Nicki Minaj alleges life threat amid SZA beef; calls on FBI and CIA
Nicki Minaj interpreted this comment as a threat and remarked, 'What streaming service is this? I want him removed immediately. If he's not removed, we'll know something.'
What did Nicki Minaj do?
She then went a step further and reached out to Florida representative Anna Paulina Luna, saying, 'this man just publicly threatened me. I've notified the FBI & CIA. I want this thug locked up & I'm ready to talk about everything these ppl have done to me.'
Nicki's crusade against Desiree Perez seems to be continuing. The singer mentioned in another post, where she tagged the FBI and CIA, that she was 'willing to be a snitch 'just like DESIREE PEREZ if it has to do with her, ROC NATION or TDE!!!!!'
Nicki's message to Representative Luna also got her a response from the Republican.
'Please text my cell, I will forward this to law enforcement immediately. Threats of violence and assassination should be taken very seriously,' Luna said, adding, 'Hope you're ok'. She assured Nicki that they would 'talk soon'.
Nicki replied to Luna's response with a simple 'Thank you' followed by folded hands.
What is Nicki Minaj's beef?
Minaj's beef seems to be regarding ROC Nation's CEO Desirae Perez being allegedly abusive, as per daughter Demoree's claims.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
'We're with Colbert': Few protesters gather in support of 'The Late Show'; then leave within minutes
A planned rally in New York City to show support for outgoing 'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert fizzled out on Sunday, with fewer than two dozen demonstrators turning up and police packing up not long after the gathering began. The protest, called 'We're With Colbert,' was held outside the CBS Broadcast Center on Manhattan's West Side. Organisers claimed it was part of a nationwide call to defend "integrity" in media and freedom of speech. 'Our country is not perfect, never has been,' said the event's organiser, who identified himself only as Matt, going by the nickname 'Slim.' 'But we've always had the First Amendment, and now Mango Mussolini is trying to take that from us,' he added, using a derogatory nickname for US President Donald Trump. The event followed CBS's decision to axe The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in May 2026, citing falling viewership and declining profits. The 61-year-old host has frequently taken aim at Trump on his programme, prompting speculation that the cancellation was more political than financial. 'This is a First Amendment attack,' one protester told the New York Post. 'We can't stand for that.' A week earlier, CBS's parent company recently completed an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, a deal that required federal approval and was finalised shortly after Colbert was told this season would be his last. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ohio: These Companies Are Overcharging You for Auto Insurance Smart Lifestyle Trends Learn More Undo Colbert's show has also faced criticism from conservative commentators for perceived political bias. According to MRC NewsBusters, a right-leaning media watchdog, the programme featured 176 liberal guests and just one Republican between 2022 and 2025. Despite the intended message of Sunday's demonstration, most of the attendees had left within minutes, leaving little more than an empty sidewalk and bemused NYPD officers.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Jay Leno on steering clear of politics on The Tonight Show: ‘Don't think anybody wants to hear lecture'
Jay Leno revisited his two-decade tenure on The Tonight Show in a candid conversation with David Trulio, President & CEO of the Reagan Foundation, explaining why he consistently avoided political humour. 'I like to think that people come to a comedy show to kind of get away from the things, the pressures of life, whatever it might be,' Leno said, adding, 'I love political humour, don't get me wrong, but what happens is people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.' Leno was known for walking a fine line between humour and neutrality during his run from 1992 to 2009 (and again briefly from 2010 to 2014). He told Trulio that his strategy was simple: appeal to everyone. 'Why shoot for just half an audience? Why not try to get the whole?' 'I don't understand why you would alienate one particular group,' he said. 'Or just don't do it at all. I'm not saying you have to throw your support or whatever, but just do what's funny.' According to Fox News, Leno recalled receiving conflicting hate mail over the same jokes, with one viewer accusing him of siding with Republicans, and another calling him a Democratic sympathiser. 'And I go, 'Well, that's good.' That's how you get a whole audience,' he said. Leno's philosophy on comedy is simple. 'Funny is funny,' he told Trulio. 'I don't think anybody wants to hear a lecture.' He drew a contrast with the current political climate in comedy, where many late-night hosts have embraced explicit political opinions. 'Now you have to be content with half the audience because you have to give your opinion,' Leno noted. He pointed to his long friendship with fellow comedian Rodney Dangerfield as a model for apolitical comedy. 'I knew Rodney 40 years,' Leno said. 'I have no idea if he was Democrat or Republican. We never discussed, we just discussed jokes.' The interview comes just before CBS announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. As reported by CNN and Fox News, the network cited financial constraints, but the decision drew speculation about political motives, given Colbert's consistent criticism of Donald Trump. Weeks before the announcement, CBS and its parent company Paramount paid Trump $16 million in a settlement related to a 60 Minutes segment. Colbert had openly criticised the deal, calling it a 'big fat bribe' on-air. The show is now set to end in May 2026. (With inputs from CNN, Fox News)
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Sarzameen: Ibrahim Ali Khan's terrible film accidentally gets you to root for a terrorist to kill an Indian soldier, and you can't even deny it
In Sarzameen, a stern military man allows his only son to be murdered by terrorists in Kashmir because… nation comes first or something. You often hear about parents who proudly declare that they are willing to sacrifice their children for the country, and perhaps Prithviraj Sukumaran's Vijay Menon is cut from the same cloth as those folks. The only difference is that his son isn't a soldier on the front-lines, but a child for whom he feels no love. Played by Ibrahim Ali Khan, the child's name is Harman, and the only reason his father hates him is that he isn't like the other boys; he's timid, he can't play sports, and he speaks with a stutter. Bizarrely enough, Sarzameen implies that Vijay wouldn't have let his son die had he conformed to the 'norms' of boyhood. If Harman didn't have a speech impediment, the movie suggests, he'd likely have lived. It's an astounding thought that struck absolutely nobody in the Dharma writing incubator that coughed up this script, which relies almost exclusively on contrivance, convenience, and coincidence to keep the plot moving. Sarzameen expects us to root for a reunion of some kind after it reveals that Harman miraculously survived a bullet to the head — nobody dies in this movie, even after being shot at point-blank range — but unintentionally gets us to cheer for a terrorist to kill a member of the Indian Army. Also read – Nadaaniyan: Ibrahim Ali Khan makes one of the worst debuts in years; is Karan Johar determined to set fire to his career before it even begins? Only a complete failure in storytelling can send a viewer so wildly off track. Sarzameen is directed by Kayoze Irani, who showed such promise with his heartfelt short film in Ajeeb Daastaans. For him to have selected this as his feature debut makes no sense; as it is, it feels like he wasn't involved in the conceptualisation and execution of the action scenes at all. His focus, presumably, was on the drama. And it's drama straight out of a poor '90s movie; you can imagine how competent Sarzameen is when you realise that even Netflix, which gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to Nadaaniyan, drew the line. As with that film, it feels like every line of dialogue here has been dubbed in a booth and not performed on set. Hindi isn't Prithviraj's mother tongue, and acting doesn't come naturally to Ibrahim. He shows up only after the first act, when Harman inexplicably escapes from the clutches of his captors and reappears in his parents' lives. For some reason, his mother, played by Kajol, is still married to Vijay, even after he abandoned Harman and left him to die. Had Sarzameen shown us what happened during those eight years, her decision would've made sense. But because it doesn't, you're left to assume that the only reason she stuck around is because she has a job to fulfil in the film's third act. Unlike Brody from Homeland, who was closely monitored by the CIA after he returned from captivity tried to begin his life afresh, Harman is simply allowed to go home to his parents. They barely recognise him. He no longer has a stutter, and he seems more confident than he used to be. Vijay is convinced that he's an imposter — the fact that he believes Harman would be the same person who 'died' eight years ago is bananas. Vijay knows that Harman was living with terrorists; he knows that Harman was probably tortured and brainwashed. And still, he welcomes Harman into his house without having him cleared first. Sarzameen seems to think that the dramatic conflict of these scenes rests in whether Harman is Vijay's son, and not whether he's a terrorist. The more suspicious Vijay becomes of Harman, the more you want to lean in and remind him that it's all his fault. Consequently, you root for the kid to shoot him in the face. This almost happens in the pre-interval scene, by the way. But the scene ends with a twist so wild that its sole purpose, seemingly, is to disarm you for the further insanity that Sarzameen has prepared for the climax. Let's talk about it. It is revealed that Harman was, indeed, a militant brainwashed against his father, who, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume, is the living manifestation of India. The villains didn't have to work too hard; Vijay did have him murdered, after all. The movie would've been far more complex had Harman come from a loving home, or if it had shown Harman commit a terrible crime before resurrecting himself. It's almost as if the most interesting chunk of the story — the eight years that Harman spent away from home — was deliberately edited out. Read more – Ae Watan Mere Watan: Heartbreaking, the worst film you've seen just made some strong political points Vijay, of course, has an awakening. But nothing can redeem him; he's like the dad from Udaan, but if he was also a child-killer. The real twist — and Abbas Mustan would be so proud of Kayoze — is that Kajol's character was a double agent all along. It's like they're gifting the Saiyaara generation with their own version of Gupt: The Hidden Truth. She was sent to spy on the Indian Army, but she fell for Vijay and had a child with him. Why she fell in love with a man like him isn't something that the movie feels confident enough to explain. And, having seen what sort of guy he is, it's impossible for the viewer to fill in the blanks either. Sarzameen is, after all, a movie that paints an Army officer as the villain and projects militants as morally justified in their actions. So, why can't it be appreciated like the scores of films made about America's war crimes after 9/11? Why does Sarzameen have more in common with Kajol's own Fanaa — the film's Harry Potter connections deserve a separate article — than it does with something like The Forever Prisoner, a film that understands the difference between empathising with a wrongdoer and actively cheering them on. By relying on trivial tropes, the movie does a disservice not only to its own characters, but also a very real geopolitical issue.
