Before Matt Gaetz withdrew from his Attorney General nomination today, Morning Joe was furiously kibitzing over how he could be unraveled over allegations of having sex with a minor and attending drug-fueled parties.  If they couldn't obtain the House Ethics Committee report, the Senate would conduct its own investigation, bringing live witnesses to testify as to Gaetz's activities--something that, Joe Scarborough argued, would be worse for the nominee. That's when MSNBC Republican Elise Jordan blew the lid off it, by claiming Gaetz was an "addict" twice over. It's not simply an issue of morality. "Your morality leads you to become compromised. And this is about not wanting a sex addict, not wanting a drug addict, having control of the nation's top secrets at the end of the day." Whoa! He's a "sex addict" and a "drug addict"—two very heavy accusations, made sans proof.  Jordan didn't explain precisely what she meant by "compromised."  But presumably, she was suggesting that such a person would be vulnerable to blackmail. But would new information be compromising if the Democrats have already unloaded a ton of alleged dirt about him? Joe Scarborough suggested that if Trump did an end-run on the Senate, going the recess appointment route, it would trigger a "constitutional crisis." Funny: we don't remember libs wringing their hands, or any constitutional crisis ensuing, when Barack Obama made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time permanent positions, and Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions.  Note: There was a humorous moment when Jordan said that when the FBI investigated her for in connection with her appointment as an aide to Pres. George W. Bush. They went back to her hometown and spoke with her "preacher." Richard Haass, who also had gone through such an investigation, interjected to say that in his case, the FBI spoke with his "rabbi."  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 11/21/24 6:06 am ET JONATHAN LEMIRE: The House Ethics committee, Republicans on the committee, voted to block the release of this report yesterday. But there is a widely held belief -- it will see the light of day.  And we heard from the Senate yesterday, including Republicans in the Senate, saying, we need to see that. So that report will emerge. But even were it not, there are serious questions about his qualifications, serious questions about his character. And Trump is trying to push his allies as far as he can in the upper chamber here. But we're seeing some real resistance here. I'm told, last night, Gaetz's nomination: deeply in doubt.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, and again, the Wall Street Journal editorial page brings up a great point. Even if they don't release it in the House, it gets IIworse for him. Because they bring the witnesses IIlive to Capitol Hill. So this meltdown can occur on live television with live witnesses. Nobody, nobody should want that to happen in the Trump administration, and I doubt the AG nominee would want that to happen.  I don't, I'm not exactly sure what this stance is. Like, do they, if they're going to try a recess appointment and start a constitutional crisis, they go that way. Why trot this around? This ends badly any way you cut it. ELISE JORDAN: I think we also are just missing what this is about at the end of the day. You [gesturing to Richard Haass] had a full-field FBI background investigation. When I had one, and they're going back to your home town and talking to the preacher, and checking with everyone. RICHARD HAASS: With my rabbi. JORDAN: It's not because they care about your morality. They care about if your morality leads you to become compromised. And this is about not wanting a sex addict, not wanting a drug addict, having control of the nation's top secrets at the end of the day. And so why this is kind of a little bit important, and it's not about morality at the end of the day.

With his historic re-election to the presidency, Donald Trump’s legal problems appear to be over. Trump, as practically everybody knows, has been the target over the last two years of numerous federal, state, and local prosecutions. Now that Trump will be returning to the nation’s highest office, these cases will be put indefinitely on hold or dropped altogether.But if Trump’s problems in this respect are over, America’s are not.Although congressional committees cannot punish any wrongdoing they uncover, the costs of complying with the investigation would serve as a wholesome deterrent.These cases present a problem for the nation because of the popular perception that they were merely a form of political “lawfare” brought to damage Trump, impair his candidacy, and prevent his return to power. Polls have shown that substantial numbers of Americans view these cases as politically motivated. In what may come as a galling surprise to Trump’s political enemies, exit polls indicate that he won a majority of the votes of those Americans who believe democracy is under threat. This result surely reflects these voters’ sense that the various prosecutions of Trump were really an attempt to undermine democratic self-government by depriving the people of a free choice in the presidential contest.Moreover, the sense that the anti-Trump cases were politicized and abusive is obviously well-founded. All these cases — the federal prosecutions of Trump in relation to the events of January 6 and his retention of official documents, the New York state fraud case, the New York “hush money” case, and the Georgia RICO prosecution — were absolutely unprecedented.It is, or should be, impossible for any honest person to pretend that they were dictated by some real law enforcement necessity. Trump did not tell any of his supporters to enter the U.S. Capitol illegally. He is not the only former president (or vice president) to have retained official documents. His alleged real estate fraud harmed nobody. A non-disclosure agreement is not a crime. And there is nothing felonious in a defeated politician arguing to election officials that he would have won if different rules had been followed.There is, then, ample reason to think that these legal cases were abuses of official power intended to skew the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, either by damaging Trump politically or by making it impossible for him to campaign at all. They were intended not just to harm Donald Trump but also effectively to disenfranchise his supporters. In this sense they represent an unprecedented attack on American self-government.But what is to be done about them?Some Trump supporters on social media, in their anger and frustration, have suggested that Republican prosecutors should retaliate against popular Democratic politicians. Such a response would be clearly wrong and destructive, unjustly harming innocent individuals while further undermining the norms and institutions that ensure personal security and self-government. Fortunately, no evidence suggests that President Trump or any other elected Republican intends to take such a course of action.There is, however, a lawful way to address such abuses of the legal system. Section 242 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits and punishes “deprivation of rights under color of law.” If, as seems to be the case, the justifications for these cases were only pretexts to harm Trump politically, then they would seem to fall within this provision of federal law. There would therefore be nothing unjust or improperly retaliatory if President Trump’s Department of Justice were to investigate these prosecutions as possible violations and to bring prosecutions against the perpetrators if appropriate.But such an approach, although not unjust, would certainly be imprudent. Democrats and the media would portray the investigations as examples of Trump prosecuting his political enemies. Regardless of the merits of such a claim, the inevitably resulting furor would probably detract from the Trump administration’s ability to pursue the many important initiatives that the good of the nation requires and that Trump’s voters elected him to work on. It’s not worth it.This is not to say, however, that these abuses should just go completely unaddressed. There are other authoritative institutions besides Trump’s Justice Department that possess both the authority and responsibility to inquire into the possibility of deprivations of rights under the color of law, especially ones that are intended to influence the outcome of federal elections. I refer, of course, to the houses of Congress. Republicans will control both the House and the Senate in 2025. It would be perfectly appropriate for either the House or the Senate Judiciary Committee — or both — to investigate the federal, state, and local prosecutions of Donald Trump.These committees have direct jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and therefore have every right to oversee the special counsel that Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed to investigate and prosecute the then-former president. This should be done to satisfy both the Congress and the public that the federal power was not abused here — or, if it was, to ensure that it does not happen again.These committees would have jurisdiction to investigate the possibly politicized uses of state and local prosecutors’ offices, either because the latter have received federal funds, or, if not, at least to find out whether it is necessary to amend and strengthen the federal prohibition on “deprivation of rights under color of law.” This is certainly a genuine legislative purpose sufficient to justify congressional investigation. Congress and its committees have ample powers to subpoena records and compel testimony in the service of such an investigation.A congressional inquiry would have the advantages of neither appearing arbitrary and vindictive, on the one hand, nor being toothless, on the other. It would be hard to paint a legislative investigation as a mere kangaroo court, because the committees would include Democrats with an incentive to defend their co-partisans under investigation.Republican congressional leaders framing the inquiry would do well to avoid anything like the composition of the farcical January 6 committee, which excluded any Republican members who might be inclined to defend President Trump. And although congressional committees cannot punish any wrongdoing they uncover, the costs of complying with the investigation — the time, effort, and public exposure of improper motives, if any — would serve as a wholesome deterrent to future instances of politicized lawfare.It is not always possible to punish wrongdoing. This does not mean, however, that it must go unremarked and unrebuked by official authority. In the matter of anti-Trump lawfare, congressional investigation and exposure are the best option in the public interest.Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at The America Mind.

"The View" host Joy Behar continued to bemoan the results of President-elect Donald Trump's historic victory against Vice President Kamala Harris during Wednesday's episode of the show.Behar seemed to have a lack of interest in discussing the program's topics after Whoopi Goldberg tried to see the positives of being able to do their job."I just want to say this is the beauty of people who have different opinions. Sometimes it’s messy. Sometimes we’re messy, and I don’t know if you noticed that when I came out this morning, I had trouble trying to figure out, because there was nothing in the thing. There’s something in the air," Goldberg said.'I'm worried about mass deportations and internment camps.'"You know what’s in the air, Whoopi? Trumpism," Behar interjected, prompting laughs from the audience, but she silenced them to continue her rant."We lost the election. Wait a minute. We lost the election. We’re miserable. Half of this country is miserable, and let’s just tell the truth: We hate that he won. We hate it," she added.When Goldberg tried to get the discussion back on topic, Behar asked, "Must we?"Sunny Hostin explained that she does not hate that Harris lost. "I don't feel that way.""I do," Behar said.The hosts on the "The View" have been in shambles since this month's election, resorting to wearing all black after Trump's win.Hostin previously stated she has concerns for her daughter, who apparently has fewer rights than her mother."I remember my father telling me many, many years ago that I was the first person in his family to enjoy full civil rights. And now I have less civil rights than I had when he told me that," she noted. "I'm worried about mass deportations and internment camps."Goldberg refuses to refer to Trump by name, simply referring to him as "you know who" whenever she has to talk about him on the show.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Cenk Uygur of "The Young Turks" appears to have undergone a rapid metamorphosis in recent weeks. Months after calling the once and future president "an actual fascist" and a "mad king," Uygur asked to join the incoming Trump administration. Leftists immediately attacked Uygur over his willingness to serve at the pleasure of a Republican he just days ago characterized as "unstable and unhinged." Some fellow travelers suggested that the progressive host was an insincere turncoat, while others concluded he was just another opportunistic talking head. Ultimately, Uygur was provided with a clear demonstration of the left's intolerance and the right's relative openness. Uygur — whose interest was evidently piqued by the promise of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency — tweeted Monday, "Hey @elonmusk, put me in charge of the Pentagon. I'll slash $400B easy. That'll get you 20% to your goal of $2T, right out of the gate. I went to Wharton three years before you. I own a media company, so I know how to run a business. If you really want to cut, put me in, coach." Elon Musk, whom Uygur attacked on Election Day, responded, "Specific suggestions are welcome." Afforded the opportunity to chime in — something Uygur later noted no Democratic leader had ever asked him to do — Uygur recommended precluding generals from acquiring jobs with defense contractors for 10 years, noting, "They authorize so much wasteful spending because they're going to get hired by those same companies." Donald Trump Jr., magnanimous despite Uygur having viciously attacked his father for years, tweeted, "This is a great idea that has been discussed." 'Knock it the f*** off.' The positive engagement stunned Uygur and enraged his fellow travelers. Emma Vigeland, a former fan of Uygur who hosted "TYT Politics," was among the leftists who couldn't stand the thought of her former boss cooperating with the Trump administration, writing, "Why does your assessment of politics change based on who pays attention to you, specifically a billionaire?" "Holy s***. This ain't it. You're talking about the 'lock her up,' 'retribution' guy?" wrote Joanne Carducci, the host of "Are You F'ng Kidding Me? with JoJoFromJerz." "Do not obey in advance, Cenk. Knock it the f*** off." Another leftist podcast host tweeted, "Amazing to watch some of these life-long progressives line up, one after the other on bended knee to kiss the ring." 'Now, which side seems more open and inclusive?' Even Uygur's nephew, Hasan Piker — a radical who justified the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks and insinuated the terrorists' civilian victims were "criminals" — lashed out, writing, "This is preferring someone to lie to you rather than one who doesn[']t even do that." Uygur suggested that effective pragmatism was better than political impotence. "While the left is yelling at me not to work with MAGA, here's @DonaldJTrumpJR saying we should limit generals from working for defense contractors," wrote Uygur. "That's a policy we've been pushing for and gotten nowhere with Democrats on. Who cares who does it as long as it gets done?" "A little common sense never killed anyone," wrote Donald Trump Jr. "Now, which side seems more open and inclusive? Which side seems more welcoming and which side tries really hard to drive you away if you disagree even a little with orthodoxy? Which side is asking for suggestions and which one is demanding compliance and obedience?" added Uygur. While numerous liberals criticized the progressive media host, Uygur was flooded with messages of welcome from Trump supporters and other right-leaning populists. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The oldest-known stone tablet inscribed with the Ten Commandments that includes 20 lines closely related to biblical texts is going to auction. Sotheby’s will auction "one of the most widely known and influential texts in history" on Dec. 18. 'To encounter this shared piece of cultural heritage is to journey through millennia and connect with cultures and faiths told through one of humanity's earliest and most enduring moral codes.'The prestigious auction house is putting up the ancient stone tablet featuring an inscription of the Ten Commandments in a single-lot sale. Experts believe the cherished artifact — which is thought to be approximately 1,500 years old — could command between $1 million and $2 million. The last time the stone tablet was up for sale was in 2016, when the artifact was sold for $850,000 at a Heritage Auction in Beverly Hills, California. The world’s earliest-known complete stone inscription of the Ten Commandments was rediscovered in 1913 during the construction of a railway near Israel's southern coast, near the sites of early synagogues, mosques, and churches. Amazingly, the precious relic was a paving stone at the entrance to a local home, with the inscription facing upwards and exposed to foot traffic.“Some of the letters of the central part of the inscription are blurred — but still readable under proper lighting — either from the conditions of its burial or foot traffic while it was resting in the courtyard,” David Michaels, director of ancient coins for Heritage Auctions, told CNN in 2016.In 1943, the stone tablet was purchased by Y. Kaplan, a municipal archaeologist. According to Smithsonian Magazine, Kaplan identified the slab as a Samaritan Decalogue — an important piece of religious history. The precious antiquity was reportedly carved by the Samaritans circa 300-500 AD.The Samaritans were an ancient group of people who lived in the central region of the land of Israel and whose beliefs were rooted in the Old Testament. The Samaritan Decalogue is similar to the Jewish Ten Commandments but focuses on the religious sanctity of Mount Gerizim instead of Mount Zion. The artifact from the late Byzantine period only lists nine of the commandments found in the Book of Exodus, omitting “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain.”Archaeologists believe the original site of the stone tablet was likely destroyed during either the Roman invasions of 400-600 AD or during the Crusades in the 11th century.The stone slab weighs 115 pounds and stands approximately two feet in height. The marble tablet is chiseled in Paleo-Hebrew script.The slab of white marble — described as a “national treasure” of Israel — features 20 lines of text incised on the stone that closely follow the biblical verses "familiar to both Christian and Jewish traditions," according to Sotheby's. Sharon Liberman Mintz — Sotheby’s international senior specialist of Judaica, books, and manuscripts — told ARTnews, "We understood how powerful the object was, and we were really thrilled to be able to offer it for sale to the public."“This is really one-of-a-kind," Mintz added. "It's one of the most important historic artifacts that I’ve ever handled."Richard Austin, Sotheby’s global head of books and manuscripts, said in a statement, "This remarkable tablet is not only a vastly important historic artifact, but a tangible link to the beliefs that helped shape Western civilization. To encounter this shared piece of cultural heritage is to journey through millennia and connect with cultures and faiths told through one of humanity's earliest and most enduring moral codes.”The stone tablet with the Ten Commandments will be on public display at Sotheby’s in New York City beginning on Dec. 5. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here.

2005 was a year bursting at the seams with great games - Resident Evil 4, the first God of War, Psychonauts, GTA Liberty City Stories, and so many more iconic titles all arrived. On the other end of the spectrum, though, were some less-memorable games that got a frosty reception. One such game was Utopia City, a futuristic FPS that was panned by critics at the time. Bizarrely, it just appeared on Steam, almost two decades on from its original release date. Continue reading One of the worst-rated FPS games ever mysteriously appears on Steam

It's Not the Most Wonderful Time of the Year for Joy Behar and She Says One Person Is to Blame

J.K. Rowling - $7.7 Billion, Trans Activists - Zero: HBO Stands by Rowling for Harry Potter Reboot

Big Bad Denver, Colorado Mayor Says He Will Protect Illegals From the Federal Government

Who's that Pokemon? No really, what Pokemon is that?