slot fortune gems jili games merchandise

MALIBU, Calif. (AP) — Dovydas Butka had 18 points in Pepperdine's 85-46 win over UC Davis on Saturday. Butka had 10 rebounds for the Waves (6-7). Jaxon Olvera scored 15 points and added three steals. Stefan Todorovic went 4 of 10 from the field (1 for 5 from 3-point range) to finish with 11 points. Carl Daughtery Jr. led the way for the Aggies (7-5) with 11 points. Ty Johnson added nine points and two steals for UC Davis. Niko Rocak had seven points. Pepperdine took the lead with 18:20 remaining in the first half and did not give it up. Olvera led their team in scoring with 11 points in the first half to help put them up 43-19 at the break. Pepperdine pulled away with a 13-0 run in the second half to extend a 29-point lead to 42 points. They outscored UC Davis by 15 points in the final half, as Butka led the way with a team-high 10 second-half points. Both teams next play Saturday. Pepperdine visits Santa Clara and UC Davis squares off against Cal Maritime at home. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .Griezmann double makes it nine wins in a row for Atletico after stunning 4-3 victory over Sevilla

Gisele Bündchen & Ex Tom Brady Share Birthday Tributes to Son Benjamin, /PRNewswire/ -- This holiday season, Human-I-T, a nonprofit dedicated to providing equitable access to technology, is making it easier than ever for holiday shoppers to access affordable tech while giving back to their community. The "Mix and Match Deal," allows individuals to purchase devices and accessories at prices that fit any budget—all while supporting efforts to close the digital divide. "For the past 12 years, Human-I-T has been laser-focused on three things: making technology accessible and affordable, offering digital navigation support to those who need it most, and saving our planet by keeping e-waste out of landfills," said , Marketing and Content Manager at Human-I-T. "The 'Holiday Mix & Match Deal' helps us achieve all three goals, and the best part is that everyone benefits." Available from , the deal offers customers the chance to bundle one device—a tablet, Chromebook, or 2-in-1 device—with one accessory of their choice, including JBL speakers, headphones, a protective laptop sleeve, or a wireless keyboard for or less. For families, students, or job seekers who may struggle to afford essential technology, this initiative is more than a sale—it's a lifeline. Human-I-T believes that in today's digital world, access to reliable technology isn't a luxury; it's a basic human right. "This isn't just about shopping," added Jackson. "It's about providing hope, opportunity, and connection to those who need it most. When you shop with us, you're not only getting a great deal—you're helping to change lives." The Mix & Match Deal is only available for a limited time. By shopping at Human-I-T's online store customers can brighten their holiday while directly supporting underserved communities. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Human-I-T Get local news delivered to your inbox!Stocks closed higher on Wall Street, giving the market its fifth gain in a row and notching another record high for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The S&P 500 rose 0.3% Friday. The Dow added 1%, and the Nasdaq composite tacked on 0.2%. Retailers had some of the biggest gains. Gap soared after reporting quarterly results that easily beat analysts’ estimates. EchoStar fell after DirecTV called off its purchase of that company’s Dish Network unit. European markets closed mostly higher and Asian markets ended mixed. Treasury yields held relatively steady in the bond market. Crude oil prices gained ground. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below. Stocks rose on Wall Street in afternoon trading Friday, keeping the market on track for its fifth straight gain. The S&P 500 was up 0.2% and was solidly on track for a weekly gain that will erase most of last week's loss. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 333 points, or 0.8%, and the Nasdaq composite was essentially flat with a gain of less than 0.1% as of 3:07 p.m. Eastern. Markets have been volatile over the last few weeks, losing ground in the runup to elections in November, then surging following Donald Trump's victory, before falling again. The S&P 500 has been steadily rising throughout this week to within close range of its record. “Overall, market behavior has normalized following an intense few weeks,” said Mark Hackett, chief of investment research at Nationwide, in a statement. Several retailers jumped after giving Wall Street encouraging financial updates. Gap soared 10.8% after handily beating analysts' third-quarter earnings and revenue expectations, while raising its own revenue forecast for the year. Discount retailer Ross Stores rose 1.5% after raising its earnings forecast for the year. EchoStar fell 2.4% after DirecTV called off its purchase of that company's Dish Network unit. Smaller company stocks had some of the biggest gains. The Russell 2000 index rose 1.8%. A majority of stocks in the S&P 500 were gaining ground, but those gains were kept in check by slumps for several big technology companies. Nvidia fell 3.3%. Its pricey valuation makes it among the heaviest influences on whether the broader market gains or loses ground. The company has grown into a nearly $3.6 trillion behemoth because of demand for its chips used in artificial-intelligence technology. Intuit, which makes TurboTax and other accounting software, fell 5.6%. It gave investors a quarterly earnings forecast that fell short of analysts’ expectations. Facebook owner Meta Platforms fell 0.8% following a decision by the Supreme Court to allow a multibillion-dollar class action investors’ lawsuit to proceed against the company. It stems from the privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm. European markets closed mostly higher and Asian markets ended mixed. Crude oil prices rose. Treasury yields held relatively steady in the bond market. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.41% from 4.42% late Thursday. In the crypto market, Bitcoin hovered around $99,000, according to CoinDesk. It has more than doubled this year and first surpassed the $99,000 level on Thursday. Retailers remained a big focus for investors this week amid close scrutiny on consumer spending habits headed into the holiday shopping season. Walmart, the nation's largest retailer, reported a quarter of strong sales and gave investors an encouraging financial forecast. Target, though, reported weaker earnings than analysts' expected and its forecast disappointed Wall Street. Consumer spending has fueled economic growth, despite a persistent squeeze from inflation and high borrowing costs. Inflation has been easing and the Federal Reserve has started trimming its benchmark interest rates. That is likely to help relieve pressure on consumers, but any major shift in spending could prompt the Fed to reassess its path ahead on interest rates. Also, any big reversals on the rate of inflation could curtail spending. Consumer sentiment remains strong, according to the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment index. It revised its latest figure for November to 71.8 from an initial reading of 73 earlier this month, though economists expected a slight increase. It's still up from 70.5 in October. The survey also showed that consumers' inflation expectations for the year ahead fell slightly to 2.6%, which is the lowest reading since December of 2020. Wall Street will get another update on how consumers feel when the business group The Conference Board releases its monthly consumer confidence survey on Tuesday. A key inflation update will come on Wednesday when the U.S. releases its October personal consumption expenditures index. The PCE is the Fed's preferred measure of inflation and this will be the last PCE reading prior to the central bank's meeting in December. Damian J. Troise And Alex Veiga, The Associated Press

US hiring rebounds after slump on hurricanes, strikeThe King and the Prime Minister have paid tribute to Jimmy Carter following the former US president’s death on Sunday aged 100. In a message to the American people, the King expressed “great sadness” at the news of Mr Carter’s death, describing him as “a committed public servant” who “devoted his life to promoting peace and human rights”. He added: “His dedication and humility served as an inspiration to many, and I remember with great fondness his visit to the United Kingdom in 1977. “My thoughts and prayers are with President Carter’s family and the American people at this time.” Mr Carter, a former peanut farmer, served one term in the White House between 1977 and 1981 and spent his post-presidency years as a global humanitarian, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Carter had “lived his values in the service of others to the very end” through “decades of selfless public service”. Praising a “lifelong dedication to peace” that saw him win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, Sir Keir added: “Motivated by his strong faith and values, President Carter redefined the post-presidency with a remarkable commitment to social justice and human rights at home and abroad.” Tributes to Mr Carter followed the announcement of his death by his family on Sunday, more than a year after he decided to enter hospice care. His son, Chip Carter, said: “My father was a hero, not only to me but to everyone who believes in peace, human rights, and unselfish love.” Very sorry to hear of President Carter’s passing. I pay tribute to his decades of selfless public service. My thoughts are with his family and friends at this time. pic.twitter.com/IaKmZcteb1 — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) December 29, 2024 US President Joe Biden, one of the first elected politicians to endorse Mr Carter’s bid for the presidency in 1976, said the world had “lost an extraordinary leader, statesman and humanitarian”. He said: “Over six decades, we had the honour of calling Jimmy Carter a dear friend. But, what’s extraordinary about Jimmy Carter, though, is that millions of people throughout America and the world who never met him thought of him as a dear friend as well. “With his compassion and moral clarity, he worked to eradicate disease, forge peace, advance civil rights and human rights, promote free and fair elections, house the homeless, and always advocate for the least among us.” Vice President Kamala Harris said Mr Carter “reminded our nation and the world that there is strength in decency and compassion”. “His life and legacy continue to inspire me — and will inspire generations to come,” she said. “Our world is a better place because of President Carter.” Other UK politicians also paid tribute to Mr Carter. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said he was “an inspiration” who “led a truly remarkable life dedicated to public service with a genuine care for people”. Scottish First Minister John Swinney described the former president as “a good, decent, honest man who strove for peace in all that he did”, while Welsh First Minister said he was “a remarkable man” and “a humanitarian and scholar”. Former prime minister Sir Tony Blair said Mr Carter’s “life was a testament to public service”. He added: “I always had the greatest respect for him, his spirit and his dedication. He fundamentally cared and consistently toiled to help those in need.” Gordon Brown, another former prime minister, said it was a “privilege” to have known Mr Carter, who “will be mourned, not just in America, but in every continent where human rights are valued”. Mr Carter is expected to receive a state funeral featuring public observances in Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington DC before being buried in his hometown of Plains, Georgia. A moderate democrat born in Plains in October 1924, Mr Carter’s political career took him from the Georgia state senate to the state governorship and, finally, the White House, where he took office as 39th president in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. His presidency saw economic disruption amid volatile oil prices, along with social tensions at home and challenges abroad including the Iranian revolution that sparked a 444-day hostage crisis at the US embassy in Tehran. But he also brokered the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, which led to a peace treaty between the two countries in 1979. After his defeat in the 1980 presidential election, he worked more than four decades leading The Carter Centre, which he and his late wife Rosalynn co-founded in 1982 to “wage peace, fight disease, and build hope”. Under his leadership, the Carter Center virtually eliminated Guinea Worm disease, which has gone from affecting 3.5 million people in Africa and Asia in 1986 to just 14 in 2023. Mrs Carter, who died last year aged 96, had played a more active role in her husband’s presidency than previous first ladies, with Mr Carter saying she had been “my equal partner in everything I ever accomplished”. Earlier this year, on his 100th birthday, Mr Carter received a private congratulatory message from the King, expressing admiration for his life of public service

NEW YORK (AP) — Matt Zona's 15 points off the bench led Fordham to an 87-83 victory over Albany (NY) on Saturday. Zona shot 5 for 7, including 3 for 4 from beyond the arc for the Rams (8-5). Jahmere Tripp added 14 points while shooting 5 of 7 from the field and 3 for 3 from the line while they also had six rebounds and three steals. Jackie Johnson III shot 4 for 14 (1 for 5 from 3-point range) and 4 of 6 from the free-throw line to finish with 13 points. The Great Danes (7-7) were led by Amar'e Marshall, who recorded 24 points, six rebounds, four assists and two steals. Albany (NY) also got 19 points, eight rebounds and two steals from Justin Neely. Byron Joshua finished with 16 points and five assists. Josh Rivera scored 11 points in the first half for Fordham, who led 46-35 at halftime. Fordham took the lead for good with 12:53 left in the second half on a 3-pointer from Zona to make it a 57-54 game. Fordham's next game is Tuesday against Saint Louis at home. Albany (NY) hosts Stony Brook on Sunday. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .This past Wednesday, Politico reported that members of the Biden Administration are considering offering pardons to a number of current and former members of the government who may find themselves unfairly prosecuted by the incoming President. Donald Trump has promised to exact revenge on elected officials and political opponents, along with members of the so-called deep state. He has chosen Kash Patel, a close ally who has talked about going after Trump’s enemies, to lead the F.B.I. This has caused people at the White House to wonder whether pardons are the only way to protect potential targets, who include the former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and the former F.B.I. deputy director Andrew McCabe. President Joe Biden elicited backlash last week when he pardoned his son Hunter, for his convictions on tax evasion and gun charges, as well as for any potential crimes that spanned the past decade—a so-called blanket pardon. Many Republicans, including Trump, have threatened to pursue Hunter in the same manner that they have threatened Fauci et al., but Hunter remains the only well-known figure Biden has, as of yet, pardoned. To talk about the benefits and drawbacks of pardoning people in Trump’s crosshairs, I recently spoke by phone with Rachel Barkow, a professor at the N.Y.U. School of Law and an expert on criminal law and mass incarceration. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed the practical difficulties of trying to protect people from Trump, whether blanket pardons are constitutional, and whether the pardon power makes sense in 2024. What do you think of the idea of blanket pardons for people whom Trump has singled out for some sort of retribution? Well, it wouldn’t be my top clemency priority. There have been a lot of people who have filed petitions with the Biden Administration, who have followed all the rules, and filled out all the paperwork. They’ve been waiting for years and they’re in a queue, and he has a really low grant rate for those people. Those are the people that I think should be getting the priority of his attention right now. But this is obviously unusual. We just don’t have examples of this blanket pardon, except for President Nixon and now for Hunter. It’s not as if there’s a long historical pedigree of doing something like this, but we’re living in strange times. We also haven’t had an instance of an incoming Administration that has threatened to engage in political, retaliatory investigations and potential prosecutions of people. And these strange times would be the only reason, I think, you would even consider doing something like this. What do you see as the downsides? One is just making sure you actually have a comprehensive list, because, if you’re going to single out certain people for protection and you miss others, then the people you miss are going to be the ones that the incoming Administration is going to target. Let’s say the current Administration pardons twenty or thirty people. It’s not as if there aren’t others who also worked on congressional investigations into Trump, or were part of January 6th prosecutions, or were members of the Mueller team—whoever it is that’s on the Trump hit list. If you are not comprehensive in terms of the list of people that you’re shielding, then I suspect what the incoming Administration is going to do is just go down the line and find whoever’s left, and prosecute them. Because doing that still enables it to do what it aims to do, which is to embarrass people, and make it into a political sideshow. It turns out that you’re not going to get the benefit of avoiding all of these really awful investigations. Then, the other issue is the fact that it might be better to have a public investigation of some of these ridiculous claims so that people can see there’s nothing to them, and can learn how the government actually works, and can realize there’s nothing there. There are some benefits to having investigations when someone’s name is cleared, whereas, if you do a preëmptive blanket pardon, there’s always that question of why they needed it. Was there something that actually was bad that was going to come out? If you keep things open and transparent, you avoid any kind of taint or doubt that someone actually was engaging in something problematic. Right, but that seems almost quaint, in the sense that, if there’s a prosecution of Anthony Fauci on trumped-up charges, most people have already made up their minds about it. I am not sure how much it would matter to air the evidence. I think everyone is going to weigh these pluses and minuses differently, but I do think that is still a potential downside to this. There are some people who might prefer to have the air cleared, and they would prefer not to have what looks like a shield for something when they feel like they didn’t do anything wrong. It would be up to any individual to decide if they wanted to accept and use their pardon to avoid an investigation and trial. But then there is one supposed downside that I do not agree with, but I know other people have floated, and that is, I don’t think what Biden decides to do will in any way affect what Trump decides to do when he’s President. I don’t see this as, if Biden does it, then that somehow sets the precedent and therefore Trump will do it. I think Trump will do what Trump will do, no matter what Biden does. To me, that is a downside that doesn’t really exist, because I just don’t believe each side plays by the same rules anyway. I’m glad to hear you say that, because I do feel that one of the arguments against prosecuting Trump in the first place was, You’re going to set a precedent that Presidents can be tried, and then Trump may prosecute Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It just seems like he’s going to do that if he wants to do that. I totally agree. I think it really should just be a question for Biden of, Do I think this is the right thing to do? Is this the right thing to do for these people right now? I really do worry about the lack of the list being sufficiently comprehensive, and I do think it just creates that appearance of something being hidden, which, for the people who’ve already made up their minds, who are already on one tribal side or the other, won’t matter, but I believe there are a lot of people in the country who don’t pay as close attention to these kinds of issues. They’re not tuned in all the time. You also have to be really focussed on the over-all messaging it sends to people like that. I want to ask about another potential downside of pardoning these people, which is whether it expresses a lack of confidence in the system beyond Trump’s appointees if you do this. Trump can maybe get Kash Patel, or whoever runs the F.B.I., to go after someone, but you still need a grand-jury indictment, which I know can be very easy to get, and you still need a judge to go along with the prosecution, and you still need a jury to convict. I would say, in some sense, the process is the punishment, and, if you are facing a federal investigation, that is a scary process. Even if everything works great and, at the end of it, you are exonerated and you’re not charged and everything is fine, you are going to spend an enormous amount of time and money and worry before that outcome takes place. It’s not nothing to find yourself the target of a federal investigation. Even if you have faith in the process, I think it’s a big deal. In terms of the process itself, you never really know with absolute certainty what a jury will do in any given case, right? Unfortunately in America, we have had lots of innocent people convicted. We know that we have wrongfully convicted people, so the fear is always there. When a prosecutor is threatening you with really serious charges and sentences, a lot of people just plead guilty to something that is a guaranteed lesser sentence, just to avoid that danger and risk. It may be a statement about the fact that we have an imperfect system, but we do have an imperfect system. It’s not ridiculous to me that somebody would want to spare people from having to go through that. I know in normal circumstances it can be easy for prosecutors to get indictments, and then it’s often easy to convince a jury of something. But this does seem like a situation that would be unique in that you’d have pretty absurd political prosecutions. The system has not been totally tested by something like this, right? Right. Most cases don’t even get to a jury, because prosecutors exercise so much leverage in threatening things that people plead out. Jury trials are rare, and when you have them it’s really expensive. I mean, you’re going to need really good lawyers to get you through something like this. It’s interesting because obviously there’s so much hypocrisy, because the people who are usually worried about too much prosecutorial power, and about the fact that defendants get caught up in this web of coercion, are typically people who see the system coming down on communities of color and people who are poor who have all kinds of systemic disadvantages. You don’t really tend to think about it when it comes to high-level political appointees in these kinds of scenarios, but it is true. The deck is stacked in favor of the government when it comes to this process. It’s scary for anyone, I think, to have to face that. So are Nixon and Hunter really the only examples of these blanket pardons? If, by blanket, you mean anything you did during this period of time that could be a federal crime, then those are the two. We’ve definitely had other examples of very broad grants—anything you did in your capacity as investigating a particular thing, or anything you did in your capacity as participating in a rebellion, or something. We’ve definitely had broad grants that cover huge swaths of behavior, but the all-encompassing “anything you did between day x and y ”—I’m only aware of those two. Is there any thought that preëmptive pardons for Trump’s targets, or even this Hunter pardon, could be open to a legal challenge? If you pardon someone for a specific crime, whatever one thinks of the pardon power, that seems pretty ironclad, legally. Is the other kind of pardon something that you think could become an open legal issue? I personally don’t think it will be, but there is some scholarship out there by the law professor Frank Bowman, who’s made the argument that, if you trace the history of this power, the President needs to have some personal awareness of the facts of the case or the person. I just think we’ve blown past that in so many cases and there’s no way the Supreme Court is going to second-guess that, and this is a Supreme Court that has, to put it mildly, a robust conception of the Presidency. I think the Justices would not be the ones to say, You can’t do this. I think it would hold up, but it hasn’t been definitively ruled upon. What did you make of the Hunter Biden pardon, and the statement put out about it? To my knowledge, it’s the first time we had a President pardon somebody after he repeatedly said he would not, so that was unique. Then there’s the idea that he did it as both a father and a President. We’ve obviously not had a President pardon their own child before, and Biden explicitly said that he was doing it in his capacity in both roles. Had I been advising him, I definitely would not have suggested doing it as a stand-alone pardon of Hunter. I think, if the concern, or the sympathy, is basically that Hunter was in the throes of addiction when he committed these crimes, then I think it would’ve been a wiser course to have a whole big batch of grants for people who also committed crimes in the course of an addiction. You could be talking about how it’s not just your son but it’s people in general who make mistakes when they’re suffering from that. I think that would’ve been a better idea. To the extent that the statement talks about the selective-prosecution aspect, or the fact he was singled out, and it’s a concern with political retribution, that, too, is a little weird to have it only be Hunter, and it goes back to your questions about all these other people who might be facing exactly the same kind of persecution, because it’s not as if Hunter is the only one. It raises another question: What about all the other people who we know the new Administration wants to subject to the exact same kind of hyper-scrutiny, to see if it can pin any other crime on those people? Why just Hunter? What do you think about the pardon power in 2024? I know you’re someone who thinks that there are lots of people in the federal system who should be pardoned, but, at the same time, the idea of Biden, let alone Trump, having this type of say seems problematic. We have this oddity at the federal level where we don’t have parole. We don’t have a lot of opportunities for people to get a second look at their sentences. We have egregiously long mandatory-minimum sentences that people are serving, oftentimes under laws that don’t even exist anymore, that have been changed, but they didn’t get the retroactive benefit. Usually the only place those people can go to get relief from their sentence is the President of the United States. Now, would I design it that way from the beginning? No. I would certainly create other avenues for people to get their sentences reduced or to get their records cleared and expunged, rather than having to go to the President. It’s a crazy setup, given how many people we have processed. Because we don’t have those alternatives, there’s a real need to have this authority be exercised, but it should be exercised for regular people, not just the people that have a personal connection to the President. ♦ More New Yorker Conversations Jonathan Haidt wants you to take away your kid’s phone . Daniel Craig’s masculine constructs . Susan Seidelman knows what it’s like to be in “ movie jail .” Helen Oyeyemi thinks we should read more and stay in touch less . Jon Ronson’s guide to the culture wars . Rachel Bloom has a funny song about death . Support The New Yorker’s award-winning journalism. Subscribe today .