Despite sitting on the sidelines of this year’s U.S. women’s Olympics team, WNBA superstar Caitlin Clark appears to be getting the last laugh on some of the haters who have repeatedly trash talked or physically assaulted her on the court.

A secret selection for the WNBA All-Star team saw Clark garner the most votes among any player despite being just halfway through her rookie season. In an ironic twist of fate, she will join the league’s All-Star game as a teammate of Angel Reese, her hard-charging former collegiate nemesis who defeated her Iowa Hawkeyes in the 2023 national championship game. Clark was the only play to surpass 700,000 votes, according to Fox News, while her fellow Indiana Fever teammate Aaliyah Boston came in second place with about 618,000 votes.

fVOTE NOW: Are You In Favor Of Term Limits For All Members Of Congress?

Reese, who plays for the Chicago Sky, has been singled out as one of the most frequent foul committers against Clark in her rookie season. Some have verged on technicals and led to near-endless replays on sports networks and cable news as panelists discussed the record-high focus on women’s sports and especially instances of violence. For her part, the 22-year-old Clark has chalked up the aggression to just part of her day job.

“Just a part of basketball,” Clark said following a June game where Reese hit her violently in the head as she drove for a layup. “It is what it is. Trying to make a play on the ball, get the block. It happens.”

WATCH:

Caitlin Clark is fouled while driving to the basket pic.twitter.com/U9TvoFUoD3

— CBS Sports (@CBSSports) June 16, 2024

So far this season, the West Des Moines native is averaging 16.2 points and 6.9 assists per game, the highest among rookies and further evidence she has earned a starring role in this year’s All-Star Game on July 20th. She is slated to team up with Reese, who is leading the league with 11.8 rebounds per game and is one of just four players averaging a double-double this season, Fox added.

The drama between both heavyweights dates back to several insults traded in the 2023 NCAA championship game. After winning the game, Reese made a you-can’t-see-me gesture with her hand toward Clark and pointed to her ring finger. Their two past matchups were the most-viewed WNBA games of the past 20 years; Clark currently holds a 2-1 record over Reese in league games this year.

(ALERT: Biden’s New Executive Order Will Crush The US Dollar For Good)

Former President Donald Trump declared a “big win” on Monday less than an hour after the Supreme Court handed down a historic ruling issuing broad immunity to sitting presidents during the commission of “official” acts.

On Truth Social and in an interview with Fox News, the Republican leader was boisterous in touting the decision as a vindication of his years-long assertion that he is the victim of a “witch hunt” and “political hit job” perpetuated by President Joe Biden and by extension Jack Smith, the Justice Department special prosecutor who is leading two federal cases against him.

CAST YOUR VOTE: Should Voter ID Be Mandatory In The 2024 Election?

“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump exclaimed on his signature social media platform. He later told Fox the decision is a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy.”

“I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years,” Trump told Fox News Digital. “And now the courts have spoken.” He added: “This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll – by a lot – and we will make America great again.”

Writing for the six-member majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that presidents have broad authority to exercise their discretion without fear of prosecution, sending the specific contours of a ruling back down to the lower courts for hammering out. “The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

Smith will likely try to leverage admissions in the ruling that not all acts taken by a sitting president may be considered “official,” and indeed non-official acts are open to prosecution. Despite timeline constraints, the prosecutor is continuing to pursue felony charges against Trump related to the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s statements related to the January 6th, 2021 riots at the Capitol. Future hearings in Florida and D.C. federal courts will give him an opportunity to argue that Trump’s handling of the documents and tweets urging his supporters to demonstrate at the capital were done in his capacity as a private citizen.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a dissent that the court’s majority ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

(Trump Sounds The Alarm On The US Currency – PREPARE NOW)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vindicated former President Trump, who has argued for more than three years he is immune from criminal prosecution stemming from his statements and actions surrounding the January 6th, 2021 riots at the Capitol.

In a 6-3 decision, justices found that the president enjoys constitutional protection from criminal prosecution related to all actions taken in an official capacity. Those would ostensibly include President Trump’s tweets in the days leading up to J6, which cast a pall over nation’s capital as a protestor was killed and several Capitol police officers died just days afterward. That immunity does not extend to unofficial acts, the court reasoned, leaving special counsel Jack Smith an opening to continue his two federal cases against Trump.

CAST YOUR VOTE: Should Voter ID Be Mandatory In The 2024 Election?

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party,” the majority wrote according to the Post Millennial.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for official actions pic.twitter.com/RXNT2v31qg

— ALX (@alx) July 1, 2024

“The judgement of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the six-member majority added.

In April the court heard arguments from Trump’s attorneys stating that his actions involving classified documents and J6, both central to his two federal cases, were protected under presidential immunity. Smith, the Biden Justice Department prosecutor, countered that Trump was acting as a private citizen when he allegedly took classified documents from the White House for his own personal possession and when he encouraged supporters to storm the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a dissent that the court’s majority ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

(ALERT: This Is The Handshake That Will Collapse The US Dollar)

Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) suffered a heartbreaking loss on Thursday, according to a statement he posted to his more than 850,000 followers on X.

Massie, 53, has been a reliable conservative in Congress since 2013 and throughout that time relied on support from his wife of more than 35 years, Rhonda Howard. That all disappeared on Thursday, according to the Republican who wrote that Howard passed away due to undisclosed reasons.

(VOTE NOW: Did TRUMP or BIDEN Win The First Debate?)

“Yesterday my high school sweetheart, the love of my life for over 35 years, the loving mother of our 4 children, the smartest kindest woman I ever knew, my beautiful and wise queen forever, Rhonda went to Heaven. Thank you for your prayers for our family in this difficult time,” he wrote, including photos from their wedding day and into the present.

Yesterday my high school sweetheart, the love of my life for over 35 years, the loving mother of our 4 children, the smartest kindest woman I ever knew, my beautiful and wise queen forever, Rhonda went to Heaven. Thank you for your prayers for our family in this difficult time. pic.twitter.com/tTSWXeLCG0

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 28, 2024

The couple traveled to Cambridge, Massachusetts for college where they both earned engineering degrees from MIT. While in college they launched a tech company together, according to a 1996 interview they gave to Fortune Magazine. Together, they designed a device they called the Phantom, which “gives computer users the uncanny sensation of fingering objects that don’t exist… At first glance, the Phantom seems an unlikely breakthrough: A thimble on the end of a small, jointed metal arm. But magic happens when you stick a finger in the thimble and move it around–you seem to be touching invisible objects, thanks to forces exerted against your finger by computer-controlled electric motors on the arm.”

The Massies eventually formed their company SensAble Technologies around the technology and collected more than $40 million in early venture funding. Today as a result of their work, the technology “is now used to design automobiles, jewelry, shoes, dental prosthetics, and even reconstructive implants for wounded soldiers.”

After financial success, the Massies started a family that grew to two daughters and two sons, all of whom Rhonda “devoted her life to,” Massie said.

She was valedictorian at our high school where we went to the Prom together, accepted at MIT and Harvard, earned a Mechanical Engineering degree from MIT, and devoted her life to our family. pic.twitter.com/7Aui2MhHzc

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 28, 2024

More surprising was a revelation that the power couple had just finished a tour of the Mt. Rainier stratovolcano in Washington State, indicating that Howard was up and ambulatory during her final days.

She was valedictorian at our high school where we went to the Prom together, accepted at MIT and Harvard, earned a Mechanical Engineering degree from MIT, and devoted her life to our family. pic.twitter.com/7Aui2MhHzc

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 28, 2024

Well-wishers flowed into Rep. Massie’s comment section on Friday, offering tributes to a loving wife who shunned the spotlight enveloping her husband as she raised their children in private life. “Very sorry to hear of your loss, sir. She was a very special person,” wrote follower Atticus. Another added: “I am so extremely sorry for your loss sir. May her memory forever be a blessing to you and your family.”

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app)

A groundbreaking ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday could pave the way to reduced sentences for individuals in prison or facing charges stemming from the January 6th, 2021 Capitol riots, including President Donald Trump.

In a split 6-3 decision, justices found that the Department of Justice overstepped its authority when charging hundreds of protestors with obstruction of official congressional proceedings on the day that Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 elections. For more than three years, defendants and their attorneys have argued that the federal statutes used against them were too ambiguous, describing criminal acts that required tampering with documents or resources, not just unlawfully entering the Capitol building. However, the six-member majority noted that obstruction crimes could be applied to rioters if they were found guilty of physically interfering with the delivering of the states’ Electoral College certifications to the floor of the House that day, CNN reported.

(VOTE NOW: Did TRUMP or BIDEN Win The First Debate?)

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, focused much of his reason on the text of the law rather than a discussion of J6 itself. He briefly noted a breach “of the Capitol caused members of Congress to evacuate the chambers and delayed the certification process.”

Surprisingly, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in denouncing the decision, oddly arguing some J6 rioters could be found guilty of obstruction if they contributed to the death of Capitol police officers surrounding the building. However, the theory that J6 rioters killed officers has been widely debunked.

“Killing a person with the intent to prevent the production of a record in an official proceeding constitutes conduct that impairs the availability of a record for an official proceeding. Using physical force against a person to influence testimony in an official proceeding counts as impairing the integrity of ‘other things’ used in an official proceeding,” Barrett wrote in the minority’s dissenting opinion.

“There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute. Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the ‘pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.’ Once Congress has set the outer bounds of liability, the Executive Branch has the discretion to select particular cases to prosecute within those boundaries. By atextually narrowing §1512(c)(2), the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches.”

Whether the decision helps or hampers special counsel Jack Smith’s J6 case against Trump remains to be seen. The prosecutor is unlikely to rescind charges against Trump accusing him of encouraging violence that day, but the court’s conclusion that obstruction requires physical interference with evidence may be a boon to the defense. President Trump was stationed in the White House that day, according to testimony by aides before the congressional J6 committee, and Trump himself has said he tweeted calls for protestors to “peacefully” assemble and exit the area once the situation became violent. Earlier this week, House Republicans on a bipartisan special committee concluded that the J6 committee issued “illegitimate” subpoenas for witnesses including Steve Bannon, who is due to report to jail by July 1st to serve a four-month sentence for defying the order.

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app)

The U.S. Supreme Court continued to deliver a stunning set of results this week, adding to the list on Friday a decision that dealt a severe blow to federal officials who often saw their recommendations about corporate governance mindlessly accepted by lower courts.

A 1984 decision in the Chevron case was upended in a 6-3 decision as conservative and moderate justices sided with opponents of federal procedures they claimed violated the rights of businesses and individuals under the 7th Amendment of the Constitution. The previous precedent was among the most frequently cited in American jurisprudence, with 70 Supreme Court cases and roughly 17,000 in lower courts relying on its opinion, according to the New York Times.

(VOTE NOW: Did TRUMP or BIDEN Win The First Debate?)

Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer for Slate, warned ominously that the ruling “wip[ed] out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies. All three liberals dissent. This is a HUGE decision.”

Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the “administrative state,” the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. https://t.co/ZRPbcX65Fd

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 28, 2024

Continuing on, Stern wrote on X, “The Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations. Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift. Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the ‘administrative state,’ the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless.”

Supporters of Chevron argued the longstanding system allowed bureaucrats with specialized knowledge to hold greater influence over the governing of key areas under federal law. Opponents countered, saying the changing of presidential administrations could lead to political considerations when career officials make recommendations to the courts.

Writing for the minority, Justice Elena Kagan claims the majority of conservative justices “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption,” Stern reported.

In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption” throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified. https://t.co/ZRPbcX65Fd

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 28, 2024

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. … The majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” Kagan added.

Kagan: “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. … The majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.” https://t.co/ZRPbcX65Fd pic.twitter.com/IZjwx122pZ

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 28, 2024

Court observers were surprised at the oscillating viewpoints of the justices on a range of matters the past two weeks, including siding with liberals on abortion and social media restrictions while giving conservatives wins on gun rights and placing other curtails on administrative powers. During Thursday night’s presidential debate, former President Donald Trump declared the high court more impartial than ever when asked about how he would treat abortion now that Roe v. Wade is no longer the law of the land. President Joe Biden scoffed at the notion, noting that Trump has taken credit for appointing the justices who voted to overturn Roe. Allies of the president like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have continued urging Democrats to expand the size of the court.

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app)

Hysteria floated throughout the thought bubbles of the New York Times’ leading opinion-makers Friday morning as they struggled to compose themselves following a landslide loss by President Joe Biden in his first debate.

The Daily Caller showered itself in schadenfreude while describing the “weeping” writings of liberal columnists who had a fitful night’s sleep and awoke nearly at a loss for words over how to characterize just how badly Biden had performed. From the Caller:

The Times published headlines Friday morning calling on the president to step down from the 2024 race. Twelve writers ranked the candidates’ performance and came to an overall conclusion that Trump left the debate victorious.

One of those twelve writers, John Barro, said Biden “failed at his key task” by proving to voters he is still fit to serve a second term. Most of the writers, including David French, said Trump won by the debate by a landslide.

fVOTE NOW: Are You In Favor Of Term Limits For All Members Of Congress?

Another, former Huffington Post editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen, called the two-hour debate a “debacle for Biden.”

“He was barely audible at times. He flubbed answers on his strongest issues, from abortion to democracy. Trump just lied, lied and lied, and no one — certainly not the moderators and, worse, not even Biden — rebutted him in the smallest way. Trump blustered and glowered. He attacked Biden viciously and looked like a bully. This is the choice Americans are facing. This was a disaster for America,” she wrote.

The New York Times opinion section sure isn’t standing in Biden’s favor now pic.twitter.com/Res6CBZn4h

— Nicole Silverio (@NicoleMSilverio) June 28, 2024

Thomas Friedman, the longtime hack who gained notoriety after making comically wrong predictions about globalization, admitted he cried after watching Biden struggle his way through a devastating series of attacks by Trump. “I watched the Biden-Trump debate alone in a Lisbon hotel room, and it made me weep. I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime, precisely because of what it revealed: Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election,” Friedman wrote Friday morning.

“I had been ready to give Biden the benefit of the doubt up to now, because during the times I engaged with him one on one, I found him up to the job. He clearly is not any longer,” Friedman continued. “His family and his staff had to have known that. They have been holed up at Camp David preparing for this momentous debate for days now. If that is the best performance they could summon from him, it’s time for Joe to keep the dignity he deserves and leave the stage at the end of this term.”

Contributing writer Frank Bruni concluded that Biden was “incapable” of making coherent rebuttals against Trump’s claims and seemed “frozen” in his demeanor while leaving his jaw hanging and mouth open for most of the debate.

“But from the moment the debate began, he seemed unsteady. Off. His expression was often frozen. His voice was often flat. He garbled words. He corrected himself midsentence, over and over again. He’d clearly memorized key talking points — key phrases — but he repeatedly used them without providing adequate context, swerved from one to another without any transition, halted sentences before they reached their destination, started sentences without giving them any bearings,” Bruni wrote.

(BREAKING: Glenn Beck reveals new Biden initiative that will bankrupt America)

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by Democrats is reaching a fever pitch less than 24 hours after President Joe Biden’s stumbling first debate performance, turning “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough And Mika Brzezinski against one another as they blustered about what the president could do to turn his fortunes around.

After a guest had finished making his point about Democrats’ growing calls to replace the president on the ticket, Brzezinski hopped in, urging her colleagues to “calm down” and avoid falling into the trap of bailing on Biden and giving former President Donald Trump a golden opportunity to pull ahead in the race.

(VOTE NOW: Did TRUMP or BIDEN Win The First Debate?)

“Okay, hold on a second. I — I agree with everything you said, except for the last part of it. Everybody calm down, and I’ll tell you why. It’s fine to not spin what happened last night and we’re not going to,” the co-host started. Scarborough butted in to refute the charge. “By the way Mika, everybody’s calm here. You’re the only one raising your voice. Everybody is calm here.”

Continuing on, Brzezinski said the knee-jerk tendency of “let’s just pull this, let’s end this, let’s find someone else” is tantamount to admitting defeat. “That’s not what Mike said,” Scarborough interjected.

“That, uh, attitude toward this is what I am saying slow down on because, again, there’s no spinning it, but let’s be balanced. Let’s for once show some balance in a media world that is so shrill with imbalance that we’ve become inured to these two candidates,” she finished before turning to another panelist.

WATCH:

“Wait, wait, I just have to stop you,” Scarborough said. “First of all, we always show balance. Second, nobody’s panicking. I said these are questions that Democrats and Joe Biden needed to ask themselves, and Mike said he missed one pitch down the middle after another, wasn’t up to it last night… so I will say it’s not panic. It’s not being panicked to understand what’s at stake and the window is closing very quickly. And if last night did not reveal that to you and other Democrats, then it needs to be revealed pretty soon.”

Weeks before the first debate, Democrats reportedly settled on a desperate last-minute strategy to replace President Biden if his first debate performance went worse than expected, which by all accounts it did. In this scenario, some of the party’s top leaders — including former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, as well as congressional leaders like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — would need to form a unified front in proposing to Biden that he step aside for the good of defeating Trump. “It would have to be the four of them collectively,” one source told the Daily Mail.

A wall of negative media coverage overwhelmed post-debate coverage as nearly all opinion columnists at the New York Times, Washington Post, and other staples of mainstream media declared President Biden’s performance an unmitigated disaster. If he remains in the race, the 81-year-old will face off against President Trump one final time on September 10th in a debate that will be televised by ABC.

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app)

Less than 12 hours after delivering a stilted and faltering debate performance, President Joe Biden is being defended by his campaign amid an avalanche of pleas by liberal politicians and pundits for the Democratic Party to find a new nominee.

In a statement to CNN White House correspondent Kayla Tausche, the Biden camp shrugged off accusations that the 81-year-old leader should step down ahead of the party’s national convention in August, which would provide Democrats a critical but narrow window to find an alternative. Plans haven’t changed, according to the reporter who wrote on X that a presidential advisor told her, “Not only does @POTUS not plan to drop out, Biden remains committed to a second debate in September.”

(VOTE NOW: Did TRUMP or BIDEN Win The First Debate?)

NEW, as just reported on @CNN: Not only does @POTUS not plan to drop out, Biden remains committed to a second debate in September, an adviser tells me

— Kayla Tausche (@kaylatausche) June 28, 2024

Thursday night’s encounter between Biden and former President Donald Trump was the first of just two debates set this year and was deliberately proposed early by the Biden team on the presumption that a shaky performance would be forgotten by Election Day. The event was notable for the number of easy layups missed by Biden as Trump offered openings on a number of vulnerable fronts, including abortion, tariffs, and his economic record. Instead, Biden delivered a meandering series of responses, often mumbled or delivered in a hoarse voice; conservatives jeered when the Democrat badly botched a response to Trump on social safety programs, claiming he “beat Medicare” after struggling for what seemed like an eternity to find right words.

The second debate will be hosted by ABC on September 10th, and similar qualifications to make the stage mean it’s unlikely that Trump and Biden will be joined by independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

By then, it would be far too late for Democrats to find an alternative to Biden, and not even the entreaties from major party leaders would be enough to dissuade him from soldiering on. The Daily Mail previously reported that Democrats have prepared a strategy to force Biden from the race if his first debate performance went as badly as it did.

If negative feedback from the debate reaches a fever pitch within their party, it would be up to some of the Democrats’ top leaders to collectively force the president out of the race. “The only people who could force him out would be Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer,” one Democratic strategist told DailyMail.com. “It would have to be the four of them collectively.”

Other Democratic consultants, including Mark Penn and former Obama advisor David Axelrod, said it’s up to Biden’s team to follow through on their commitment to an early debate with a standout performance by their man. “They have deliberately thrown down the gauntlet for an early debate,” Penn said, “and I think that’s gonna be the point at which Americans judge: is he ready for another term or not.” Axelrod, who earlier this year publicly urged Biden to consider not seeking reelection for the good of the country, was sharply rebuked by the president in private.

(STAY INFORMED! Download the FREE Trending Politics app before debate night)