Jeff Van Gundy feeding you a brownie is the sweetest meme of the conference finals


Due to a long, drawn-out rout by the Golden State Warriors, Game 2 of the Western Conference Finals was kind of boring. So boring that Mark Jackson told a story about how Jeff Van Gundy got the last brownie at dinner.

Someone brought Jackson a brownie, and Van Gundy started waving it around. Naturally, it became a meme.

It was too good to keep the brownie between Van Gundy and Jackson.

We decided to offer it to some other people.

We crossed networks and gave it to Charles Barkley on TNT. He seemed uninterested.

“You’ve been so good on your diet, don’t give in now!”

Draymond is such a good friend.

Pau Gasol is so sad, I’m not sure a brownie is going to cheer him up.

Same for Coach Pop.

Mmm Klay, doesn’t that treat look good? It’s so close you can almost taste it.

Why leave it to the sports? BROWNIES FOR EVERYONE!

What is Ryan Gosling looking for? Look no further, my friend. We have a delicious brownie, just for you.

Who would you give the brownie to? Show us and we’ll add it!

Some submissions:

We ❤️ Air Bud.

Salt on brownies? That’s new.

Yes Drake! Stay true to your healthy diet! Just say no!

Jeff and the brownie got to do a little time travel.

Read more

Kawhi Leonard’s injury turned Warriors-Spurs into another viewing nightmare

San Antonio could have won Game 1 and made this series intriguing. Instead, we have … this.

From the moment Kawhi Leonard left Game 1 with injury, the Golden State Warriors have outscored the San Antonio Spurs by 61 points. So much for this series being worth watching.

It’s clear as day that Leonard’s absence turns the Spurs into a team without a hope of stopping the Warriors. So few teams have a chance, period, much less when you remove their MVP candidate who led San Antonio on both ends.

In Game 2, the Warriors turned into the behemoth of a team that we see from them here and there, rolling over the Spurs without an ounce of mercy. They scored 136 points on 56 percent shooting with 18 made threes; the Spurs could have had two Kawhis, and they might not have been able to stop that.

When the Warriors play like that, you shrug and move on. Had Leonard not been injured, though, the Spurs would have still lost Game 2 but been fine with their Game 1 victory. Maybe Golden State would have really cut into the lead in Game 1, but without Leonard’s injury, it wouldn’t have won. It was a factor in the loss; it was the factor that saw San Antonio fall apart.

Instead, we begin Game 3 with the Spurs needing four wins in five games against a team on the best three-year run in NBA history. (No team has ever won 207 total games in three consecutive seasons like Golden State has.) If they were tied at one game each with two at home coming up, we would all be glued to the television set during Games 3 and 4, even if Golden State ended up taking them both. Now, even with Leonard returning, there’s a sense that it might not matter.

Even if Leonard returns in Game 3, as it seems like he will but has been far from confirmed, there’s no guarantee he’s 100 percent. The problem with ankle injuries is that they nag and they’re easy to re-aggravate. Leonard starting Game 3 on Saturday after a solid three days of rest would be a relief for San Antonio, but it’s no guarantee that the shellacking they were laying on the Warriors in Game 1 will return.

This postseason has been mediocre at best so far, giving us great moments but also a painful number of blowouts. Leonard’s absence turned a series that should have been a bright spot between the only two 60-win teams in the league into another grinding inevitability. Blame Zaza Pachulia, blame Gregg Popovich for not taking out Leonard sooner, blame bad luck, blame whatever. The reality is that had the Spurs won Game 1, a series that was resoundingly picked in one team’s favor would have at least been interesting.

Instead, we get 36-point blowouts.

Read more

Sally Yates Says There Are ‘Serious Questions’ About Comey Firing

Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates said that asking an FBI director for his loyalty, as President Donald Trump reportedly did, is “inappropriate” and that she had “serious questions” about the timing of his subsequent firing of James Comey.

Yates, speaking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper in her first television interview following her own firing by Trump, said the ongoing blowout over Comey’s dismissal was a “really troubling situation.”

“I think there are serious questions about both the timing and the motivation of the president’s actions,” Yates said in an interview that aired Tuesday. “The explanations seem to change on almost an hourly basis right now. It seems to me that there’s only one truth and we ought to get to that.”

Throughout the 30-minute interview, Yates spoke about the months of turmoil faced by the Trump administration since she was was fired for refusing to defend the White House’s first attempt at a travel ban targeting residents of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Many of her responses echoed those made during her testimony to a Senate subcommittee this month, but she said recent news events, like last week’s New York Times report that said Trump asked Comey to pledge his loyalty to him at a private dinner, ran contrary to the mission at the Department of Justice, where she worked for 27 years.

“Our loyalty at the Department of Justice should be to the people of the United States and to the law and the Constitution, and no one and nothing else,” Yates said, noting she “wouldn’t have done it” if Trump asked her for her own pledge to him.

“It’s inappropriate.”

Yates also recounted her attempt to warn the administration that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was likely “compromised,” news that was reported by The Washington Post shortly after her dismissal.

“The Russians also knew that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice president and others,” Yates testified to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, noting a situation was created “where the national security adviser could essentially be blackmailed.”

The White House has played down Yates’ warnings, with Trump just last week telling NBC News’ Lester Holt that the situation “did not sound like an emergency.” White House press secretary Sean Spicer has repeatedly referred to Yates’ initial meeting about Flynn with White House Counsel Don McGahn as simply “a heads up.

In Tuesday’s interview, Yates said that wasn’t the case.

“Mr. McGahn got it. He knew that it was serious and it was important … there was nothing casual about this,” Yates told Cooper. “I know that we conveyed a sense of urgency.”

Yates said recent news could have a “chilling effect” at the DOJ and alluded that her own ouster could stoke worry among career officials.

“They should be able to do their jobs without any fear at all,” she said.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Read more

America’s allies reevaluate intelligence sharing plans after Trump’s classified leak

It’s been less than a full day since reports of Donald Trump casually blabbing code-word level intelligence to visiting Russian dignitaries, but the first signs of damage are already becoming apparent. The intelligence he shared was apparently obtained from a source so secret that we haven’t even told our allies about it; the effects of burning such a sensitive source are, obviously, that nations are going to have to step back and reevaluate whether they turn over such information at all.

A senior European intelligence official tells The Associated Press that his country might stop sharing information with the United States if it confirms President Donald Trump shared classified details with Russian officials.

The official said Tuesday that doing so “could be a risk for our sources.”

We don’t know which nation shared their source’s information with us, but Trump’s spur-of-the-moment brag has alarmed even our closest allies.

[Burkhard Lischka], who sits on the German parliament’s intelligence oversight committee, noted that Trump has access to “exclusive and highly sensitive information including in the area of combating terrorism.”

The Social Democratic Party lawmaker said that if the U.S. president “passes this information to other governments at will, then Trump becomes a security risk for the entire western world.”

This is not a matter of mere pique, on the part of the nations cooperating with us; the damage that can be done by revealing key intelligence discoveries is, intelligence officials have been warning, far more severe than Trump’s self-centered pouting acknowledges.

Read more