Author name: LifeZette

Former CNN host Don Lemon voiced his disbelief on Thursday over Time Magazine naming President-elect Donald Trump as its 2024 “Person of the Year.”

This marks the second time Trump has received the title, with the first being in 2016 following his victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

During a public discussion, Lemon expressed skepticism over the magazine’s decision, questioning whether the public might be “scammed” and challenging Trump’s eligibility for the recognition. “Now when you think about what encompasses ‘Person of the Year,’ just because you are elected President of the United States does not mean you should be ‘Person of the Year,’” Lemon said.

“Time Magazine, what are you doing? Let me ask you Time Magazine, what do you say to the women who I guess still read Time Magazine? … What about the women who are on that list? I’m sure some of them will have dealt with issues that women have to deal with, like discrimination in the workplace, [sexual assault], all kinds of things. You have someone on the cover of your magazine who is an adjudicated assaulter, you have someone who inspired an insurrection, you have someone who without a doubt, the evidence is there, tried to overturn a free and fair election. You had someone who had multiple criminal counts and found guilty on multiple criminal counts.”

Time Magazine highlighted Trump’s “unparalleled” political comeback in the face of legal and political challenges.

The article detailed Trump’s journey through a tumultuous period that included multiple criminal indictments and convictions, yet culminated in a decisive victory in the 2024 presidential election.

“Trump’s political rebirth is unparalleled in American history,” Eric Cortellessa of Time Magazine wrote.

“His first term ended in disgrace, with his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results culminating in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. He was shunned by most party officials when he announced his candidacy in late 2022 amid multiple criminal investigations. Little more than a year later, Trump cleared the Republican field, clinching one of the fastest contested presidential primaries in history. He spent six weeks during the general election in a New York City courtroom, the first former President to be convicted of a crime—a fact that did little to dampen his support.”

The magazine underscored Trump’s resilience in navigating high-profile legal cases while maintaining robust support among his base.

Trump faced several criminal indictments, including 34 felony counts brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, charges related to classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago, and allegations of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia and Washington, D.C.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Trump’s legal team filed a request on Dec. 4 to dismiss the Georgia charges, citing his upcoming presidential term.

Despite these legal hurdles, Trump became the first Republican nominee in 20 years to win the popular vote, flipping all seven battleground states and securing his path back to the White House.

The 2024 election saw Trump facing two Democratic opponents after Joe Biden exited the race on July 21, Kamala Harris stepped in as the Democratic nominee, raising nearly $1.5 billion and gaining momentum in the early stages of her campaign.

Ultimately, Trump’s victory solidified what Time Magazine called an extraordinary political comeback, making him a two-time recipient of its “Person of the Year” title.

Read More at LifeZette

A rare clip of Barron Trump speaking has taken the internet by storm, sparking a frenzy among supporters and casual observers alike.

The 17-year-old son of President-elect Donald Trump made a brief but memorable appearance in a scene from the documentary series Art of the Surge, chronicling Trump’s recent campaign, as reported by The New York Post.

In the video, filmed on election night, Barron is seen greeting UFC founder Dana White.

“Hello. How are you? It’s very nice to see you,” Barron says, shaking White’s hand with an air of formality. His deep voice, resonating with the cadence of his father, drew immediate comparisons online.

The quip elicited laughter from the room, but Barron, shaking his head, seemed to have no plans for stepping into the octagon.

Barron’s reserved demeanor and gentlemanly interactions struck a chord with supporters. “Barron is such a gentleman,” one commenter noted, echoing the sentiment across social media. The clip quickly went viral, with many users admitting it was their first time hearing Barron’s voice.

Read More at LifeZette

Hollywood celebrities are expressing outrage after special counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss the remaining federal charges against President-elect Donald Trump, following his victory in the 2024 election.

A number of high-profile stars took to social media to voice their alarm over the dismissal, with some claiming that the rule of law in America is under threat.

The dismissal of charges against Trump marks a major legal win for the president-elect.

On Monday, Smith filed motions in both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, effectively ending the federal government’s prosecution of Trump.

The motions sought to dismiss the remaining election interference case against Trump and an appeal in the documents case, leaving just two cases at the state level in Georgia and New York.

This victory has sent shockwaves through Hollywood, with many celebrities expressing their dismay.

Mark Hamill, best known for his role in Star Wars, was one of the first to speak out, declaring, “Justice in America, in fact, does NOT matter.” Hamill’s post echoed his concern that the legal system had failed in the case against Trump.

Wendell Pierce, an actor from The Wire, also took to social media, warning of the potential end of the rule of law.

“No one is above the law is mythology,” Pierce wrote, emphasizing his belief that Trump’s legal battles were far from over despite the recent developments.

Jon Cryer, star of Two and a Half Men, also expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome, claiming, “The evidence against Donald Trump is overwhelming and unrefuted.”

His post pointed to what he perceived as the unaddressed criminality in Trump’s actions, including charges related to the January 6th Capitol attack and the documents case.

In a similar vein, Barbara Streisand, a veteran actress and singer, posted on social media, lamenting that Trump had avoided accountability for his actions. “Trump avoided any accountability for January 6th and the stolen documents and this is forever a stain on the concept that no one is above the law,” she wrote, adding her voice to the chorus of celebrities expressing disappointment.

The wave of responses from Hollywood stars came after news of the dismissal broke, as many had been vocal in supporting the legal battles against Trump.

This included a months-long campaign cheering on the prosecutions, with various figures calling for consequences following his presidency.

Further adding to the public backlash, George Takei, the Star Trek actor, posted a photo from the federal raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, making a pointed comment about the documents case. “Only biological males with cakey orange foundation and 34 felony convictions may use this bathroom,” Takei wrote, referencing the former president in his usual sarcastic style.

Actress Mia Farrow also weighed in, expressing her disappointment with the legal outcome. “What a gut punch. Never again can it be said that ‘In America, no one is above the law,’” she wrote, underscoring her frustration with the direction the legal system had taken.

Many point to the high-profile nature of the case and the perception that it was driven by political motives.

The celebrity reactions continue to highlight the divide in American politics, with many in Hollywood vocally denouncing Trump’s legal victories while others celebrate his return to power.

With the federal prosecutions now concluded, Trump faces legal challenges at the state level. However, the latest developments have left Hollywood figures reeling, with some fearing the implications for the justice system in the U.S.

As Trump prepares for his second term, the backlash from the entertainment industry is sure to continue, with high-profile figures making their views known on social media.

The ongoing legal battles may shape the political landscape as Trump’s return to the White House approaches.

Read More at LifeZette

GEICO has introduced a new mandatory training policy requiring employees to state their pronouns during customer interactions, a move that is part of the company’s larger diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative.

The policy, which was rolled out in November 2024, aims to promote inclusivity and gender diversity in the workplace.

Under the new guidelines, employees are instructed to introduce themselves by sharing their pronouns during customer communications.

For example, an employee might say, “I use he/him pronouns.” The company views this as an essential step in fostering a more respectful and equitable environment for employees and customers alike.

GEICO, a leading provider of auto insurance, has positioned this policy as part of its ongoing commitment to DEI efforts, which include a broader focus on supporting marginalized groups and promoting gender diversity within the company.

According to GEICO, the training and pronoun usage will help create a more inclusive and supportive environment for both employees and customers, encouraging respect for gender identities.

However, the initiative has been met with criticism from some quarters. Critics argue that the policy is unnecessary and intrusive, with many questioning whether it truly contributes to a positive work culture or whether it is merely another layer of corporate bureaucracy.

Concerns have been raised about the requirement for employees to correct customers who may misgender them during interactions.

Some employees have expressed discomfort, noting that this could lead to uncomfortable and potentially confrontational situations in customer service.

While the company maintains that the policy aligns with its mission of equity and inclusivity, the backlash highlights a significant divide on how DEI initiatives are perceived in the workplace.

Some see the policy as a necessary step toward ensuring all individuals, regardless of their gender identity, are treated with respect.

Others view it as a forced imposition on personal expression, arguing that it could disrupt workplace dynamics and customer interactions.

Despite the company’s commitment to the policy, it is clear that the implementation has sparked a broader debate about the role of DEI initiatives in corporate culture and customer service.

Many are questioning whether these initiatives, which focus on issues like gender identity and pronouns, are becoming increasingly pervasive and if they are truly beneficial to the work environment or if they could have unintended consequences.

As GEICO moves forward with its pronoun training, it remains to be seen how the policy will be received long-term, both by employees and customers.

The company has emphasized that the initiative is part of its broader mission to enhance diversity and support marginalized groups, but with some employees speaking out, it is clear that not all are fully on board with the new mandates.

For now, GEICO is standing by its decision, touting it as a necessary step toward building a more inclusive and respectful workplace.

Read More at LifeZette

Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana confronted Benjamin J. Cheeks, a nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, over his past writings on controversial topics during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Cheeks, currently a U.S. Magistrate Judge and criminal defense attorney, was nominated by President Joe Biden on October 23.

Kennedy questioned Cheeks about his past commentary on topics such as Black Lives Matter and the police.

During the hearing, Kennedy noted that Cheeks claimed earlier to Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois that he avoided taking positions in his writings.

“I see you’re quite a prolific writer and … you said you don’t — you don’t take a position in these articles,” Kennedy stated. Cheeks responded, “I said I tried not to take a position in most of my articles.”

Kennedy then referenced specific articles by Cheeks, including one written in the wake of George Floyd’s death. Quoting from one article, Kennedy read, “‘Needless to say I have a guarded opinion about the police. How do I teach my sons to respect them and fear them at the same time? There can be no question that police officers have some of these same internal or external biases.’” Kennedy emphasized Cheeks’ statement, “There can be no question that police officers, not some police, all police officers have some of these same internal or external biases.”

After reading the quote, Kennedy asked, “Did I read that correctly?” Cheeks confirmed he had.

Kennedy then shifted to a 2018 article in which Cheeks commented on the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry into the United States.

Quoting from the article, Kennedy read, “‘Technically the law was broken, but these particular defendants, poor, hungry, hard-working and not dangerous, deserve a pass from prosecution.’”

Kennedy pressed Cheeks, asking, “Saying that illegal immigration should not be criminalized is a position, is it not?” Cheeks acknowledged that it was, but added, “Everything that I wrote, I wrote while I was an advocate, not a sitting judge.”

Cheeks emphasized that his role as a sitting magistrate judge required impartiality. “I no longer advocate,” he said.

Kennedy questioned Cheeks’ ability to separate his advocacy from his judicial role. “So you’re — so — so you — you don’t tell the truth when you’re an advocate, but you do when you’re not? Is it OK to lie if you’re an advocate?” Kennedy asked. Cheeks replied that he didn’t understand the question.

“I think it’s pretty clear and I think you follow it,” Kennedy said. He concluded the exchange by stating, “You’ve taken a lot of radical positions judge, and you can’t make this cat walk backwards. Now you can’t make this cat walk backwards.”

Read  More at LifeZette

MSNBC host Joy Reid announced her departure from X, formerly known as Twitter, by posting a video on social media in which she detailed her decision to delete her account.

Reid, who had 1.9 million followers on the platform, cited her lack of recent activity and ownership concerns as reasons for leaving the platform, which is now under Elon Musk’s control.

“Today, I finally did something I’ve been meaning to do for a while,” Reid stated, showing screenshots of the account deletion process. “The reason for doing it and kissing goodbye my 1.9 million followers over there is because I haven’t been posting for a long time. I just didn’t want to contribute content once it was purchased by its present owner.”

Reid went on to say that she had initially kept the account to prevent someone else from taking her username and “using it for nefarious purposes.”

Her exit from X sparked questions about potential future issues, given that she had previously faced controversy over past blog posts on her personal blog, which contained allegedly antisemitic and homophobic content.

At the time, Reid claimed her blog was hacked, an investigation that reportedly did not yield a definitive culprit.

The move to delete her account comes just days after former Fox News host Megyn Kelly speculated that MSNBC might consider letting Reid go.

In her podcast, Kelly stated that “MSNBC is allowing her [Reid] to spew this racist hate on their channel,” adding, “It’s a tick-tock situation until her a– is fired.”

Kelly’s remarks follow Reid’s recent controversial commentary, where she suggested that Black and Hispanic Trump voters were “identifying with whiteness” by supporting the former president.

Ratings for MSNBC have shown a notable decline since Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.

Since Election Day, the network has experienced a 53% drop in prime-time viewership, while Fox News has reported a 21% increase in prime-time viewership.

Read More at LifeZette

George Clooney, the Oscar-winning actor who once dismissed Donald Trump’s chances at the presidency, now finds himself under fire from his own party’s supporters after Kamala Harris’ disappointing 2024 election defeat, as reported by Daily Fetched.

Clooney’s vocal support for alternatives to President Joe Biden, especially in a critical op-ed published in The New York Times, has stirred up a hornet’s nest among liberals, who are now pointing fingers his way for the recent loss.

At 63, Clooney has been a dedicated advocate for the Democratic Party, contributing both time and money. In fact, he helped raise a staggering $30 million for Biden’s re-election campaign, only to openly question Biden’s viability shortly after.

His call for new Democratic leadership just months before the election is now being widely blamed for sparking doubts within the party. An insider close to Clooney revealed, “George feels that the backlash he is getting for Kamala losing is not at all warranted. He thinks it’s completely unfair to try and make him a scapegoat for her loss.”

Clooney’s recent struggles with the party have left him contemplating a step back from political involvement. According to the same source, he’s feeling “very disheartened,” particularly after investing so heavily in the party’s goals and witnessing the swift backlash after the election.

Speculation around Clooney’s op-ed further heightened when rumors suggested that former President Barack Obama might have ghostwritten or heavily influenced his words.

While Politico noted that Obama didn’t explicitly encourage Clooney to speak out, he reportedly did nothing to stop it, creating an air of suspicion around their partnership. But whether or not Obama was involved, the larger story is clear: Hollywood’s political clout is rapidly fading.

This incident has forced a spotlight on the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements. Even paying high-profile figures like Oprah Winfrey millions to endorse candidates seems increasingly futile when core policy issues—such as gun rights, free speech, and economic concerns—hold much greater sway over voters.

As Clooney prepares to pull back from his once-enthusiastic political role, he faces the reality that Hollywood’s sway over politics may not be as powerful as it once was.

Despite the millions spent and the famous faces brought forward, the loss of Harris in the 2024 race seems to have spotlighted a deeper disconnect between the entertainment industry’s values and the everyday concerns of American voters.

Read More at LifeZette

Newly obtained documents show that Dr. Anthony Fauci received $15 million in taxpayer-funded security after his retirement, according to a report by independent journalist Jordan Schachtel and Open The Books.

The arrangement, detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provided security for Fauci from January 4, 2023, to September 20, 2024.

The protection included a security detail and chauffeur.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which operates under the Department of Justice, confirmed to the Daily Caller that they provided protective services to Fauci from January 2023 to August 2024, one month less than indicated by Schachtel’s report.

The $15 million security arrangement did not include the costs of Fauci’s previous protection, which began in April 2020 and continued through December 2022.

According to the MOU, the $15 million covered transportation, law enforcement equipment, and the salaries and benefits of Fauci’s security team. The agreement also included the option to renew or extend the contract in the future if deemed necessary.

The report highlights the unique nature of this extended security arrangement, noting that it could not find other examples of a former federal employee receiving protection at this level.

Fauci, who served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) until his retirement in December 2022, was among the highest-paid federal employees, with a salary surpassing that of then-President Donald Trump in 2019.

The allocation of taxpayer funds for post-retirement protection has drawn comparisons to similar arrangements for former public officials.

Former presidents receive Secret Service protection for life, per federal law, and some high-level officials have also received extended security due to potential threats.

For example, two former national security advisers in the Trump administration were provided with taxpayer-funded security after leaving office due to threats from Iran, at a cost exceeding $12 million, according to a 60 Minutes report from CBS News.

Separately, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who suspended his campaign, reportedly lost his Secret Service detail.

The Daily Caller News Foundation confirmed that Kennedy was initially denied Secret Service protection multiple times and only received protection after an attempted assassination of President-elect Trump in July.

The report on Fauci’s security funding has reignited scrutiny of his time as head of NIAID.

Fauci’s agency previously faced criticism after the White Coat Waste Project revealed that it funded controversial animal testing, including experiments on beagles.

The Daily Caller reported in August that the Biden administration was aware of NIAID’s alleged attempts to cover up these experiments.

This latest revelation about Fauci’s security funding adds to the growing discourse on how taxpayer dollars are allocated for security measures post-retirement, particularly for high-profile figures in government service.

The full extent of Fauci’s security costs and whether the protection could be extended in the future remains to be clarified.

Read More at LifeZette