It’s been a tumultuous few months for Justin Bieber, but it appears that amidst the drama and speculation, he’s enjoying being a dad.

The Canadian pop superstar shared some sweet snaps to Instagram on Friday, June 13, showing a little one-on-one time at home with his son Jack Blues.

“Ay bay bay” Bieber captioned the photo carousel, where the baby’s face is turned away from the camera — a posting tactic Bieber and wife, Hailey Beiber, have made to protect the privacy of their son for as long as possible.

Over the past few months, fans have expressed worry for Bieber after a series of concerning social media posts and public appearances.

Most recently, the “Baby” singer unleashed a tirade on paparazzo wishing him a happy first Father’s Day outside an elite club in Malibu, Calif.

He began the conversation by telling the photographers to “get out of [his] f–king face” and “stop asking [him] how it’s going,” reports Page Six.

“I’m a father. I’m a dad, and you guys are on private property in front of my car,” he continued.

He told the group that was “at [his] wit’s end” and it was “mean to provoke people” as the photographers continued peppering him with questions.

“I love my evenings, I love my wife, I love my family and you provoke me and it’s sad,” he insisted.

4:18 Justin Bieber stirs up social media with latest post

A post in late May sparked concern after a carousel, which featured pictures of Jack, also included photos of Bieber smoking alone in one snap and, in another, appearing to smoke weed on a couch with a friend.

And late last month, he made comments about Hailey’s Vogue cover, which landed him in hot water with fans, who called him disrespectful.

“Yo this reminds me when Hailey and I got into a huge fight,” he wrote at the time, although he changed the caption shortly after. “I told hails that she would never be on the cover of vogue. Yikes I know, so mean.”

He continued: “For some reason because I felt so disrespected. I thought I gotta get even…”

“I think as we mature we realize that we’re not helping anything by getting even. We’re honestly just prolonging what we really want which is intimacy and connection.”

“So baby u already know but forgive me for saying u wouldn’t get a vogue cover cuz clearly i was sadly mistaken,” he concluded.

3:40 Justin Bieber says sorry for telling Hailey she would “never” be on Vogue cover

In recent weeks he’s also shared cryptic posts about the meaning of love and transactional relationships, causing speculation about his marriage and mental health.

In April, Bieber pleaded for “a change” on Instagram, saying that he will not be “bullied to leave” Los Angeles.

“Everyone telling me to move from La. U think I’m gonna get bullied to leave where my influence is most needed?” Bieber wrote. “How can we make a change if we run away from the darkness?”

The “Sorry” singer said that he’s been caught up in the “transactional nature of Hollywood.”

“It’s embarrassing but with that said I want nothing to do with that as a grown adult with a wife and son,” Bieber wrote. “I just want to be submerged in the culture learning from any and everyone And be a proponent and advocate for LOVE AND EQUALITY.”

The Biebers are coming up on their seventh wedding anniversary, after tying the knot in September 2018. Last May, they renewed their wedding vows on a trip to Hawaii and announced they were expecting their first child.

Three months later, Jack Blues was born.

Munn sparked backlash earlier this week from Ms. Rachel fans after she told People magazine that she doesn’t let her children watch the popular YouTuber’s videos.

In response, Ms. Rachel said that she would rather people focus on her advocacy work than try to pit two women against each other to start an internet feud.

After the interview was published, Munn began to receive “violent and threatening comments and messages,” according to her husband, John Mulaney.

So, what’s the real story behind the drama between Munn and Ms. Rachel?

How did we get here?

In a recent interview with People, which has since been removed from the website, Munn admitted she isn’t a fan of Ms. Rachel’s content and doesn’t let her children, Malcolm, 3, and Mei, 8 months, tune in.

“I know kids love [Ms. Rachel], but the thing is, if I can’t watch it, I’m not going to spend the rest of my life going crazy,” Munn told the outlet. “These kid shows drive me crazy.”

Munn said her son Malcolm is a new fan of Blue’s Clues, a popular children’s show where an animated puppy helps find clues to something the host is trying to figure out.

“Malcolm asked for Blue’s Clues [recently], and I don’t know who showed him Blue’s Clues, but they are on my s— list now. I said, ‘Hell no. Not in my house,'” she said.

Munn said the only show she likes to watch at home is Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood because it helped Malcolm adjust to becoming a big brother.

“Daniel Tiger has a little sister, and we’d tell him, ‘There’s a baby sister coming,'” she added.

She also said her husband got Malcolm into “the Spider-Man cartoons, which is not interesting to me.”

“I put on Tom Holland’s Spider-Man: Homecoming and was like, ‘If you want to watch the real-life ones, then we can watch that,” she said. “It might be a little too old for him, but I can’t take the cartoons.”

What backlash did Munn receive?

Shortly after the interview was published, Ms. Rachel fans began to criticize Munn for her comments, with some naysayers calling her a “self-centred parent” in a Reddit thread.

“What a miserable way to parent a child. I understand that there are some shows (Cocomelon is one) that are both annoying and do nothing to promote learning, but Ms. Rachel? Blue’s Clues?? Ma’am. Maybe you shouldn’t have had a kid if you didn’t want to actually raise that child and let them have childish interests. This is an extremely selfish take,” one user wrote.

“So, she doesn’t want her kids to have access to age appropriate (educational in the case of my girl Ms. Rachel) programming just because it isn’t made for her, an adult?” another user asked.

“Olivia Munn has so many takes that age horribly. Add this to the list. It’s not so bad, it’s just a weird thing to be proud of. Feels like insecurity — ‘I’m not like a regular mom, I’m a cool mom!’ vibe about being too cool to see your son watch Blues Clues is deeply silly lol,” another Reddit user wrote.

What was Ms. Rachel’s response?

Ms. Rachel, who has more than 15 million subscribers on YouTube, responded to Munn’s comments by sharing a screenshot of the article on Instagram and stating that she would rather have media outlets highlight her political advocacy.

“WHO CARES?! I’d rather you cover me advocating for kids in Gaza who are literally starving, largest cohort of child amputees in modern history, thousands & thousands killed — no medical care, no education, no homes… do better!!!” she wrote in the now-deleted Instagram post. “***Not against [Munn] at all and don’t care that she doesn’t want to watch the show — all my love to her and her family — disappointed in the outlets.”

In the screenshots shared by Ms. Rachel, she included her comments under the Instagram posts from Parents magazine and People, writing, “I’d rather you cover my advocacy for kids in Gaza.”

View image in full screen

Munn then took to her Instagram Stories, writing, “To Ms. Rachel and her fans, I hear and respect the passion behind your support. I never anticipated the media would single out one small thing I said and distort it like they have.”

The Buddy Games actor said her comments were not meant to “diminish the joy, comfort and impact” Ms. Rachel brings to families.

“Every parent understands the importance of finding meaningful programming that helps us connect with our kids. I don’t want something taken out of context to be a moment that steals even a minute of joy for anyone,” she added.

View image in full screen

Meanwhile, People took down its initial interview with Munn, adding an editor’s note to the page following the backlash.

“On June 11, we took the unusual step of removing the post titled ‘Olivia Munn Doesn’t Let Her Kids Watch Ms. Rachel. Here’s Why,’ due to the violent threats that escalated towards the interview subject and her family. There is no excuse for these abhorrent attacks, and we will always prioritize safety above all else,” the note read.

John Mulaney steps in to defend wife Olivia Munn

After Munn’s apology, she still continued to receive backlash and her husband, comedian and actor Mulaney, stepped in to issue his own statement.

“An innocent comment my wife Olivia Munn made about what children’s programs we like has somehow — unbelievably — been conflated with not caring about the deaths of children in Gaza,” he wrote. “Because of this, my wife and my two kids are now receiving violent and threatening comments and messages in her DMs.”

View image in full screen

Mulaney called the backlash “absolutely insane” and said it “needs to stop.”

“The people doing this are so wildly out of line and so unhelpful to any conversation,” he added. “You took a nothing comment to a dark and dangerous place.

“This kind of behavior isn’t activism.”

Ms. Rachel tells fans to ‘be kind’ to Munn and her family

After Mulaney shared his statement, Ms. Rachel shared another post on Instagram asking her followers to “be kind” to Munn and “her precious family.”

“I don’t believe in hate, attacks or hurtful comments. As I said in my first post, this isn’t about her,” Ms. Rachel wrote. “It was that I scroll & see stories that don’t matter while seeing that children’s immeasurable suffering is being ignored – it breaks me.

“Also I know some outlets would love to cover a feud between two women, but guess what? That doesn’t exist. Her and I have been in touch and we are both choosing kindness.”

In her caption, the famous YouTuber wrote, “This isn’t happening but I also am not for canceling people who make mistakes. (She just shared an opinion which is fine.) We all make mistakes and struggle and misspeak and do beautiful, kind things because it’s hard to be a human. It’s really hard.”

For now, it looks like the “drama” has come to an end.

The judge in Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes case declared a mistrial on the remaining rape charge after the jury foreperson said he wouldn’t continue deliberating.

Deliberations were ended Thursday, a day after the jury delivered a partial verdict in Weinstein’s sex crimes retrial, convicting the ex-studio boss of one of the top charges but acquitted him of another. Both of those charges concerned accusations of forcing oral sex on women in 2006. Those verdicts still stand.

The jury got stuck on a third charge involving accusations from Jessica Mann. The hairstylist and actor testified for days — as she did in 2020 — about the rape she said she endured in a Manhattan hotel room and about why she continued to see and have consensual encounters with Weinstein afterward.

Mann is ready to go to trial a third time, said Manhattan prosecutor Nicole Blumberg after the judge ended deliberations. No new trial date has yet been set.

The foreperson complained Wednesday that he felt bullied by another juror and said Thursday he wouldn’t go back into the jury room.

“No. I’m sorry,” he said when asked.

The jury of seven women and five men had unanimously reached decisions on the other charges last Friday, the foreperson told the judge. The verdict was delivered Wednesday only because Judge Curtis Farber asked whether there was agreement on any of the charges.

The third charge was over a rape accusation involving a woman who also said she had a consensual relationship with the Oscar-winning producer. Under New York law, the third-degree rape charge carries a lesser penalty than the other two counts.

0:41 Harvey Weinstein found guilty of criminal sexual assault in retrial

Weinstein denies all the charges. In an unusual exchange with the judge during some legal arguments before the partial verdict was disclosed Wednesday, he insisted it was unfair to continue the trial after two jurors came forward with concerns about the proceedings.

“I can’t be judged by a situation that’s going on like this,” said Weinstein, 73, saying the judge was “endangering” him.

Jury-room strains started leaking into public view Friday, when a juror asked to be excused because he felt another was being treated unfairly. Then Monday, the foreperson complained that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges.

The man raised concerns again Wednesday. In a closed-door discussion with prosecutors, defense lawyers and the judge, the foreperson said another juror was yelling at him for sticking to his opinion and at one point vowed, “You going to see me outside.”

“I feel afraid inside there,” the foreperson told the judge and attorneys, according to a transcript.

Weinstein’s initial conviction five years ago seemed to cement the downfall of one of Hollywood’s most powerful men in a pivotal moment for the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct.

But that conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan courthouse.

Weinstein’s accusers said he exploited his Tinseltown influence to dangle career help, get them alone and then trap and force them into sexual encounters.

His defence portrayed his accusers as Hollywood wannabes and hangers-on who willingly hooked up with him to court opportunity, then later said they were victimized to collect settlement funds and #MeToo approbation.

Miriam Haley, the producer and production assistant whom Weinstein was convicted — twice, now — of sexually assaulting, said outside court Wednesday that the new verdict “gives me hope.”

Accuser Kaja Sokola also called it “a big win for everyone,” even though Weinstein was acquitted of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was a 19-year-old fashion model. Her allegation was added to the case after the retrial was ordered.

Weinstein also was convicted of raping another woman in California. He’s appealing that conviction.

The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they agree to be identified. Haley, Mann and Sokola did so.

TORONTO – Toronto Blue Jays brass used all the bells and whistles when they tried to land two-way superstar Shohei Ohtani in the fall of 2023.

The once-in-a-lifetime pursuit of the Japanese free agent, as author Keegan Matheson writes in his new book, “The Franchise: Toronto Blue Jays,” included taking Ohtani, his agent and interpreter at the time on a tour of the team’s renovated player development complex, complete with a few special touches.

Three lockers in the clubhouse were set aside for Ohtani, along with jerseys, gear, hats, bags and accessories. It was all part of an elaborate effort to sell him on the team.

An impressed Ohtani — whose camp wanted total secrecy throughout the process — walked out of the Dunedin, Fla., facility with bags of team gear and a Blue Jays hat on his head, Matheson writes.

Ohtani stopped to take pictures with his interpreter, who was also sporting some Toronto kit. The superstar’s dog, “Decoy,” came running out to join them in a Canadian dog jacket the Blue Jays had bought for him.

Related Videos

2:22 Blue Jays fans skip out on Seattle series over U.S. trade war

“I think that the presentation they gave Ohtani was incredibly impressive and they were not the No. 2 team just to be strung along and used as the other person at the bargaining table,” said Matheson. “They were No. 2 because they almost signed him.”

The behind-the-scenes colour and details from Matheson’s interviews and descriptions bring an intriguing, memorable and downright surreal chapter in the team’s near half-century history to life.

Ohtani would eventually sign a 10-year, US$700-million deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was a big blow for Canada’s lone big-league team and its countrywide contingent of supporters.

The Blue Jays would eventually sign a big fish of their own, locking up star first baseman Vladimir Guerrero Jr. to a 14-year extension last April worth a team record $500 million. The megadeal helped soothe any lingering pain from the Ohtani situation and also showed the franchise was willing to spend big in an effort to be a consistent contender.

But that Ohtani off-season — from a bizarre Zoom call with general manager Ross Atkins to the erroneous report that Ohtani had chosen the Blue Jays and was on a plane to Toronto — was the “strangest experience” Matheson expects to have as a reporter.

“The game that went into it was really fascinating,” Matheson said in a recent interview. “Trying to operate in secrecy in a world where we want to know everything that’s going on with your favourite team and with your favourite player.

“This was more of a TV drama and the amount of work that went into keeping it secret fascinates me.”

The book also explores the team’s early days, the playoff successes in the early 1990s, the near-misses in the previous decade, and many of the players — on and off the field — who made it all happen.

The stories and anecdotes are not always the obvious ones.

From players sipping chicken noodle soup at a frigid Exhibition Stadium, to amusing tales of manager-athlete dynamics, to the homecoming after a 670-day break between home games due to COVID-19, Matheson touches all the bases.

“Instead of asking a pitcher why he lost or asking someone why they struck out three times, this was an opportunity to ask someone, ‘Hey, tell me about the best days of your life,'” said Matheson, who covers the team for MLB.com.

“Tell me about that memory that everyone always asks you about at the bar, at golf tournaments and coffee shops.”

“The Franchise: Toronto Blue Jays,” a 302-page book published by Triumph Books, is available now at a retail price of $38.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.

Former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was convicted Wednesday of one of the top charges in his sex crimes retrial but acquitted of another, and jurors were as yet unable to reach a verdict on a third charge.

The split verdict meted out a measure of vindication to his accusers and prosecutors — but also to Weinstein — after the landmark case was thrown into limbo.

Weinstein’s initial conviction five years ago seemed to cement the downfall of one of Hollywood’s most powerful men in a pivotal moment for the #MeToo movement. But that conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan courthouse.

This time, a majority-female jury convicted the former studio boss of forcibly subjecting one woman, Miriam Haley, to a criminal sex act in 2006.

But jurors acquitted Weinstein of another criminal sex act charge. It related to Kaja Sokola, whose allegations of forcible oral sex date to 2006 but were added to the case last year. And jurors were to continue deliberating Thursday on a charge that he raped another woman, Jessica Mann, in 2013. Under New York law, the third-degree rape charge carries a lesser penalty than the first-degree criminal sex act offence.

Weinstein, 73, denies sexually assaulting or raping anyone.

Jury deliberations had teetered Wednesday as the foreperson again requested to speak to the judge about “a situation” he found troubling.

3:03 Harvey Weinstein indicted on more sex crime charges ahead of N.Y. retrial

The man — who complained Monday that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges — was being questioned in private, at his request.

While the jury was in court to hear the answer to an earlier request to re-hear the text of a rape law, the foreperson signalled to Judge Curtis Farber that he wanted to talk.

“He said words to the effect of ‘I can’t go back in there with the other jurors,'” Farber explained later. The foreperson was sent to wait in a separate room, where he penned a note saying, “I need to talk to you about a situation.”

When briefly brought into court, the foreperson said he wanted to speak in private. He, the judge, prosecutors and Weinstein’s lawyers then went behind closed doors.

The discussion was closed to the press and public, but Farber later said the foreperson had expressed that he didn’t want to change his position — whatever it may be — and was being bullied.

“He did indicate that at least one other juror made comments to the effect of ‘I’ll meet you outside one day,’ and there’s yelling and screaming,” the judge said.

Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala characterized the foreperson’s concerns more severely, saying that the man had said he was concerned for his safety after his fellow panellist talked about meeting him outside and added, “you don’t know me.”

“I don’t think the court is protecting this juror. Period,” Aidala said, going on to ask for a mistrial.

2:57 Harvey Weinstein found guilty of rape, sexual assault by jury in LA

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, however, said the foreperson hadn’t seemed afraid or apprehensive, just “stubborn.”

“He said he’d made up his mind, he didn’t want to change it, and people were pressuring him to change it. That’s what jury deliberations involve,” the prosecutor said.

The episode was the latest sign of strain among the jurors. On Friday, one of them asked to be excused because he felt another member of the group was being treated unfairly.

Weinstein’s lawyers asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial then, and again after the foreperson expressed his concerns Monday. The jury kept deliberating and went through Tuesday without sending any more messages about interpersonal tensions.

The seven female and five male jurors started their fifth day of deliberations Wednesday by re-hearing accuser Jessica Mann’s testimony that he raped her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013. The group wrapped up Tuesday’s deliberations by asking to revisit that testimony.

Some jurors appeared to take fresh notes Wednesday, while others sat impassively as court stenographers read aloud the requested parts of Mann’s days-long testimony. The jury had already reheard some of the passages last week.

Weinstein, 73, pleaded not guilty to raping Mann and to forcing oral sex on two other women, Mimi Haley and Kaja Sokola. The Oscar-winning producer and former Hollywood powerbroker maintains that he never sexually assaulted or raped anyone, and his lawyers portrayed his accusers as opportunists who accepted his advances because they wanted a leg up in the entertainment world.