As the government shutdown slogs into a third week and service members and federal workers are set to begin missing out on paychecks, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and other Democrats continue to point to President Donald Trump and Republicans.In a fundraising email sent to supporters this week, Jeffries signed off with his usual slogan, "keep the faith."In the email, Jeffries indicated his party would not bend on its demands before reopening the government, saying that "Democrats will continue to stand up to address the Republican healthcare crisis, and we will NOT back down until its fixed. America deserves better."In the Senate, talks have continued in the background behind closed doors, but nothing has quite yet materialized into full-blown negotiations on expiring Obamacare tax credits to find an off-ramp to end the shutdown.DEMS NOT BUDGING ON GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN DEMANDS AHEAD OF HIGH-STAKES TRUMP MEETING, JEFFRIES SUGGESTSIf Jeffries rhetoric is an indication, the Democrats are nowhere near budging."Republicans thought wed back down because of their deepfake videos, threats and lies," he wrote. "Not a chance. Cancel the Cuts. Lower the Cost. Save Healthcare. Keep the faith."Other House Democrats have also been actively fundraising off of the shutdown.Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., has been particularly active, sending several fundraising emails, including one in which her team told supporters, "The stakes couldnt be higher.""Thats why Janelle wont back down from her fight to put Oregonians first and ensure our government works for the people," wrote Bynums team. "If youre with her, pitch in today to help her keep up this critical fight for hardworking Americans in the House."In another email to supporters, Bynum complained that "Republicans just launched an attack ad blaming me for the government shutdown."TOP HOUSE DEM EXPOSES PARTY'S STRATEGY TO BLAME REPUBLICANS FOR LOOMING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN"Theyre targeting me for their failed leadership and the chaos theyve created in Washington. We cant allow their shameful attacks to go unanswered," she wrote, adding, "Will you rush a donation now to help our team push back on National Republicans and stand up for Oregonians?"Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., wrote in another fundraising email that "if we want to stop these shutdowns from happening in the future, we need to take back control of Congress next year.""Thats why Im turning to you: If youre in a position to give, will you chip in whatever you can to help me defend this toss-up district next year?" he implored."Democrats demands are simple," he wrote in another email."Reversal of GOP Medicaid cuts, and the extension of Obamacare tax credits to make health insurance more affordable. Neither of these should be controversial!" he wrote, providing a link to donate.DEMOCRATS ROLL OUT NEW CAMPAIGN ADS TARGETING REPUBLICANS OVER ONGOING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNRep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, cut straight to the chase and askedsupporters in an email to "chip in $10, $25, or whatever makes sense for you to stand with me against this reckless shutdown and help us take back the House next fall."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPSpeaking with reporters on Friday, Jeffries tripled down on his rejection of the GOPs continuing resolution spending bill that would reopen the government, calling it a "partisan spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people and threatens to raise the costs of living on tens of millions of people."Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Jeffries, Bynum, Min and Kaptur for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Comfortably seated in her home on a chalk-colored couch adorned with navy blue pillows, Cassie Clark, an influencer who makes North Carolina-centered content, recalled the moment a man was "berating" her in front of her teenage daughter for wearing a Charlie Kirk shirt."He started just berating me that Charlie Kirk didn't like people like him. Every time I would try to respond, he would start speaking over me," Clark told Fox News Digital."Rather than waiting on his group to come downstairs, he ended up walking across the street and sitting at the post office because he didn't want to sit near us So I got on X, and I was frustrated, and I wrote a post about it [which] blew up," she continued.TURNING POINT'S 'CLUB AMERICA' CHAPTERS AND WHY THEY'RE GROWING IN OKLAHOMA AND THE SOUTHClark shared that while some of the responses toher post on X were "extremely negative," there were commenters who "reached out and praised" her for speaking up.The mother revealed that other influencers shared their fears of speaking out, telling Clark that if they were to "speak up" they would "lose sponsors" and "lose brand deals.""To me, that's absolutely insane," she relayed. "We shouldn't be in a place in America where you can't say what you truly believe and you have to worry about getting pushback or losing money or losing a job over it when you're talking about something that half of the country agrees with you on. That's crazy."NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR SIGNS 'IRYNA'S LAW' AFTER UKRAINIAN REFUGEE'S BRUTAL TRAIN MURDERThe post, which Clark made on Sept. 28, expressed that Clark didnt fully believe "how hated conservatives were" until that day, citing various "nasty looks" that left her feeling "beyond disgusted."She ended the post by writing that she was "not going to be silent anymore.""I am Christian and I am conservative I may not agree with everything that Charlie Kirk ever said or all of his stances, but it automatically made me think, you know, if he was shot for going out and speaking to people about his views what would people think of my views," the content creator continued.RILEY GAINES SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THREATS TO CONSERVATIVES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSESThe social media star made the garment purchase while attending theSalt and Light Convention in Marion, N.C., stating she never "thought about it again" until she wore it that day and experienced "nasty looks" and "pushback.""I probably will continue to maybe not talk solely about politics, but I don't think I'm going to shy away from it anymore," the influencer said.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP"We're allowing the other side to just normalize their views, but we're being silent on our own. We're creating a playing field that's one-sided," Clark said.

After decades reviewing Hollywood movies, film critic Richard Roeper says todays film industry is marked by a major aversion to risk.In an interview with Fox News Digital, the former Chicago Sun-Times critic said Hollywood has grown too cautious to produce original or comedic films, fearing backlash or box-office failure if a concept doesnt work or risks offending audiences."And it's a lot easier in a lot of studio executives' offices, I think, to say, Listen, let's just do a remake of this, or let's do another Star Wars universe spin-off and not take a chance. Because if I take a big swing on a $125 million dollar original movie, and it bombs, I'm gonna be out of a job," Roeper said.COUNTRY STAR ZACH BRYAN TEASES NEW SONG 'BAD NEWS' CONDEMNING ICE RAIDS, 'FADING' OF THE RED, WHITE AND BLUERoeper, who co-hosted alongside the late Roger Ebert on the film review show "At The Movies with Ebert and Roeper," remarked how several of the movies he enjoyed this year including "Sinners" and "Weapons" were great because they were original ideas and not reboots or sequels."What I liked about Sinners and there was a recent movie called Weapons that's doing very well right now is that these are original stories. We get so many remakes and reboots and prequels and sequels," he said.Roeper continued, criticizing Hollywoods tendency in recent years to remake beloved franchises."The remake is almost never as good. So, they do 'Roadhouse," he said, mentioning the 2023 reboot starring actor Jake Gyllenhall. "Well, we have the Patrick Swayze Roadhouse."He continued, "They do Fatal Attraction. Well, we have the Michael Douglas, Glenn Close classic. Those are all out there, and they redo them."He also mentioned a classic Harrison Ford legal drama that was remade into a streaming series he claimed isn't as good as the original."Presumed Innocent, which was a great movie with Harrison Ford, a perfectly constructed legal thriller, and then they turn it into a multipart limited series and stretch it out and flesh it out and make changes, and none of those changes were better," Roeper said.The critic said that even if a remake or reboot is good, its still an imitation of the original idea."Its like a cover band, a really good cover band that you see at your local street fair or festival, and you're like, Wow, they do a really good job of sounding like the Rolling Stones. But guess what? I can still listen to the Rolling Stones."BARI WEISS JOINS CBS NEWS AS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, PARAMOUNT BUYS FREE PRESS FOR $150 MILLIONWhen asked if he believes that there has been a decline in the number of comedy movies being made in recent years, Roeper told Fox News Digital, "Thats absolutely accurate."He noted that there arent many comedies made today, at least compared to the number that were made in the "70s and the 80s and the 90s.""But you know, I look back at, you know, the 70s and the 80s, Animal House and Caddyshack and, you know, so many great films so many great comedies Revenge of the Nerds, and even the John Hughes comedies I do miss that when it felt like there was a good comedy coming out a couple of times a month."Roeper claimed that the lack of raunchy comedies today is due to studios not wanting to risk offending audiences."I think if you came with a script for, you know, something like Blazing Saddles or National Lampoons Animal House or Stripes, yeah, I think you'd have a lot more difficulty getting all those jokes through now because there'd be this preemptive level, you know, within the rewriting process and the production and then the editing, where like, Oh, you know, we can't say that, or We might offend this"Roeper said that modern audiences tend to condemn a film as offensive or insensitive without having even seen it. "They just hear that it's about this subject, or they see a joke in a trailer," he said, suggesting that this type of piling on makes studios even more reluctant to make comedy films.The critic mentioned that one film genre has risen up to replace the comedy film."For whatever reason, it seems to me like the horror film has replaced the raunchy comedy the R-rated horror film. There are so many Blumhouse movies, and a lot of them are really well done. But it seems like there's a new horror movie every week in theaters, and a new comedy only four or five times a year."BILL BURR BLASTS CRITICS OF SAUDI ARABIA COMEDY FESTIVAL VISIT IN EXPLETIVE-LADEN INTERVIEWRoeper also reflected on how film criticism has changed over the years. He lamented how major outlets dont seem to value full-time film critics any longer.He accepted a buyout earlier this year to leave the Chicago Sun-Times, the same outlet that published reviews by Ebert until his death in 2013. Another Chicago outlet, the Chicago Tribune, got rid of its film critic position in August, an end to the role that was occupied by legendary film reviewer Gene Siskel for years."You know, I love the fact that Chicago still has two newspapers, and they still compete to break stories. I do find it sad that the newspapers of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert do not have film critics anymore ... So that has definitely changed."Still, he noted that the change is reflective of the fact that the news business is changing, but it doesnt mean that film criticism is dying. He said that the art form is thriving through different media."Every time a film critic position like that at a traditional journalistic outlet is eliminated, people say, Oh, is this the is this the death of film criticism? And in some ways, this is the golden age for film criticism and there's a real democracy, because everybody can be a film critic," he said, noting the relevance of review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes as well as peoples ability to review films and connect directly to audiences on social media.In addition to writing film reviews as a contributor to RogerEbert.com, Roeper hosts a podcast called "The Richard Roeper Show," where he reviews films and talks about industry news. He said he enjoys being able to have conversations on social media as well."I do love the fact that, you know, you can have the conversation on social media in a way. So, if I go on Twitter [now X] and say, Here's what I think about this movie, boom, you get responses. And I know sometimes things can get rough on social media, but in my personal experience, 95 percent of the people responding to me, they just want to talk about movies or TV.""And I love the fact that there's still such passion for movies and for TV series. You know, when a trailer for Superman drops, you get all kinds of, you know, millions and millions of people talking about it. I think that's still pretty cool."Roeper added that he believes film criticism is more necessary than ever "because there's so much material out there."CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST MEDIA AND CULTURE NEWSHe also added that its important for getting the word out about great films that fly under the radar but that audiences should still see."I think the key for film criticism and the necessity of it is to tell people about maybe a smaller film that they might not even have in their market, you know? A movie will open in just a couple of markets New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and somebody in Baltimore, somebody in the heartlands, somebody in Texas might say, Oh, I'll I'm gonna look for that movie because I know now at least it's gonna come to my streaming platform in a month."Roeper mentioned that one of the most brilliant facets of Ebert was that, despite his elite credentials, he always considered what the average, hardworking American would want to spend his money on at the theater when writing his film reviews."One of the things I loved about Roger Ebert was that, you know, he was a Pulitzer Prize winner. He was an amazing writer. He was a brilliant man, but he always thought of the person who was gonna spend their eight bucks, now ten bucks, twelve bucks, fifteen bucks Should they see the movie?"CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPRoeper added that it is the same audience he prefers to write for as well.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) became the first university to reject the Trump administration's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education," which would have given it preferential access to federal funding.In a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, MIT President Sally Kornbluth wrote that the university "cannot support the proposed approach" and cited concerns regarding free expression."The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone," Kornbluth wrote.CHRIS RUFO LAYS OUT REFORMS TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ON HOW TO 'SAVE' HIGHER EDUCATIONEarlier this month, the White House asked nine universities to sign an agreement that would give them funding advantages in exchange for making reforms on campus.The nine universities that were offered the proposal are MIT, the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas, the University of Southern California, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University, according to CBS News, which cited a White House official. So far, none of the other eight schools have responded to the proposal.The document outlining the proposal was obtained by multiple outlets. It includes a list of requirements for institutions that sign onto the agreement, as well as the benefits they will receive in return.TRUMP SAYS ADMINISTRATION CLOSE TO FINALIZING FEDERAL FUNDING DEAL WITH HARVARD UNIVERSITY"Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits," the administration's memo reads. The benefits include research funding, approval of student visas, "preferential treatment under the tax code" and access to student loans, grant programs and federal contracts.The memo encouraged the universities to adopt the White House's vision for America's higher education, including commitments regarding free speech, women's sports, tuition affordability and more. Specifically, it asks the universities to accept the U.S. government's definition of gender and apply it to campus bathrooms, locker rooms and women's sports teams.It also asks colleges not to consider "sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors" in admissions and to require undergraduate applicants to take the SAT or ACT.In the conclusion of her letter to McMahon, Kornbluth highlights "MIT's record of service to the nation" and recalls that it helped develop a scientific partnership between the U.S. government and America's research universities. Despite rejecting the proposal, Kornbluth vowed that MIT would continue to "believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation."The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A passenger who rode with the man accused of sparking the deadly Palisades Fire on New Years Day in Southern California has spoken out about his unsettling encounter, according to FOX 11 Los Angeles.Officials say29-year-old Uber driver Jonathan Rinderknechtsparked a small fire after dropping off passengers during the holiday. The blaze later re-ignited on Jan. 7 amid strong winds and grew into the massive Palisades Fire.Brennan White told FOX 11 that him and his fiancewere picked up by Rinderknecht on last New Years Eve, describing how the driver came across as "just a really angry guy.""He was a nut job," White todl the outlet. "He kept on going about not finding girls and how horrible Trump was."PALISADES FIRE SUSPECT MADE ANTI-TRUMP SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, BLAMED CLIMATE CHANGE FOR CAUSING WILDFIRESHe added thatRinderknecht appeared to be ranting more to himself than to his passengers.White told FOX 11 that he had forgotten about the entire encounter untilLos Angeles police detectives called him in February asking about their Uber driver, questioning his behavior and even inquiring about what the driver was wearing. White said he provided investigators with the ride receipt showing the drivers name, "Jon," along with the timestamp and location, according to the station.WHO IS JONATHAN RINDERKNECHT, PALISADES FIRE SUSPECT ACCUSED OF SPARKING DEADLY BLAZE?After giving his statement, White reportedly said he didnt think much more of it until he later saw a photo of the man arrested in connection with the Pacific Palisades blaze."We were probably his earlier ride," White said, noting they were dropped off in the San Fernando Valley just before midnight.CALIFORNIANS CONFRONT MAN ACCUSED OF STARTING LA FIRE UNTIL POLICE MAKE ARRESTWhite, who works as a bartender in Malibu, said the connection was especially disturbing, FOX 11 reported."I know so many people who lost their homes in that fire," he explained, saying he wishes he had known of Rinderknecht's intentions so that he could have done something to stop him.Uber said that it removed the driver's access to the Uber platform as soon as the company learned of the driver's suspected involvement and has worked closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) throughout the course of the investigation.Fox News Digital's Pilar Arias contributed to this report.

"Lets have a trial," declared James Comey, preening like a peacock in front of a camera when he first learned of his indictment by a Virginia grand jury on charges of making false statements and obstruction of a congressional hearing. Cardinal Comeys bravado was a staged drama to satiate his eternal quest for sainthood. In truth, a trial is not at all what he wants. That became abundantly clear in court on Tuesday, moments after the disgraced former FBI Director formally entered a "not guilty" plea. His lawyers immediately notified the judge that they would endeavor to prevent a trial entirely by filing motions to have the case dismissed. They will allege selective and vindictive prosecution, grand jury abuse and outrageous government conduct. COMEY PLEADS NOT GUILTY IN COURT AFTER INDICTMENT ON ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS, OBSTRUCTIONTheir aim is to put President Donald Trump on trial to avoid Comeys trial, which is currently scheduled to commence in early January. Its an undisguised legal maneuver to paint Trump as the pernicious villain while depicting Comey as the innocent victim.That twisted portrayal is worthy of a Shakespearean farce, given the defendants long list of lawless schemes, unconscionable deceptions, and flagrant abuses of power that should have landed him behind bars years ago. And spare me the moral outrage over weaponization of the law.Comey invented it by shamelessly launching the first lawfare crusade against Trump. His personal animus drove the perverted Russia hoax. But Comeys legal gambit to scuttle his own trial should not be taken lightly. Why?Comeys team of lawyers will be making their pitch in front of a friendly umpire.District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff was appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden, whose Department of Justice (DOJ) ran interference for Comey and others by ignoring a plethora of corrupt acts that are now barred by the statute of limitations. HOW JAMES COMEY'S INDICTMENT COULD GO SOUTH FOR THE DOJIn a politically fraught case, the political leanings of the presiding judge matter.Here, the defense will argue that the case should be tossed because Trump pressured government lawyers to bring a politically motivated prosecution against his nemesis, Comey. The president sacked a reluctant U.S. Attorney and installed his former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, who obtained the indictment from a grand jury. Trumps searing criticism of Comey was richly deserved and is a matter of public record. But it does not mean, as a matter of law, that such a person is shielded from criminal prosecution.In the spirit of fairness, lets compare. Biden constantly denounced Trump as a "threat to democracy," and Joes dirty fingerprints were all over the double indictments brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.As first reported by the New York Times in April of 2022, Biden let it be known that he wanted Trump prosecuted.Pressure was promptly applied on his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to get it done. That was not an isolated incident.Readers of political history know that other past presidents took active roles in DOJ decision-making.Notably, President John F. Kennedy conferred closely with his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, on prosecutorial objectives and even targets, some of whom were regarded as his political enemies. COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'Scholars have long debated whether presidents can instruct the DOJ or their U.S. Attorneys what to do. However, under Article II of the Constitution, the president holds ultimate authority over all executive branch departments, including the Justice Department.Directing prosecuting decisions is a part of his inherent powers. Not exercising that plenary authority in deference to prosecutorial independence is a choice, not a legal or constitutional requirement. If a U.S. Attorney disagrees that probable cause exists for an indictment, he or she may demur on ethical grounds. But a president is then free to name a replacement who has a different opinion and harbors no such objection. Back to Comey.To avoid the trial he insists he wants, his attorneys will assert a variety of different claims leveled squarely at Trump. The defense briefs will be voluminous. So, for now, lets examine the most obvious one, selective prosecution. Comey must convince Judge Nachmanoff that the case against him was driven by an unjustifiable motive, thereby discriminating against him.Moreover, Comey must overcome with clear evidence what is known as the "presumption of regularity," which assumes that prosecutors are discharging their duties properly. COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDEIt is typically an uphill climb because the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.This is where the merits of the charges come into play.Are they justified?The indictment alleges that Comey lied and obstructed Congress.OK.But how compelling is the evidence, and how strong are the witnesses against him? Who are those witnesses? What exactly was the false statement and in what context was it given?The unsatisfying answer is we do not know.The indictment itself tells us very little. It reveals only that Comey knowingly made a materially false statement to a U.S. senator during a Judiciary Committee hearing that he, Comey, had not authorized someone else ("PERSON 3") at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning "PERSON 1."The purported lie had the effect of obstructing the Committees investigation. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONAt this early stage, the identities of person 1 and person 2 are a mystery, as well as the recipients of the news reports. We can speculate, but we have no idea the precise statement made by Comey that was allegedly false or what contradictory and incriminating evidence prosecutors have in their possession. Absent that critical information, no one can competently assess the strength or weakness of the case.This means we cant possibly determine whether the indictment was driven by an unjustifiable motive and, hence, constitutes selective prosecution.A grand jury felt it was justified because it found probable cause to believe that Comey committed crimes.On Tuesday, Comeys lawyers informed the judge that they would seek a "bill of particulars" to acquire more specific facts.Those details, no doubt, will be forthcoming.Until then, those who assert with confidence that there is no credible case against Comey are only guessing.In the meantime, dont believe the self-righteous and vainglorious Comey when he insists "lets have a trial."That is a typical pretense for which he is notorious.Comey will fight like hell to dodge his own trial.CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

Shoplifting has long been a challenge for retailers, but a U.S. company now believes that flying drones could help combat the issue. Flock Safety, best known for its law enforcement camera systems, is promoting its new Flock Aerodome Drone as an Automated Security system to the private sector. The idea is simple: if a theft occurs, a drone launches, follows the suspect, and streams live video back to security teams or even police. With theft rates reportedly climbing 93% in 2024, the push for high-tech security has never been stronger.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, youll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide - free when you join myCyberGuy.com/NewsletterInstead of dispatching a guard, Flock's drones could launch within seconds after motion is detected. Equipped with HD and thermal cameras, the drones can zoom in, track suspects, and relay real-time visuals.The company says the system:In theory, the drones act as a "guard in the sky," providing retailers with rapid coverage across large areas, such as malls, warehouses, or ports.TEXAS COMPANY CREATES DRONES TO CONFRONT SCHOOL SHOOTERS IN SECONDSOrganized retail crime is a growing problem. Retailers have been reporting higher losses, tighter budgets, and fewer staff members available. Flock Safety argues its drone system can act as a deterrent simply by being visible, making criminals think twice before targeting a store. Beyond retail, the company is also pitching its drones to operators of hospitals, warehouse sites, and energy facilities that require large-scale surveillance.HEGSETH TEARS UP RED TAPE, ORDERS PENTAGON TO BEGIN DRONE SURGE AT TRUMP'S COMMANDFor shoppers, this could mean visiting stores where drones are part of the security landscape. You might notice them overhead at malls or parking lots, watching for unusual activity. While some may view this as an added safety measure, others may worry about increased surveillance and loss of privacy. For retailers, drones could help protect profits, staff, and customers without the rising costs of hiring additional guards. But whether customers welcome drones buzzing around remains to be seen.Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, youll get a personalized breakdown of what youre doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here:CyberGuy.com/QuizTechnology is quickly reshaping how companies approach security, and drones may soon play a bigger role in everyday shopping environments. With faster response times, broader coverage, and lower staffing costs, the idea has clear appeal for retailers. At the same time, questions about privacy and public acceptance will influence the extent to which this technology is adopted.Would you feel safer shopping under drone surveillance, or would it make you uncomfortable? Let us know by writing to us atCyberGuy.com/ContactSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, youll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide - free when you join myCyberGuy.com/NewsletterCopyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.All rights reserved.

Reshad Jones, who spent nine seasons with the Miami Dolphins, settled his lawsuit against financial services Merrill Lynch.The former NFL safety was awarded $9.5 million after alleging a former financial advisor at the company defrauded him for an estimated $2.6 million. The settlement was agreed upon in August, but public reporting on the case was not made available until this week.According to a June 25 arrest report, Isaiah Williams -- Jones' former financial adviser and a former employee of Merrill Lynch -- used his position to gain access to Jones' personal financial accounts to steal $1.56 million in 133 separate transactions. Another $1.03 million was stolen through a complicated laundering scheme involving bank and cash app transfers between Williams and a Georgia-based woman, Octivia Monique Graham. Jones told investigators he had never met the woman.The settlement with Merrill Lynch took place in August but began receiving pickup this week, when Investment News reported on it. Jones, who played 10 NFL seasonsall with Miamioriginally sought $16 million in damages in his complaint, filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a private organization that oversees brokerage firms and is supervised by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMThe two-time Pro Bowler accused his former financial advisor, Isaiah Thomas Williams Jr., of defrauding him. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Thomas voluntarily resigned from Merrill Lynch in December, according to FINRA records. Thomas is now prohibited from acting as a broker "or otherwise associating with a broker-dealer firm," according to FINRA, which says he did not cooperate with its investigation into the situation.EX-NFL STAR JAY CUTLER FACES LAWSUIT OVER DUI CRASH THAT LED TO JAIL SENTENCEWilliamss headaches did not begin and end with the FINRA complaint. He was also arrested in Florida in June, and charged with grand theft, fraud, and money laundering, according to Broward County criminal court records. Those records also show he was released in July on a $1 million bond.Williams allegedly stole the total of almost $2.6 million through 133 separate transactions, and with another individual, Octavia Graham, who was also charged in Broward County, court records show. Williams allegedly used the money for personal expenses, including strip clubs and airline tickets.In July, attorneys for JonesChase Carlson of Carlson Law and Jeff Sonn of Sonn Lawissued a statement calling the case "yet another troubling example of a professional athlete being exploited by a wealth management firm he trusted.""In this case, the wrongdoer was a Vice President at one of the worlds largest financial institutionsBank of Americas investment management division, Merrill Lynch," they said. The attorneys did not respond to a request for comment Friday.Jones, who last played in the NFL in 2019, is not nearly the first athlete to be defrauded by their financial advisor. Former Bulls forward Toni Kukoc is currently suing his former friend and financial advisor in Illinois for allegedly helping a Swiss bank embezzle more than $11 million from him over the course of multiple years. Ex-Spurs star Tim Duncan was also famously swindled out of millions of dollars by his former financial advisor in 2016."Its all too common for athletes to hand over the keys to their kingdom to a financial advisor," Kelly Richmond Pope, a professor of forensic accounting, told Front Office Sports earlier this year.She cautioned athletes: "Beware of anyone who tells you I have everything covered, dont worry."Follow Fox News Digitals sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

A'ja Wilson showed the world why she is a four-time WNBA MVP.She helped complete the sweep with 31 points and nine rebounds as her Las Vegas Aces took home their third title in four years after defeating the Phoenix Mercury 97-86 in Game 4 on Friday night.Wilson averaged 28.5 points and 11.6 rebounds in the series, earning her the Finals MVP award. She is the first person in WNBA history to be named the regular-season MVP, Defensive Player of the Year and Finals MVP in the same season.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMThe Aces were presented the championship trophy by embattled WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert, who was greeted with boos from the sizable contingent of Las Vegas fans who made the trip to Phoenix.Vegas never trailed in the series clincher, building a 30-21 lead by the end of the first quarter on 55% shooting. Loyd, Gray and Evans made three straight 3s early in the second quarter to put Las Vegas ahead by 19.The Aces made quick work of the league's first best-of-seven Finals. They scored 54 points in the first half and averaged more than 90 points per game in the series.The Aces led 76-62 going into the fourth quarter, but the Mercury went on an 8-0 run that cut the deficit to 76-70 with 7:56 left. That was as close as they would get.WNBA NEEDS CAITLIN CLARK MORE THAN SHE NEEDS THE LEAGUE, LONGTIME SPORTSCASTER DAN PATRICK SAYSWilson came to the postgame press conference wearing giant ski goggles from a champagne celebration in the locker room and carrying a pink tambourine, shaking it after answers she liked."This is a symbol of the joyfulness we have right now," Wilson said, grinning. "I'm just so grateful to be with this bunch and that's not the alcohol talking."Mercury coach Nate Tibbetts was ejected after receiving two quick technical fouls in the third quarter.This might have been the most difficult of Las Vegas' championships. The Aces had a 14-14 record in early August and were coming off a record-breaking 53-point home loss to Minnesota.That defeat could have torn the team apart, but instead it grew closer, and Las Vegas didn't lose a game during the rest of the regular season, winning 16 straight. Including the playoffs, the Aces went 25-3 after that loss.The Associated Press contributed to this report.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X,and subscribe tothe Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

FIRST ON FOX: A group of House GOP veterans are pressing Senate Democrats who also served in the military to support Republicans' federal funding bill and end the government shutdown.U.S. troops are poised to miss their first paycheck of the ongoing shutdown on Oct. 15 with Republicans and Democrats still not able to agree on a path forward by next week."We are a group of military veterans now serving in the House of Representatives who voted YES for the Houses September 19th Continuing Resolution. We write to you, fellow Veterans now serving in the United States Senate, who have voted NO on that same resolution multiple times. We hope you receive this letter in the manner in which it is intended: as brothers and sisters in arms, not as partisans," a letter sent on Saturday read."This short-term measure contains no cuts, no policy riders, and no gimmicks. It simply keeps the government open while giving Congress time to responsibly negotiate the twelve long-term appropriations bills. Most importantly, it ensures that our troops, the same men and women with whom we once served, continue to receive their pay without interruption."JOHNSON RAISES STAKES ON SCHUMER AS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BARRELS INTO WEEK 3The Senate would need to pass the House GOP's funding bill by Monday, Oct. 13, for military paychecks to go out on time the following Wednesday, according to Military Times.But the Senate will likely not be in session because Monday is a federal holiday, meaning the next earliest possible vote is Tuesday.Active duty service members, like other federal employees deemed essential, must keep working through a government shutdown.The possibility of them missing their next paychecks has become a particularly painful flashpoint in the standoff on government funding.The Senate has now rejected the House-passed measure a bill that would keep spending roughly on par with fiscal year (FY) 2025 levels through Nov. 21, called a continuing resolution (CR) seven times.It passed the House along mostly partisan lines on Sept. 19. But Democrats in the House and Senate were largely infuriated by being sidelined in federal funding talks and are now demanding any spending deal also include an extension of COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year.Republican leaders who control the House and Senate have said they are willing to hold negotiations on those subsidies, but have insisted the CR must be "clean" without any policy riders. CRs are aimed at giving congressional negotiators more time to strike a longer-term funding deal for FY2026, which began on Oct. 1."This short-term measure contains no cuts, no policy riders, and no gimmicks. It simply keeps the government open while giving Congress time to responsibly negotiate the twelve long-term appropriations bills. Most importantly, it ensures that our troops, the same men and women with whom we once served, continue to receive their pay without interruption," the Saturday letter said."We understand that you oppose certain policies in the One Big Beautiful Bill and that you have strong preferences regarding the future of the Affordable Care Act credits. We respect that you have those priorities. But for the sake of our troops, we ask that you vote for the continuing resolution and assert those policy preferences during subsequent discussions and debates that do not interrupt troop pay."It's being led by Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., a military veteran, and is signed by 21 other House Republicans who also served. The letter is addressed to seven Senate Democrat military veterans who have all voted against the CR.At the current vote tallies, just five more Democrats are needed to cross the aisle and support the CR for it to overcome the Senate filibuster and move to a final vote.SCREAMING MATCH ERUPTS BETWEEN HAKEEM JEFFRIES, MIKE LAWLER AS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN CHAOS CONTINUESThe letter is being sent after Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., faced increasing pressure from Republicans and Democrats to hold a vote next week on a standalone bill to ensure troops are paid.But Johnson has all but rejected the idea, arguing the onus is on Senate Democrats to pass the GOP-led funding bill that would let the military and others in the federal government get their paychecks on time.Federal workers who miss paychecks during the government shutdown are normally entitled to receive that money as backpay when the shutdown is over.