Celebrity News, Celebrity Pictures, Celebrities Photos , Celebrity Wallpapers , Hollywood Scandals , Celebrity Videos

Recent Comments

  • None found

Most Popular

  • None found


Top Celebrities

Out of all of the lawsuits, criminal investigations, impeachments, civil investigations, depositions, congressional hearings and journalistic investigations into Donald Trump, the one I’ve followed the least is the NY Attorney General’s investigation into Trump Org, the actual New York-based business. Trump Org is a complicated web involving real estate, golf courses, hotels and Trump’s personal assets. And everything is corrupt, from top to bottom. New York AG Letitia James held a press conference on Wednesday announcing the civil charges against Donald Trump and his adult children (except for poor Tiffany). AG James has already handed off her investigation to criminal prosecutors and the IRS, so prison may be on the table eventually, but not immediately. The immediate concern for the Trumps is that they’re not going to be able to borrow any money from legitimate banks and they’re going to have a hell of a time paying back their loans (which are reportedly in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars). Trump Org is likely to be dismantled in some substantial way too.

For 20 years, Donald Trump and his family enriched themselves through “numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentations,” New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges in a new lawsuit that accuses the Trumps of “grossly” inflating the former president’s net worth by billions of dollars and cheating lenders and others with false and misleading financial statements.

The civil lawsuit, filed Wednesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, seeks a $250 million judgment and a prohibition on any of the Trumps leading a company in the state of New York.

“We found that Mr, Trump, his children, and the corporation used more than 200 false asset valuations over a ten year period,” James said at a press conference announcing the charges.

Among other allegations, the suit claims that the former president’s Florida estate and golf resort, Mar-a-Lago, was valued as high as $739 million, but should have been valued at around one-tenth that amount, at $75 million. The suit says that higher valuation was “based on the false premise that it was unrestricted property and could be developed for residential use even though Mr. Trump himself signed deeds donating his residential development rights and sharply restricting changes to the property.”

James is referring her findings to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, who could possibly open a criminal investigation into bank fraud, according to a footnote in the lawsuit.

Through “persistent and repeated business fraud,” the Trumps convinced banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than deserved, according to the lawsuit, which named the former president, three of his adult children, the company, and two of its executives, Allan Weisselberg and Jeff McConney.

[From ABC News]

I’m including the video of AG James’s presser below. This investigation has felt, at times, like it was moving at a snail’s pace, but I’m impressed with how thoroughly AG James presents her case and her evidence. We knew that Allan Weisselberg had basically turned state’s evidence, as have several other people in the accounting/business side of Trump Org. James went about this methodically, building her case with not only witness testimony but the motherlode of receipts.

There’s a lot of talk about Melania Trump and whether she’ll finally divorce him. Please, she stayed with that diapered goat through all kinds of bullsh-t. She’s not going to pull the ripcord just yet, not when she’s so close to being his widow.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Roya Nikkah and Camila Tominey weren’t the only ones getting openly briefed by Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace throughout the past week. Mail columnist Richard Kay has also been doing the most to present the unhinged mindset of the Windsors to Mail readers. It’s remarkable how BP and KP have leaked the same fundamentally flawed argument to every friendly royal reporter and royal columnist. That flawed argument: how dare Prince Harry tell people about how we’ve abused him and denigrated his wife. That’s it. That’s the sum total of the Windsors’ beef with Harry, that he’s dared to speak about how poorly he’s been treated and how poorly Meghan has been treated. Abusers thrive in silence, and the Windsors are abusive. From Kay’s latest Mail column:

Vanity: For a moment the squabbles over uniform seemed unworthy, the saga over insignia an irrelevance. In Westminster Abbey, which has borne witness to truly momentous chapters in Britain’s history, the vanity of Prince Andrew and Prince Harry was reduced to mere petty detail.

King Charles understands the Sussexes’ fame? But he understands, too, that the synthetic fame represented by California-based Prince Harry and Meghan, with their huge social media following, is corrosive to the long-term well-being of the monarchy. It seems to be built on a misplaced sense of victimhood. Charles’s hope is that, having been so much part of the spectacular events of the past week and a half, his son finally realises that the qualities of duty and service celebrated in the national outpouring of heartfelt affection for the Queen are the true measure of popularity. It may be a forlorn hope.

Charles is mad that Harry was deeply hurt by the removal of his ER insignia: Allowing it to be made known that having the Queen’s initials removed from his Army uniform when he stood vigil on Saturday night over his grandmother’s coffin has left him devastated, suggests that Harry has not learnt this lesson. It would seem he has still not grasped the consequences of quitting royal life. His decision to abandon it is why, at the funeral and other key events, he was not permitted to wear the military attire that means so much to him.

Phone calls to QEII: Harry yesterday was not just mourning the loss of a grandmother — she was also the figure to whom in his anguish he turned as his royal life unravelled. There is no doubt that grandson and monarch had a close bond. The Queen’s staff have told me how, in the early days of Harry’s exile in America, the Queen would excitedly take his phone calls. Over time this changed and she later became perplexed by Harry’s complaints.

Written out: For Harry the breathtaking events of the Queen’s obsequies can have left him in no doubt that unless he is prepared to accept the olive branch extended so generously by his father, he is in danger of being written out of the royal story. He must surely be reflecting, too, on how his brother William has offered reconciliation, standing or marching at his side for all the important events, from the lying-in-state to the funeral. He could so easily be restored to the heart of the family.

[From The Daily Mail]

The absolute pretzel logic of that insane insignia debacle. Harry was “allowed” to wear a uniform at the grandchildren’s vigil on Saturday night. Hours after the vigil, it was reported in the Murdoch press that Harry was upset because the “ER” insignia had been removed from the uniform, one more attempt to humiliate him. I have my doubts that Harry even leaked that information – I think it was William and Charles briefing against Harry to shame him and embarrass him. And Kay assumes that Harry leaked it and since Harry leaked it, Charles is mad because he was trying to humiliate his son quietly, with no leaks? These people are disgusting, my god.

Anyway, the more Charles and William brief against Harry, the more everyone realizes that the Sussexes are the whole show now. There have even been quiet admissions over the past week, that the monarchy needs Harry a lot more than he needs the monarchy. Also: “with their huge social media following, is corrosive to the long-term well-being of the monarchy.” The family is mad that social media users and mainstream international media are supportive of H&M. The family is mad that the Sussexes are popular and that H&M aren’t going to come crawling back. All of this sh-t that’s gone down over the past two weeks has been so poorly played by the Windsors because they made the fundamental miscalculation that Harry & Meghan need them. The Sussexes don’t need them. And the Windsors are losing their f–king minds about it.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Paris Hilton is famous for her purse-sized dogs. She pays a ridiculous amount of money for them and carries them around like an accessory. A few years back, she was collecting miniature Pomeranians for tens of thousands of dollars. Following that spending spree, she got a teacup Chihuahua she named Diamond Baby. D-Baby pops up on Paris’ IG frequently and stars in a few of her Hilton commercials. Unfortunately, Diamond Baby is missing. Paris told the world on Tuesday that she must have gotten out last week while Paris was moving, and she’s devastated. She posted the Instagram above offering “a big reward” for her return with no questions asked. She’s also hired a pet detective, a pet psychic, a dog whisperer and is currently investigating dog finding drones.

Paris Hilton is on the hunt for her furry companion.

In a heartfelt plea on Instagram, the DJ announced Monday that she’s searching for her four-legged friend Diamond Baby, who went missing last week.

“This is so incredibly hard for me to post because I’ve been at a loss of words,” Hilton captioned an Instagram post. “I was at a photoshoot and we’re moving houses and one of the movers must have left a door open. My family and friends have been helping me search high and low throughout my entire neighborhood and have gone door to door, but we still haven’t found her.”

The “This Is Paris” podcast host said she’s doing “everything in my power” to recover Diamond Baby, including hiring a “pet detective, a dog whisperer, a pet psychic,” and even researching “dog-finding drones” that could help locate the dog.

She told fans she’s “been in tears” and “so sad and depressed” without her treasured pet.

“Anyone who has ever loved a pet and lost a pet will understand this pain that I’m feeling,” Hilton wrote. “My heart is broken I have been in tears, so sad and depressed. I feel like part of me is missing and nothing is the same without her here. Diamond Baby is my everything, truly like a daughter to me. We were inseparable, she was my best friend and always by my side.”

She added that she was reluctant at first to make it public that the dog was missing “because people can be cruel and I worry about her safety.”

“But I’m desperate and the more time that passes, the farther away I feel from the chances are of me getting her back,” she continued.

Hilton included an email address where people can submit tips about the whereabouts of her pet. She also declared she’s offering a “NO questions asked” reward for the dog’s safe return.

Hilton is known to be an animal lover, and boasts a collection of furry companions that she affectionately calls the “Hilton Pets.”

[From Huffington Post]

Just to get it out of the way, young Paris had a bad history as a pet owner. I mean, criminal. But Diamond Baby and Prince Hilton have been with her for several years and they seem to be in good health. As do the rest of the pets featured on Hilton Pets IG. Let’s hope Paris is a reformed pet owner. I don’t expect she did her homework on the dogs’ breeder, as miniature breeds are usually overbred to the point of health issues, but Paris seems like she treats them well once they come to live with her. I do feel for her here because losing a pet like this is devastating. Moves are hell on pets. I lost a cat the same way Paris lost Diamond Baby. I let it out of the carrier in a closed off room, which was my error, and a mover opened the door thinking it was another room. The issue, for those who’ve never had pets, is the animal hasn’t familiarized itself with the sights, sounds and smells of their new home and can’t find their way back. Sometimes, a determined pet ends up at their old home. I don’t blame Paris for hiring anyone she thinks might help. She has the money to do it and it’s better than not being able to do anything, which is a horrible feeling. I really don’t want to think that someone would hurt a dog because of the way they feel about Paris. I very much hope I get to report back to you with a happy ending to this story. But I’ll warn you, in Southern California, a dog that size, missing for as long as Diamond Baby has been, it rarely is a happy ending. Remember Orlando Bloom went through this heartbreak as well.

Just a PSA for anyone with pets coming up on a move, if you have family/friends they can stay with or if you can afford to board them or put them in day care for the day it’s better for them. The whole event is stressful, and they don’t understand. I also got the tip for dogs that when you pick them up from wherever they’ve spent their move day, walk them through your former empty house so they can see all the stuff is gone before you take them to the new house. I have no idea if that last part actually helps. I did it with my dogs. They looked confused and were overall just happy to see all their family again when we got to the new house.

Photo credit: Instagram, Avalon Red and Backgrid

Last summer, Kaley Cuoco and Pete Davidson filmed a movie called Meet Cute, which premiered on Peacock yesterday. There were quite a few pap photos of them filming together in New York and Kaley split from her husband around the same time, so there was idle speculation Kaley and Pete would date in real life too, but that never materialized. So I guess they’re just friendly costars who gently roast each other? The two of them attended a premiere earlier this week and while Kaley looked cocktail cute in a sparkly dress, Pete looked like he rolled off his couch in a hoodie and sweatpants.

Kaley Cuoco and Pete Davidson had two very different fashion looks as they headed to their movie premiere.

Ahead of their new film together — Meet Cute, which debuts on Peacock Wednesday — the pair stepped out on Tuesday night in New York City.

Cuoco, 36, looked radiant in a metallic blazer dress and black strappy heels, which she accessorized with a gold sequin clutch.

Davidson, meanwhile, went with a much more casual look for the 28-year-old’s first public appearance since his split from Kim Kardashian last month.

Davidson wore a white hoodie, green pants, and sneakers, completing the outfit with sunglasses.

“I’m glad Pete dressed up for the occasion. That is so bad,” Cuoco jokingly told Entertainment Tonight. She then looked over at her costar and repeated the comment to him.

“I’m really glad you dressed up tonight,” The Flight Attendant star said, as he looked over his outfit with a smile before continuing to pose for photographers.

In Meet Cute, Cuoco plays Sheila, who uses a time-traveling machine to relive her love-at-first-sight dates with Gary, played by Davidson. Sheila, though, wants their nights to be even more perfect in her eyes, traveling again and again to Gary’s past to try to change him into her ideal man.

[From People]

So is Pete so depressed about breaking up with Kim that he only wears sweats now? Just kidding! Kaley joked to reporters and to Pete himself about his outfit. I couldn’t find a video to hear her tone, but in my mind it was a little pointed because it really is “so bad!” It’s annoying that Kaley is all dolled up and he’s out there looking like a schlub. Some of the coverage described Pete as wearing a hoodie and green pants, but that’s giving the latter too much credit because those are definitely sweats, elastic ankles and all. They’re not even nice or matching sweats either. Would it have killed him to throw on a button down and jeans? It’s just a premiere for a streaming movie, but a little effort from him to match his co-lead would have been nice. I feel like men get away with this often and it’s annoying.

The movie looks kind of funny and I’ll check it out this weekend. There’s one scene in the trailer where they’re talking in Panna or Panna II about the time travel and he smiles and nods and that was the first time I saw his appeal. But there are some beats in the trailer where I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be a rom-com or a thriller. Probably a rom-com, but a thriller would be interesting and did anyone else get that vibe from the music and that quick-cut montage? Also, I kind of call BS on the names Gary and Sheila for two millennials. I’ve never met a Sheila my age. But otherwise, the movie looks good!

photos credit: Cover Images and via Instagram

Here are some photos of Michelle Williams at the Toronto International Film Festival, at the TIFF premiere of The Fabelmans. The Fabelmans is a barely-fictionalized account of Steven Spielberg’s childhood and family, and Michelle plays a version of Spielberg’s mother, who was musical, artistic and always encouraged him to follow his dreams of making movies. Michelle has spoken before about what an honor it was to be offered the role, to be directed by Spielberg as she played a version of his mother. Here’s the trailer for the movie:

It looks good and dare I say, very self-referential on Spielberg’s part. As in, he’s almost exclusively referencing his own oeuvre. Anyway, it’s clear that he still has a boyish idea of his parents as larger-than-life figures, and it’s also clear that Michelle is giving an awards-bait performance. The Fabelmans was produced under the Universal banner, and Universal was prepared to put a lot of money into Michelle’s Oscar campaign. But here’s the kicker: the studio wanted to submit Michelle for Best Supporting Actress. Now Michelle says that she’s submitting herself in the lead actress categories:

Not every race is what it seems, and so it goes with the first category decision of the season. Variety has confirmed Michelle Williams’ work as the piano-playing mother in Steven Spielberg’s “The Fabelmans” will be campaigned for the Oscars in best actress, instead of supporting as many pundits had speculated.

The film, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, won the prestigious People’s Choice Award and became the undisputed frontrunner in the early days of the awards season. One of the highlights of the cast was Williams’ turn as Mitzi Fabelman, a lover of the arts who serves as an inspiration for her filmmaking son Sammy (played by newcomer Gabrielle LaBelle).

The acclaim for the semi-autobiographical story of Spielberg’s childhood was palpable in Toronto, with many seeing Williams’ turn as a sure-fire ticket to her fifth career Oscar nomination, perhaps even a highly probable winner in supporting actress. The supporting actress field is now wide open for any of the cast from Sarah Polley’s “Women Talking,” such as Jessie Buckley or Claire Foy.

Can Williams top the two presumed actress frontrunners, Michelle Yeoh, from “Everything Everywhere All at Once” or Cate Blanchett from “Tar?”

It’s still up in the air whether Paul Dano, as Sammy’s father, will similarly campaign for leading attention. Co-star Judd Hirsch received the lion’s share of attention and could become the second-oldest performer ever nominated in supporting actor at 87.

[From Variety]

Usually, category fraud goes in the other direction – an actor will give a performance which is clearly more of a lead role, and they’ll put themselves up for supporting actor awards because they think it will be easier to win. A lot of cases of category fraud are not even the actors’ calls though, it’s the studios making decisions about what kind of campaign they will pay for and how the film is promoted. This specific case, with Michelle, reads to me like the studio was on the fence and they were prepared to finance her supporting-actress campaign, but Michelle saw the film, saw her screen time and decided “nope, I’m the lead.” It’s bold and it feels like she’s proudly gambling on herself. I’m proud of her for declaring herself the lead like that.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Lil Nas X sent pizza to his homophobic haters. [Dlisted]
The Golden Globes are coming back in January. Ugh. [Gawker]
Mariah Carey is giving her fans a lot this month! [LaineyGossip]
New Amsterdam’s final chapter (final season). [Seriously OMG]
Rich Juzwiak watched Don’t Worry Darling with a theater full of fun Harry Styles fans and he enjoyed the experience. [Jezebel]
Trendspotting: tulle headgear. [Go Fug Yourself]
Andrew Garfield is really doing it for me these days. [Just Jared]
The Hellraiser reboot no one asked for. [Pajiba]
We really did have some good rom-coms in the 1990s. [Buzzfeed]
Van Cleef & Arpels is really into turquoise right now. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Brad Pitt will show his “art.” [Towleroad]
Ivanka Trump went surfing or something. [Egotastic]

Gayle King was sent to London to cover Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral for CBS. All of the American networks sent people to London, and some of the coverage was downright embarrassing, although the American networks did a decent job of shifting some narratives about the Sussexes during the mourning period, especially about Harry’s lack of uniform. Anyway, Gayle King knows the Sussexes and we know that Harry and Meghan have spoken to Gayle before. Were they speaking to her again while she was in London for the funeral? Perhaps. Gayle ended up spilling some Sussex tea and the Daily Mail is seething!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are returning to Los Angeles without any peace deal being struck with King Charles and Prince William, the Duchess’ friend Gayle King has claimed. The CBS Mornings host has been in London for the Queen’s funeral and said that the ‘turmoil’ caused by Megxit and the Sussexes interview with Oprah Winfrey has not been resolved.

Harry and William have repeatedly stood side-by-side with their father King Charles III as he mourns his mother’s death. There was also a joint engagement with Meghan and Kate – but it remains to be seen if this fragile truce will hold, especially with Harry’s memoirs due out later this year. Ms King got to know Meghan and Harry after being introduced by Ms Winfrey and attended the Duchess’ lavish baby shower organised by Serena Williams and Amal Clooney. She is viewed as one of the couple’s main allies in the US media.

Speaking following the Queen’s funeral, outside Westminster Abbey, she said: ‘There have been efforts on both sides … to sort of make this right’. Admitting that there had been no rapprochement, she added: ‘Big families always go through drama, always go through turmoil. It remains to be seen — are they going to be drawn closer together or are they going to be drawn apart? I have no idea, I have no inside information on that, but I will tell you this: It was good to see Harry standing with his family’.

Meghan and Harry stayed at Frogmore Cottage at Windsor on the evening of Monday’s funeral – but were reported to be heading back to California as soon as possible to be with Archie, three, and Lilibet, one, after two weeks away.

As the Royal Family mourns for another week, with all engagements cancelled until next Tuesday, the Sussexes have not been seen in public since Harry puffed his cheeks and Meghan stared ahead while leaving St George’s Chapel when the Queen was laid to rest.

It is not impossible, however, that they are already in their Montecito mansion.

[From The Daily Mail]

The “turmoil” was not “caused” by the Oprah interview and the Sussexit. The turmoil was caused by the unrelenting racist vitriol and misogynistic smears aimed at Meghan, to the point where she was suicidal. The turmoil was caused by the palaces briefing against both Harry and Meghan and actively trying to drive them out of the country. And of course a “peace deal” was not worked out during the mourning period – because Charles and William were immediately drunk with power over Harry and Meghan, and launched another awful campaign against them. As it’s been said many times in the past week, if Harry had any doubts about his move to America, the behavior of his father and brother in the wake of QEII’s death reinforced the truth that he was right to leave. There was an opportunity to actually come together as a family and that opportunity was ruined by William and Charles and no one else. Charles and William were gleefully punishing Harry and Meghan and they wanted the world to see that.

Also: “the Sussexes have not been seen in public since Harry puffed his cheeks and Meghan stared ahead while leaving St George’s Chapel when the Queen was laid to rest.” In other words, Harry has not been seen since HE BREATHED AFTER THE FUNERAL.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Far be it from me to note the very real panic creeping into Salt Island’s post-QEII royal coverage. But there is a shift in the air, the dawning realization that the Firm is made up of several septuagenarians, plus the Wessexes and the Waleses. There will be most focus on Queen Camilla in the months to come, and the Countess of Wessex is already trying to publicly lobby for more attention. But the fact of the matter is that a national press is about to turn its focus on Prince William and Kate’s situation and marriage in an even bigger way. William has positioned himself as a Tory stooge, meaning the right-wing press has a vested interest in protecting their useful idiot. I’m just not sure that consideration extends to Kate. I thought of this as I read Camilla Tominey’s coverage of how the “wives of Windsor” are the new stars of the big show. Yes, Queen Camilla, Sophie, Princess Anne and Kate. The new “girl power” dynamic, as Tominey calls it. Infantilizing.

Safe hands: From Anne’s steely work ethic to Camilla’s role as the King’s rock, and with Sophie and Kate both bringing a welcome dose of normalcy to this more than 1,000-year-old institution, the newly-slimmed down Firm appears in safe hands. Once the former Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were viewed as the “fab four”. But with Harry and Meghan now off the scene and the disgraced Duke of York relegated from senior royal life, the Crown is more dependent on girl power than ever before. It might not quite be a case of “Charlie’s Angels”, but it certainly comes close.

They’re worried that Charles, William & George will be boring: That’s important when we’ve not only lost the grandmother of the nation but also face the prospect of three male monarchs. Of course, there is nothing wrong with an overtly alpha line of succession – but history from Nefertiti to Grace Kelly suggest that it is princesses who maintain the fervent interest in the royals, as well as making them seem relatable to the public.

Kate is not Diana: As the wife and mother of a future king, Kate, 40, is now the Diana figure that we have been missing since the Princess of Wales title was set aside with her death 25 years ago – highly photogenic, deeply maternal and with a likeability that appeals to people from all walks of life. Unlike Diana, however, she has the self-assuredness that comes with a stable family background – and 10 years of experience as a royal girlfriend before she even married William, 40. With more now expected of the couple – and the Prince of Wales needing to act as his father’s “liege man of life and limb” – he will become increasingly reliant on the wise counsel of this level-headed and unflappable future queen.

Kate will be compared to QEII, not Diana? As she grows into her more senior royal role, comparisons will inevitably be made not with Diana, but Queen Elizabeth – who, like Kate, gained a reputation for never putting a foot wrong. The Princess of Wales shares the late monarch’s mild-mannered nature, as well as her aversion to conflict. As we witnessed during the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral, which reunited William and Harry just a month after that Oprah Winfrey interview, Kate is the Royal family’s most natural peacemaker.

Camilla is the power behind the throne: Those viewing the Queen Consort as a sort of jovial “plus one” misunderstand her influence not only on the monarch, 73, but also his court. It was Camilla, for instance, who insisted on the appointment of former newspaper executive Tobyn Andreae as the King’s new spokesman – a move that apparently even blindsided Sir Clive Alderton, the monarch’s long-serving private secretary. As one royal insider explained: “I think there is a sense that behind the scenes, it’s largely the Queen Consort who is running the show. She makes a lot more decisions than people think, especially with [former aide] Michael Fawcett out of the picture. She’s a stabilising and reassuring presence for the King. She makes him laugh and they have a lot of shared history together. He adores her and truly believes that she is the only person on earth who truly understands him.”

[From The Telegraph]

Charlie’s Angels = A rottweiler, a Keen peacemaker, Sophie the boring and Anne the hard-working. What a complete mess. This is also why there’s been so much coverage of Harry and Meghan since QEII passed away too. It’s not just that Charles and William were actively briefing against Harry and Meg, it’s that the British media knows that they’re stuck with some of the most unglamorous and uninteresting women in the country. Surely, we’re done with Kate’s keen peacemaker narrative now as well? Kate is a peacemaker without a poker face, who openly seethes and freezes out the women she hates. That’s not a peacekeeper, that’s a Mean Girl.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

This week, we learned that Adam Levine was sleeping with an Insta-model named Sumner Stroh, and that he wants to name his third child after his mistress? Adam is currently married to Behati Prinsloo, they’ve been together for the better part of a decade and they already have two daughters and Behati is pregnant with their third. At no point did anyone think that Adam was faithful to Behati, nor did any of us believe that he was happy at home with his beautiful model wife and two beautiful children. Of course Adam Levine is a sleazy cheater, he always has been. The fact that he was sliding into an Instamodel’s DMs though? Tacky. Anyway, Adam has decided to simply deny, deny, deny.

Adam Levine is breaking his silence after he was publicly accused of cheating on Behati Prinsloo, his pregnant wife of eight years.

The Maroon 5 frontman, 43, posted to Instagram on Tuesday morning: “A lot is being said about me right now and I want to clear the air. I used poor judgment in speaking with anyone other than my wife in ANY kind of flirtatious manner. I did not have an affair, nevertheless, I crossed the line during a regrettable period in my life.”

Levine continued: “In certain instances it became inappropriate; I have addressed that and taken proactive steps to remedy this with my family. My wife and my family is all I care about in this world. To be this naive and stupid enough to risk the only thing that truly matters to me was the greatest mistake I could ever make. I will never make it again. I take full responsibility. We will get through it. And we will get through it together.”

[From People]

So… Adam Levine, a sleazy 43-year-old husband and father, got called out on TikTok by his former mistress and his response is to claim that he merely had some inappropriate communications with Sumner? Yeah, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Sumner Stroh was literally sending his texts to all of her friends – I imagine she has many more receipts than just texts. She probably has tons of videos and photos. Come on, she’s Generation TikTok – of course she has more evidence of their affair than just some texts. Sumner also responded to Adam’s IG statement, posting this to her IG Stories: “Someone get this man a dictionary.”

Meanwhile, the other obvious thing happened after Sumner’s TikTok – other women started coming forward. A comedian named Maryka has texts/DMs where Levine was trying to flirt with her and hook up with her. Another woman named Alyson Rosef also got inappropriate DMs from Levine. Sounds like Levine was casting a wide net on social media and hooking up with any woman who took the bait. Gross.

Photos courtesy of Instagram, Avalon Red, Backgrid.

One of the less polite topics of conversation in the past two weeks was whether Queen Elizabeth II’s death “outsold” Princess Diana’s death. Diana’s death was sudden and mysterious, and the reaction to Diana’s death was a whole other thing entirely, with people flooding London, the flowers outside of Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, and the Windsors refusing to leave Balmoral. The nation was “prepared” for QEII’s death, the pageantry was expected (and it delivered) and all of it was very beautiful and stoic. It feels wrong to compare the two events, but the thing is, the undercurrent of all of the British media’s coverage was “the death of QEII must be bigger than Diana’s death.” I bring this up because Diana’s funeral outsold.

More people in the UK tuned in to watch the Euro 2020 final between England and Italy than switched on their TVs for the Queen’s funeral on Monday, figures suggest. The official ratings for the historic royal event were released on Tuesday afternoon – revealing that not only was the footballing event a bigger draw in the UK, but Princess Diana’s televised funeral had higher viewing figures back in 1997.

According to the Broadcasters Audience Research Board (Barb) – which is responsible for recording TV audiences – around 28.5m people tuned in to view the Queen’s funeral across the main channels of BBC One, BBC Two, ITV (or STV), Sky News and BBC News.

This compares to the 29.85m who watched Italy beat England on penalties last summer, and the 31m who watched as Princess Diana was laid to rest 25 years ago. The numbers for the Queen’s state funeral may not be conclusive, given that the event was broadcast across so many different television channels.

It had been predicted by industry experts that a global viewing figures record would be set by the Queen’s passing, with some expecting the number of people watching to exceed four billion.

Historian Dr Andrew Keil commented on the figures being lower than anticipated.

“Interesting comparison to audiences for the EURO2020 final,” he noted. “Also means that only about less than half of the UK population tuned in [when there was hardly any alternative thing to do than watch the state funeral].”

SNP strategist Ross Colquhoun suggested that figures were a result of changes in media consumption.

“I guess it shows how people have changed how they consume news, Diana’s funeral was viewed by around 32.1 million,” he pointed out.

[From The National]

Well, well. I mean, it’s still a huge audience and we have to take into account that many people probably watched the funeral in pubs or what have you. But yeah, it was definitely the end of a 70-year reign and most people were like “okay, I watched for an hour, I’m good.” Besides, I bet several million of those viewers were just watching to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I mean, there’s a reason why all of the broadcasters chose lingering shots of Prince Harry – to drive up ratings.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

eXTReMe Tracker