Just two months after being scrutinized for allegedly showing favoritism to special prosecutor Nathan Wade, Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis cruised to a blowout victory in the Democratic primary election Tuesday night. Willis, who is leading the charge in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case, defeated her Democratic opponent Christian Wise Smith, taking 87% of the nearly 90,000 votes in the heavily Democratic county. The district attorney will now face Republican nominee and pro-Trump candidate Courtney Kramer in the November general election. “People want a DA that … treats everybody equally and that works hard, and they know that they have that in me,” Willis told reporters following her primary victory, the Associated Press reported. The incumbent’s massive victory came after she skipped a debate against Wise Smith last month, leaving her opponent to debate with an empty podium. Wise Smith, who campaigned as the more progressive candidate, also lost to Willis in the 2020 primary election. Fani Willis skips DA debate. “Fani declined to participate in the debate and is represented by an empty podium.” pic.twitter.com/9MK24gRE5g — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 29, 2024 Willis became a nationally recognized figure in the Democratic Party last year after her office brought 13 charges against Trump after he challenged Georgia’s election results in 2020. Three of those charges against the former president were dismissed by Judge Scott McAfee earlier this year in what was one of multiple setbacks for Willis in her pursuit of a Trump conviction. More trouble arose for Willis when she faced possible disqualification from her case against Trump after defense lawyers alleged that the Democratic district attorney misused taxpayer dollars and showed favoritism to her former lover, Wade. In his ruling on whether Willis could continue prosecuting Trump, Judge McAfee said the district attorney acted with a “tremendous lapse in judgment,” adding that he found an appearance of “impropriety,” but said the defendants had “failed to meet their burden” of proving a conflict of interest based on Willis and Wade’s relationship. Shortly after the judge’s ruling, Wade resigned from the case, saying, “I am offering my resignation in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and move this case forward as quickly as possible.” Wade surprised some guests with his presence at Willis’ victory party on Tuesday night. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “Well consider me shook. At DA Willis’ campaign party in Buckhead and Nathan Wade just walked in. All smiles,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Tamar Hallerman wrote on X. Well consider me shook. At DA Willis’ campaign party in Buckhead and Nathan Wade just walked in. All smiles pic.twitter.com/hc7uKPn5ka — Tamar Hallerman (@TamarHallerman) May 21, 2024 Judge McAfee, who was randomly assigned to oversee the Trump trial in Georgia, also won a non-partisan election on Tuesday night, assuring he will keep his seat. It remains unknown when the Georgia election interference case against Trump will begin, and it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that it will get off the ground before the 2024 election, which was initially the goal of Willis’ office. Earlier this month, a Georgia appellate court agreed to hear a challenge to Judge McAfee’s ruling that Willis could continue leading the case against Trump.

One golden retriever puppy seems to have learned that the secret to lasting relationships is clear communication. So, he’s been letting his mom know in no uncertain terms when he’s hungry! This pup, named Maverick, has a very specific way of showing his parents what he wants. The dog’s owner captured the most hilarious video of her pooch’s not-so-subtle communication style. In the clip, Maverick picked up his empty bowl and brought it over to his mom. Then, he started nosing around the vessel, as if to demonstrate that there was no food inside. Eventually, the little golden retriever looked up at his owner with his best puppy eyes. “Our puppy brings us his bowl when he wants a refill,” the pet mom wrote over the adorable footage. @imbluethesiberiann Ill give in to those puppy eyes any day #goldenretriever #dogsoftiktok #goldenretrieverlife #doglover #dogs #puppy #goldenpuppy ♬ original sound – Imbluethesiberian Commenters loved this clever puppy’s approach! “He’s training you,” joked one user. “Golden retrievers are super intelligent,” said another. Other people noted that their own dogs did the same thing when they were hungry! “One of my cocker spaniels does this,” a pet owner wrote. “He’ll bring it right into the middle of the room and plop it down.” Of course, Maverick isn’t the only pooch in the house who knows how to communicate his needs. This golden retriever puppy has a husky older brother who is also pretty straightforward. Mom captured the funniest video of Titan letting the smaller dog know he didn’t want to play anymore. When the tiny pup wouldn’t stop nipping at him, the larger pooch simply used his weight advantage to hold the little guy down! @imbluethesiberiann Titan said “we’re done here” #goldenretriever #goldensoftiktok #goldenpuppy #puppy #dogsoftiktok #cute ♬ Funny Things, Spinning Meow Cat – Hiqie Don’t worry; as soon as Mom chastised him, Titan let his brother go. Let’s hope the golden retriever puppy got the message and found someone else to play with! You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post Golden Retriever Puppy Isn’t Shy About Telling Mom When He’s Hungry appeared first on InspireMore.

'I think it's so political'

'They know all these cases are built on politics, and that’s why they're all falling apart'

'In the face of enormous pressure'

Australian marine biologists recently captured video of a large, deep-water squid attacking one of their cameras over 3,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. The deep-sea hooked squid is one of the largest deep-dwelling squid species, but rather than the animal’s size, it was the glowing lights on the end of its tentacles that […] The post Rare Deep Sea Squid with ‘Headlights’ Captured on Video–Mistaking the Camera for Food–WATCH appeared first on Good News Network.

A woman escapes a man trying to sexually assault her when her dog helped her by biting the man's face on Sunday, May 05.

HARVARD/HARRIS: Americans Are With Israel and Dislike Protesters

A new study on toxicity in gaming has found that 69 percent of gamers admit to smurfing, despite hating it when others smurf against them. The uninitiated may be wondering what smurfing is, or perhaps are envisioning 69 percent of gamers daubing themselves in blue and replacing all their verbs with "smurf" for the duration of a gaming session. If that is what you are guessing, you are pretty smurfing far from the truth.When you play an online game against other players, the game tries to match you to players of similar skill level, as game developers know it's less fun for players if you are constantly being crushed by opponents far above your skill level. But people find ways around this – creating new accounts or borrowing them from other gamers – in order to play people of a lot lower skill level than their own. In 1996, two players of Warcraft 2 became so notoriously good at the game that fellow gamers would back out of matches if they saw their usernames. In order to play the game they had purchased, they created second accounts named PapaSmurf and Smurfette, and continued to crush all their opponents under these new profiles. The term "smurfing" caught on from there, and is used to describe any player deliberately creating new accounts in order to play against players of lower skill levels.  Gamers report smurfing taking place a lot, with 97 percent of participants in the new study saying they believe they play against smurfs sometimes. The behavior is viewed as toxic by the gaming community, and yet 69 percent admitted to smurfing themselves at least sometimes, and 13 percent saying they do it frequently or almost always."Relative to smurfees, participants perceived smurfs as more likely to be toxic, to disengage from the game, and to enjoy the game," the team from Ohio State University wrote in their study. "There were also pronounced self-other effects. Relative to themselves, participants thought that other gamers were more likely to be toxic, less likely to keep playing the game, and less likely to enjoy the game."At the end of the study, the team asked for feedback and found that gamers (recruited from Reddit) informed them of a number of reasons why they smurfed, ranging from wanting to play alongside friends of different skill levels, to wanting to crush a bunch of noobs. The team conducted a second study, asking players to evaluate these various reasons for smurfing, having been told that they were real reasons given by smurfs who had won the game they were smurfing in. They were also asked what level of punishment should be given to the smurf.The team was expecting people to use a “motivated-blame perspective", or to generally think that smurfing is wrong no matter the justification.“This perspective says if something is wrong, it doesn’t matter your reason for doing it, it is always wrong," lead author Charles Monge explained in a press release. “The idea is that it shouldn’t matter if you were just smurfing so you can play with your friends, you made me lose this game and now I am mad.”However, the team found that gamers evaluated whether smurfing was wrong on individual basis, ranking some types of smurfing as more blameworthy than others and wanting harsher punishments for smurfs with less justifiable reasons for smurfing (e.g. wanting to crush less-skilled players). A third study found that non-gamers had roughly the same socially regulated perspective, seeing nuance in smurfing behavior. While interesting in its own right – given the toxicity often associated with gaming – the team hopes that the findings could be applied elsewhere.“Games may offer a really potent tool to test things that are not about games,” Monge added. “How we attribute blame in an online context may allow us to understand how people place blame more broadly.”The study is published in New Media & Society.