Man arrested after allegedly threatening to bomb 'Saturday Night Live' studio in New York: report
A man has been arrested following an alleged bomb threat in New York City, and multiple outlets have reported that he specifically threatened the Saturday Night Live studio.
A spokesperson for the New York Police Department told Entertainment Weekly that an individual allegedly made "terroristic threats" in the Midtown North Precinct on Tuesday, April 1, at around 7 a.m. The suspect, 48-year-old Michael Branham, was charged with making a terrorist threat.
Court records show that Branham was arrested on Wednesday, and his next court date is scheduled for April 8.
NBC News reported that Branham allegedly threatened the Saturday Night Live studio at 30 Rockefeller Center when he allegedly communicated his threat to a college in Connecticut, which subsequently reported the threat to the authorities. The outlet also noted that the threat was not deemed credible.
A representative for Branham declined Entertainment Weekly's request for comment. Representatives for Saturday Night Live did not immediately respond to EW's request for comment.
NBC News also reported that Branham shares the same name and age as a man from whom Scarlett Johansson allegedly requested a restraining order in California. Johansson was denied the restraining order due to a technicality, per court documents reviewed by NBC News.
Johansson is married to SNL's Colin Jost, and sporadically appears on the show as a host and in cameo appearances. She most recently appeared on the show's 50th anniversary special in February.
Representatives for Johansson did not immediately respond to EW's request for comment.SNL has broadcast live from studio 8H at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in midtown Manhattan since its first episode in October 1975. The studio space was also the former home of Last Call with Carson Daly and Later with Bob Costas, and special episodes of 30 Rock, Late Night with David Letterman, and The Apprentice all used 8H for filming.
SNL is currently in the midst of its 50th season on NBC. Jack Black is set to host the show on April 5 with musical guests Elton John and Brandi Carlile. Black first hosted the show in 2002. The following week, Jon Hamm will host the show for the fourth time on April 12, with Lizzo performing as musical guest.
Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ginny & Georgia's Biggest Season 3 Finale Mystery Has Already Been Solved: ‘There Was a Debate,' EP Says
Ginny & Georgia Let's hope we don't have to wait another 29 months for Ginny & Georgia to return for its fourth season, because the Netflix drama just left us on the mother of all cliffhangers. More from TVLine Virgin River Star Shares Season 7 Update: When Are New Episodes Coming to Netflix? Adolescence Rises to No. 2 on Netflix's All-Time Top 10, Passing Stranger Things 4 - And There It Will Stay The Sandman's Final Season Will Wrap With Death-Centric Bonus Episode Now streaming, the 10-episode third season ends with a jury finding Georgia not guilty of killing Tom, thanks to Ginny convincing Austin to lie on the stand about seeing Gil commit the brutal act. But it's not like Georgia's freedom comes without a price; after enduring one too many of his wife's lies, including Georgia attempting to pass off Ginny's positive pregnancy test as her own, Paul finally asks for a divorce. Georgia has a lot to process by the end of the finale, and nothing helps a girl clear her head quite like downing milk straight from the bottle. Instead of letting her mom chug all that sweet, sweet vitamin D in peace, however, Ginny interjects with a game-changing question: 'Didn't you say you drink milk when you're pregnant?' That's right, folks, Georgia is confirmed to be with child. And to complicate matters even further, we're not sure who the father is! Yes, she was married to Paul, but she and Joe also recently found themselves in bed together, setting the stage for a major paternity reveal in Season 4. So, who is Georgia's third baby daddy? The powers that be aren't ready to reveal that just yet. In fact, showrunner Sarah Glinski tells Entertainment Weekly that the mystery will likely be stretched out for quite some time. According to series creator Sarah Lampert, she and Glinski opened the Season 4 writers' room by telling the staff, 'OK, we know whose baby it is. Change our mind.' What followed was a 'contentious,' full-day debate amongst the writers. 'There was a debate over how the storylines could go based on whose baby it was and all that,' Lampert says. 'But no, we've landed on whose baby it is. I'll say that.' How 25 Real-Life Pregnancies Were Written Into TV Shows View List Since Lampert and Glinski won't spill the beans, that leaves us to do what fans do best — wildly speculate! And in the case of Georgia's pregnancy, there are really two questions we must ask ourselves: who do we think it is, and who do we hope it is? Grade Ginny & Georgia Season 3 in our poll below, then drop a comment with your thoughts about this particular cliffhanger. Best of TVLine Yellowjackets' Tawny Cypress Talks Episode 4's Tai/Van Reunion: 'We're All Worried About Taissa' Vampire Diaries Turns 10: How Real-Life Plot Twists Shaped Everything From the Love Triangle to the Final Death Vampire Diaries' Biggest Twists Revisited (and Explained)
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jonathan Joss: Police Are Investigating Actor's Sexual Orientation as Motive in His Killing
Police investigating the shooting death of actor Jonathan Joss have not ruled out his sexual orientation playing a role in his killing, despite an earlier statement suggesting otherwise. During a dispute Sunday night near his San Antonio, Texas home, Joss was shot and killed; a neighbor, identified by investigators as Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez, was taken into custody and charged with murder. More from Rolling Stone 'King of the Hill' Creators Pay Tribute to Jonathan Joss Jonathan Joss, 'King of the Hill' Voice Actor, Fatally Shot at 59 Johnny Hardwick, Voice of Conspiracy Nut Dale Gribble on 'King of the Hill,' Dead at 64 Following Joss' death, the King of the Hill voice actor's husband, Tristan Kern de Gonzales, said on social media that they were approached by the neighbor who began yelling homophobic slurs and fired his gun. 'Jonathan and I had no weapons. We were not threatening anyone,' said de Gonzales. 'We were standing side by side. When the man fired, Jonathan pushed me out of the way. He saved my life.' The day after Joss' killing, the San Antonio police wrote on social media that 'despite online claims of this being a hate crime, currently the investigation has found no evidence to indicate that the Mr. Joss's murder was related to his sexual orientation.' However, during a press conference Thursday, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said that statement was 'premature.' 'I will own that and simply say again that we simply shouldn't have done that. It was way too early in the process for any statement of that nature to be issued,' McManus said, adding that authorities are investigating the actor's sexual orientation as a possible motive. 'The loss of Jonathan Joss was tragic, most heavily felt by the LGBTQ+ community,' McManus said (via the Associated Press). 'We gather the facts, and we give those facts to the district attorney's office. And then that hate crime designation is determined at sentencing.' Joss' King of the Hill and Parks and Recreation co-stars and creators paid tribute to the actor following news of his death. King of the Hill's co-creators, Mike Judge and Greg Daniels, and revival showrunner Saladin Patterson shared a post on Instagram alongside images of Joss and his character, John Redcorn. 'Jonathan brought King of the Hill's 'John Redcorn' to life for over a dozen seasons, including in the upcoming revival,' they wrote. 'His voice will be missed at King of the Hill, and we extend our deepest condolences to Jonathan's friends and family.' Best of Rolling Stone The 50 Best 'Saturday Night Live' Characters of All Time Denzel Washington's Movies Ranked, From Worst to Best 70 Greatest Comedies of the 21st Century
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he has no evidence to justify his unprecedented Biden investigation
Late Wednesday, Donald Trump broke new ground, directing the Justice Department to launch a wide-ranging investigation into Joe Biden and officials in the Democrat's administration, based on Republican conspiracy theories about the former president's mental health. It was an unprecedented move: An incumbent American president had never before publicly ordered a federal probe of his predecessor. There was a degree of irony to the circumstances. After his defeat in the 2020 election, Trump spent years insisting that Biden had ordered an investigation into him — an odd conspiracy theory for which there is literally no evidence. As of this week, it's Trump who's doing exactly what he falsely accused his predecessor of doing. The day after the incumbent president delivered his directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi, as NBC News reported, a reporter asked Trump a good question. Trump said he does not have evidence to support his claims of illegal autopen use during the Biden administration. Asked by NBC News whether he has uncovered any evidence that anything specific was signed without Biden's knowledge or that someone in the former president's administration acting illegally, Trump said, 'No.' The Republican specifically said, 'No, but I've uncovered, you know, the human mind. I was in a debate with the human mind.' He went on to say, 'So, you know, it's just one of those things.' In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, he debated Biden last year; the Democrat struggled; so the Justice Department should investigate the former president and his team to see if White House aides secretly signed laws, orders, directives and pardons without Biden's knowledge. In this country, federal law enforcement is supposed to launch investigations when presented with evidence of wrongdoing. As of now, however, the Trump administration is less concerned with the existence of evidence and more concerned with a president who believes he's 'uncovered, you know, the human mind.' I can appreciate why this might seem like the latest in a series of head-shaking 'Trump being Trump' stories, but it has a broader significance. A sitting American president, effectively by his own admission, just ordered the attorney general to launch an unprecedented fishing expedition against a former American president because on the basis of a flubbed debate performance. What's more, this week's White House offensive marked the third time in three months that Trump has ordered baseless investigations into Americans he perceives as political foes. The story was soon eclipsed by dozens of other administration controversies, but in April, Trump signed two first-of-their-kind executive orders targeting a pair of officials from his first term who defied him. There was barely a pretense in the orders that the targeted former officials — Christopher Krebs, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, a former high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official — had done anything wrong. Indeed, the closer one looked at the stated rationales in support of the directives, the more ridiculous they appeared. Nevertheless, the president directed Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security to launch a 'review' into Krebs, while simultaneously ordering DHS to investigate Taylor. A week later, The New York Times' Jonathan Swan reminded White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, 'The president has long said that it would be an abuse of power for a president to direct prosecutors to investigate him. Last week, President Trump explicitly directed the Justice Department to scrutinize Chris Krebs to see if it can find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. How is that not an abuse of power, to direct the Justice Department to look into an individual, a named individual?' Leavitt struggled badly to defend Trump's move, and for good reason: The directives were indefensible. That did not, however, stop the Republican president from pushing the problem to a new level by going after his immediate predecessor. I can appreciate why the media landscape is crowded, but I continue to believe this should be more than a one-day story. Trump — who ran on an authoritarian platform, who's trying to concentrate power while expressing indifference to the rule of law — has now ordered three investigations into Americans he doesn't like. He has an enemies list, and he's using the power of the presidency to target people on that list, despite the inconvenient fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of actual wrongdoing. If the pushback is muted, Trump will do what he's always done: assume that he can get away with such an abuse, while preparing to go even further down the same radical and dangerous path. Not to put too fine a point on this, but if the president can sic the Justice Department on his critics and perceived enemies and this isn't seen as a dramatic scandal, who'll be next? How far down his enemies list will he go? I'm reminded anew of J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar put on the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush who published a Bluesky thread on the orders against Krebs and Taylor, calling them 'shameful' and 'constitutionally corrupt' and accused Trump of 'palpably unconstitutional conduct.' The more routine this becomes, the greater the severity of the offense. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
