false perceptions in the media" and that "on OANN, I tried to say, 'Get rid of this n-word in (the) vocabulary and dictionary (of the news media), and everything else because it's just not true,' – reflecting my commitment to correct the false and malicious reporting by the news media about the conference call." Papa John’s ex-CEO says he’s been working for the last 20 months “to get rid of this N-word in my vocabulary” (h/t @mount_bees) pic.twitter.com/8heITnJJxA — philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) March 8, 2021 More stories from theweek.comTrump is still voting by mailBritain's tabloids, vilified by Harry and Meghan, are all agog over the 'devastating' Oprah interview7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversy

  • 5 hidden details you might have missed in Meghan Markle's Oprah Winfrey interview outfit

    Through her jewelry and Armani lotus dress, Meghan Markle sent a message of hope, paid tribute to Diana, and may have made a nod to the Commonwealth.

  • A new lab study shows troubling signs that Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 shots could be far less effective against the variant first found in South Africa

    A mutation called E484K appeared to help the variant, first found in South Africa, to evade antibodies produced by the vaccines, the authors said.

  • $1,400 checks could start arriving within weeks under latest COVID-19 relief package

    The Internal Revenue Service could begin delivering payments in about two weeks under President Biden's COVID-19 relief package, analysts say.

  • A mask-less Trader Joe's customer in Texas had a meltdown after being denied entry - and it reveals how states' new rules endanger workers

    In Texas, frontline workers are forced to impose corporate rules on masks without the support of the state, exposing them to customer backlash.

  • Megyn Kelly says Meghan Markle always claims to be a 'victim' after bombshell Oprah interview: 'Give me a break'

    "Everyone victimizes Meghan! Everyone! The palace! The press!" the former Fox News host, who was fired for making racist statements, said.

  • Elon Musk posted a rare family photo with Grimes and their baby, X Æ A-Xii, taken in the new city he hopes to create in Texas

    Musk and Grimes have been dating since about May 2018, when they made their debut as a couple at the Met Gala.

  • The GOP Senate is primed to get even Trumpier, political analysts say

    Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) announced Monday that he won't be seeking re-election in 2022, meaning yet another Senate seat will be without an incumbent defender during next year's mid-terms. The early sense among political analysts is that a candidate backed by former President Donald Trump will have the inside track to replace Blunt, given Trump's popularity in Missouri, a state he won by a commanding 15 percent in the 2020 presidential election. That was the highest share of the vote a Republican candidate had won in Missouri since former President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Old guard Republican senators are also stepping down in North Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, and Pennsylvania, which means the GOP could run as many as five Senate candidates from the so-called "Trump wing" of the party next year. Democrats aren't hopeless in some of those states, but it seems likely Blunt's seat will stay within the GOP. In previous years, an open Missouri Senate seat might have suggested a more competitive inter-party contest was on the horizon, but that's probably not the case in a post-Trump world, The Appeal's Daniel Nichanian tweeted Monday. Indeed, it may be telling that Jason Kander, who gave Blunt a surprising run for his money in 2016, quickly announced he isn't looking to launch another campaign. So, all things considered, it appears Blunt's retirement is another sign the GOP will continue to push itself closer to Trump. Blunt's retirement likely says a lot more about the direction of the GOP (towards Trumpism) than it does about a potential Dem pickup opportunity in a state Trump won by 15 points. — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) March 8, 2021 More stories from theweek.comTrump is still voting by mailBritain's tabloids, vilified by Harry and Meghan, are all agog over the 'devastating' Oprah interview7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversy

  • Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's secret wedding couldn't have been an official, legal ceremony, experts say

    Experts say Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's secret wedding can't have been official if it took place in their backyard as they described.

  • Joe Biden might be in the White House, but Joe Manchin runs the presidency

    In US politics today, the conservative Democratic senator seems to have all the power and is more than happy to wield it ‘The reason Manchin has become the legislative center of gravity is obvious if unstated.’ Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA For the last week, Americans paying attention to politics have learned an important truth: Joe Biden may live in the White House, but the conservative Democratic senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia is effectively president. This depressing reality can certainly be fixed, but only if progressive Democrats in Congress are willing to actually change the dynamic – and they have a rare opportunity to do that right now by using their power to raise the minimum wage. But so far, they aren’t choosing to use their power – which is a huge structural problem not just now, but also for the foreseeable future. Some have argued that the way to fix this situation is by ending the filibuster, but that’s a catch-22: it is absolutely a necessary reform, but President Manchin is pledging to veto it. Even if Democrats were to eliminate the filibuster, they would still need Manchin’s stamp of approval for virtually all legislation, given the Senate’s current 50-50 split. The way to fix this dynamic is for a decisive number of House Democrats or Democratic senators to make clear, line-in-the-sand demands, and demonstrate they will vote down Democratic legislation that does not honor those demands. And they must do this specifically on must-pass legislation for which Biden can find zero Republican votes. That is the way to force Biden to stop pretending he has no agency and instead motivate him to use the overwhelming power of the executive branch to press the conservative wing of the party to back down. It is also the way to get Manchin himself to negotiate – right now, he gets to operate with impunity because there is no counterforce. The Covid relief bill provides progressives this game-changing opportunity, and in the process they can heroically deliver not on some unimportant issue or tangential agenda item – but instead on the crucial cause of delivering a desperately needed higher minimum wage to millions of Americans. The debate over the legislation also gives the public a way to see whether self-identified progressive heroes are as serious about actually using power as President Manchin is. The Covid-19 relief bill is a microcosm of the Manchin effect We can see this opportunity in the current wrangling over a $1.9tn Covid relief package, where Manchin has successfully pressured the executive branch to support further limiting eligibility for survival checks, devising a phase-out policy so absurdly punitive that even reliably partisan Democratic pundits and centrist thinktank wonks can’t support it. The payments – which are $1,400 instead of the $2,000 people were promised – will likely now go to 17 million fewer people than the last round of checks under Donald Trump, as a result of Manchin’s handiwork. Though Biden depicted himself as a legislative master of the Senate during the 2020 presidential campaign, the result of his negotiation – or lack thereof – has been Manchin making austerity demands that position him to the right of his own state’s Republican governor. Meanwhile, the Biden’s White House is signaling that it will ignore pleas from civil rights leaders and not support Kamala Harris to use her power as the Senate presiding officer to advance a $15 minimum wage. Even though there is ample precedent for the vice-president to do this, White House officials do not support this maneuver – presumably because they fear Manchin and the conservative senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, would oppose it. The reason Manchin has become the legislative center of gravity is obvious if unstated: the implicit threat is that if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants, he will cast a decisive vote against the final bill, killing it in one fell swoop because there will almost certainly be zero Republican votes for final passage, no matter what is in the legislation. Manchin, in other words, seems to have all the power and is more than happy to wield it. By contrast, Biden, the most powerful man on the planet, appears to be refusing to wield power. He doesn’t seem to have lifted a finger to try to change the Senate dynamic. He reportedly hasn’t even pushed Manchin on minimum wage at all, which suggests the president is either cartoonishly lazy, believes such an effort would prove fruitless, or actually doesn’t want to deliver on his promises and has found the perfect excuse in the West Virginia senator. Frankly, it is probably some combination of all of those things. The White House insists that it will still continue fighting for a $15 minimum wage in the future. But the reality is that if nothing changes right now, then the likelihood of a significant minimum wage increase in the next few years is incredibly slim. Any standalone, substantial minimum wage bill will face a filibuster requiring 60 votes to overcome it. Despite the White House fantasizing that Republicans might support a serious minimum wage increase, there probably are not 10 GOP Senate votes to break such a filibuster. Meanwhile, if Democrats try to attach a minimum wage increase to a bill that Republicans actually really want to vote for – say, the National Defense Authorization Act – Republicans could move to simply strike it out of that underlying bill, which enough conservative Democrats might agree to, and then the GOP would vote en masse for final passage of the stripped-down legislation. Everyone in Washington knows this script, so a move to attach a minimum wage to a bill like this would likely be a performative gesture, but not a legislative victory. The key: must-pass bills that the Republicans will not vote for This situation spotlights the central point: must-pass Democratic legislation that has no chance to secure any Republican votes at all may be the foundation of the current Manchin presidency, but they can also be the foundation of a long-overdue progressive realignment in Congress. Manchin’s threat of voting down Democratic legislation is only able to disproportionately determine policy outcomes because there is not a serious ideological threat on the other side serving as a counterweight. Put another way, Manchin is this powerful because he’s willing to wield power and his purported ideological opponents are not. Amazingly, Manchin remains unchecked even though there are enough progressives in Congress to create this necessary countervailing power. In a narrowly divided House in which no Republicans will vote for a Covid relief bill, it would only take somewhere between six and 10 Democratic congresspeople to join together as a bloc and make a game-changing declaration that they will not vote for final passage of a Senate-passed Covid relief bill that does not include a minimum wage increase. Similarly, in the Senate, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren or Ed Markey could pull their own version of Manchin and make the same declaration, saying they would not vote yes on final passage unless the legislation includes Sanders’ amendment to increase the minimum wage. The relief bill is a must-pass for all Democrats. If Manchin can threaten to withhold his vote, so can Elizabeth, Bernie, and the Squad+They should wield their power. Make the bill better, for the substance and the politics.— Ady Barkan (@AdyBarkan) March 3, 2021 Such declarations would trigger a political earthquake, tectonically shifting the power structure and the assumptions built into legislative debates. Suddenly, Manchin would not be the political solar system’s sun whose gravity forces everyone to revolve around him – he would be one of two poles, forcing the Biden administration to try to find compromise between them, and pressuring Manchin to move. Suddenly, the Biden White House, the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and majority leader, Chuck Schumer, would have to carefully weigh how much to give up to Manchin for fear of losing the other bloc of lawmakers on the other side of him. And they would have to do that knowing they can’t triangulate, simply ignore the progressives and replace them with some Republican votes. Suddenly, House progressives’ demand for Harris to ignore the parliamentarian and advance the minimum wage wouldn’t just be rhetoric. With a real threat of progressives voting down a minimum-wage-less Covid bill in final passage, ignoring the parliamentarian would become crucial for Biden himself. He would need to support doing this and use his power to actually pressure Manchin, because he would need to get that minimum wage attached to the bill. With no Republican votes available, progressives would be making clear that would be the only way Biden could hope to pass the Covid relief legislation on which he’s staking his entire presidency. At the table, rather than on the menu If this would work, then why hasn’t it happened? Almost certainly because congressional progressives are more moral than Manchin – as Representative Ro Khanna articulated in Thursday night’s Daily Poster live chat, they genuinely do not want to delay desperately necessary legislation to help millions of people and extend federal unemployment benefits expiring in 10 days, and the assumption is that Manchin would be more than OK with doing that. But whether from the film Back to the Future or from the experience of the last four years of Donald Trump, we’ve learned over and over again that the only way to defeat bullies is to stand up to them. Congressional progressives must be willing to be as strong, clear and unwavering as Manchin is villainous. They must be willing to follow through on a promise to not just cast votes against a bill Biden wants, but cast decisive votes when there are no Republicans for Biden to peel off – votes that actually take down the legislation unless progressives’ eminently reasonable demands are met. Yes, the Covid relief bill must pass. It includes desperately needed help for Americans who are struggling. And yes, progressives who actually take a stand would be falsely accused of killing the legislation and trampling their own honorable principles of harm reduction that typically leads them to support inadequate legislation because it includes some good stuff (and I have no doubt that for even writing this essay, the Guardian will be instantly – and falsely – accused of not caring about the plight of people struggling though the economic crisis, even though we’ve spent months holding Democrats accountable to their promise of immediate aid). But those arguments don’t fly here. If, as they assert, progressive lawmakers were predicating their votes for the Covid relief bill on an eminently reasonable demand like a long overdue, much-promised raise of the country’s starvation wage, then the legislation’s momentary delay would be the fault of the party and president that refuses to deliver on that promise. It is not the fault of the party’s rank-and-file progressive lawmakers who themselves were elected on the same minimum wage promise and who are simply taking legitimate, reasonable steps to make sure they deliver on the pledge right now. Additionally, precisely because the bill is so desperately needed and a must-pass initiative, there is absolutely no reason to believe it would permanently die. If a Covid relief bill with no minimum wage is voted down in the House, lawmakers can immediately go back and revise the legislation and bring it right back up. We’ve seen that happen before, most prominently during the financial crisis when the Bush administration’s initial bank rescue bill was voted down and then quickly revised and passed. For those who rightly demand a serious minimum wage increase, this is the way to have a real shot at making it happen right now. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that “the entire negotiations of this package, for a lot of people, were predicated on the $15 minimum wage”. The way to actually make that wage increase happen is to follow through and make clear no bill will pass unless it is included. Otherwise, progressives’ votes weren’t actually predicated on the $15 minimum wage at all. This isn’t rocket science. This is game theory 101. This is the ancient idea of countervailing power – and however difficult and scary it may be for progressive legislators, it is the only strategy to end the Manchin presidency before it takes over politics, eliminates the prospect of fundamental change, and delivers an electoral disaster to Democrats in 2022 and 2024. Such opportunities do not come around very often. It is incredibly rare for there to be truly must-pass legislation that no Republicans are willing to sell their vote for. Congressional progressives must be willing to use such an opportunity to make a threat and follow through, knowing that even if they momentarily delay legislation like the Covid relief bill, their party’s leaders will be instantly forced back to the negotiating table to revise it. At that point, progressives would finally be at that table, rather than on the menu – which would at last provide a chance to materially improve millions of Americans’ lives. David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor at large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Daily Poster. He served as Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign speechwriter

  • New Zealand 'not likely' to become a republic in wake of Harry and Meghan interview, says Jacinda Ardern

    New Zealand's prime minister says the country is “not likely” to become a republic in the wake of Prince Harry and Meghan's interview, as Commonwealth countries face calls for the removal of the Queen as Head of State. Jacinda Ardern was asked whether the unflattering picture of the British royal family painted by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had given her pause about New Zealand's constitutional ties to Britain. "I've said before that I've not sensed an appetite from New Zealanders for significant change in our constitutional arrangements, and I don't expect that's likely to change quickly," she said. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with The Queen as Sovereign. But discontent is bubbling elsewhere - #AbolishTheMonarchy was trending on Twitter on Monday morning.

  • When will your $1,400 stimulus check arrive? House looks to pass COVID plan quickly

    Here’s when you could get your stimulus check under the new bill.