Spicy 'n sweet: Baked by Melissa releases Tabasco-infused cupcakes. Flavors, where to buy
Spicy 'n sweet: Baked by Melissa releases Tabasco-infused cupcakes. Flavors, where to buy
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Thieves steal 100,000 eggs worth $40,000
100,000 eggs were stolen from a distribution trailer in south-central Pennsylvania. Police estimate their value at $40,000.
A New York bakery chain is looking to pack a spicy punch with its new cupcakes.
Baked by Melissa, a New York-based bite-sized cupcake chain, has released a limited-edition collaboration with Tabasco (yes, the hot sauce). The collaboration features two different flavors, including one cupcake made with a Tabasco-infused cake and, if that isn't enough, a Tabasco-infused cream cheese icing. The cupcakes are available at Baked by Melissa stores in New York and online.
Interested in learning more? Here's what to know about the spicy and sweet treats.
What flavors are the Baked by Melissa x Tabasco cupcakes?
The Baked by Melissa and Tabasco cupcakes come in two flavors:
Red Velvet with Tabasco Sauce: Red velvet cake infused with Tabasco sauce, Tabasco sauce cream cheese icing, topped with white and green sprinkles
Red velvet cake infused with Tabasco sauce, Tabasco sauce cream cheese icing, topped with white and green sprinkles Triple Chocolate Fudge: Triple chocolate fudge cake stuffed with Hershey's Fudge, topped with chocolate icing and mini chocolate chips
Each cupcake pack also comes with one mini bottle of Tabasco sauce.
Where can you buy the Tabasco cupcakes?
The limited-edition cupcakes are available at Baked by Melissa locations in New York and on the Baked by Melissa website for nationwide shipping, in-store pickup and Manhattan delivery. The six-pack is only available in stores.
How much are the Tabasco cupcakes?
A 25-pack features 13 red velvet with Tabasco sauce cupcakes and 12 triple chocolate fudge for $37. The six-pack is $10.25.
A 50-pack, which includes 25 of the limited-editing cupcakes, in addition to five dark chocolate and four marshmallow, dulce de leche, brookie (brownie cookie), red velvet and strawberry is also available for $70.
How long are the limited-edition cupcakes available?
The cupcakes are available, while supplies last, through Feb. 28.
Founded by Melissa Ben-Ishay in 2008, Baked by Melissa has taken the dessert industry by storm with its quirky flavors and collaborations.
Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Follow her on X and Instagram @gretalcross. Story idea? Email her at gcross@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Over 80 arrested during chaotic NYC anti-ICE protest as thousands flood the streets
Over 80 people were arrested as a massive anti-ICE protest in Lower Manhattan Tuesday devolved into chaos with shrieking, sign-holding demonstrators flooding the streets, clashing with cops and hurling objects at officers. Thousands of angry New Yorkers took to the streets near Foley Square in the shadow of City Hall to protest the Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportations ongoing in the city and throughout the country. As the sky grew dark, over 80 demonstrators were taken into custody by the NYPD at several locations across downtown in the area surrounding Federal Plaza, according to police sources. Many of the people cuffed were charged with disorderly conduct and the number of arrests is expected to grow as the department does a final tally, according to the sources. After multiple hours of vociferous protesting during the daylight, several chaotic scenes broke out across downtown after the sun set. Large groups of protesters, many wearing keffiyehs associated with pro-Palestine political movements, carried on in opposition to the NYPD, which ordered a level three mobilization to handle the mass of people. Some protesters threw water bottles and other objects at police officers, according to police sources and video. Others chanted 'Shame! Shame!' as the NYPD took masked demonstrators into custody, video showed. Several protesters were pepper-sprayed through the course of arrests — some of which were violent. A woman wearing a black-and-white keffiyeh was aggressively slammed to the ground by several NYPD officers, appearing to bang her head on the toppled barricades, a Post reporter witnessed. One NYPD officer appeared to twice use pepper spray during the course of that apprehension. Another wild apprehension was caught on camera with police corralling a masked man by his backpack — also appearing to take into custody his friend who attempted to intervene in the initial NYPD stop. As the night progressed, protesters became more emboldened. Aggressive demonstrators wrestled with barricades and hurled lewd insults at officers — one even blew vape smoke in a cop's face. Video taken by a journalist circulating online showed some masked protesters trying to breach a police barricade in an apparent attempt to stop an ICE van from leaving the back of a Federal Plaza building. One wild apprehension was caught on camera with police corralling a masked man by his backpack — also appearing to take into custody his friend who attempted to intervene in the initial NYPD stop. Earlier in the day, thousands of protesters took to Foley Square in a raucous demonstration against the ICE raids in the city. Picketers carried placards reading 'Abolish ICE' and 'ICE out of New York!' and chanted phrases such as, 'Brick by brick, wall by wall, this racist system has got to fall!' Notable speakers at the protest included Brooklyn Councilwoman Shahana Hanif and Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. 'In my community everyone is anxious,' Hanif told the frenzied crowd. 'Mayor Adams has made it clear he does not care about working class people… he is collaborating with Trump to use tactics bringing out the military. He's ok with ICE attacking our communities,' Hanif charged. Public Advocate Jumaane Williams also spoke across the street from the federal courthouse where he also took aim at Mayor Eric Adams. 'We're in a scary situation and I have to call out the fact that Mayor Eric Adams is nowhere to be found in a city full of immigrants,' Williams said Tuesday afternoon. Williams further called out the NYPD for allowing ICE to 'kidnap' people in the city. The well-attended anti-ICE protest in lower Manhattan comes as similar demonstrations took place in San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago. The spreading protests come on the heels of four days of violent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles County — which continued into its fifth night Tuesday. Additional reporting by Joe Marino.
