House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) earned an annoyed eye roll from CNBC anchor Becky Quick as they squared off over health care during a Friday morning appearance on “Squawk Box.” Quick and Jeffries were discussing the apparent impasse between Republicans and Democrats over the Affordable Care Act — and how long an extension they might approve for the COVID-era subsidies — and Quick tried several times to point out that some Republicans were willing to work out a deal, but Democrats were still trying to make demands. WATCH: Incredible exchange here as Hakeem Jeffries gets IRATE with CNBC’s Becky Quick for daring to press him on his robotic ACA talking points: Quick: *Cuts Jeffries off to try to make him actually answer a question* Jeffries: “You can ask the question, I’ll provide the answer!”… pic.twitter.com/gegocDMQja — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 21, 2025 Quick began by pointing out that there was already at least one bipartisan measure — supported by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Don Bacon (R-NE) — that had been proposed, offering a two-year extension to the subsidies in question. That would double the extension that Democrats had pitched weeks earlier — one year — as a potential shutdown-ending deal. “If you want to get done, you are going to need at least some Republicans to come over, why not start with a one-year extension or potentially even a two-year extension?” Quick asked, noting that a three-year extension was likely to be “dead in the water.” Jeffries balked, noting that Democrats had already tried promising to end the shutdown in exchange for a one-year extension, but that Republicans had turned that down. Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. “That’s different. I’m talking about what you have now. Let’s not go back to what’s done in the past and what has not been extended. If you want to get something that it has actually done, you need to do something that will have bipartisan effect,” Quick pushed back. “You can ask me the question. I’ll provide the answer,” Jeffries said. “Answer the question instead of going back,” Quick pressed. “I’m providing an answer in order to provide context,” Jeffries argued, prompting an annoyed eye roll from Quick. “Republicans have repeatedly refused to take yes for an answer. It was a very reasonable multi-year extension that was offered. It was one year straight extension, plus a multi-year process through a bipartisan commission to more permanently resolve the Affordable Care Act issue. So having that context is absolutely important, regardless of what you may think.” “It’s important context to make me realize that I don’t think you want to get a deal done,” Quick repied. “I think this is something where you’d like to see the rates go higher and allow the Republicans to hang themselves with that. Is that the answer? Is this politics?” Jeffries bristled: “That’s absolutely a ridiculous assertion, and really shame on you for saying that.” “Three years is not going to get passed, so what do you do?” Quick asked again. Jeffries repeatedly claimed that the issue was “patriotic” rather than “partisan,” but failed to acknowledge the fact that both the one-year extension offered by Senate Democrats and the three-year extension he appeared to be set on would guarantee that Republicans would have to address the same subsidy fight in an election year. The two year extension — to which he seemed adamantly opposed — was the only offer on the table that would put the next subsidy battle in an off year.

Vice President JD Vance talked with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for around an hour on Friday as the two leaders discussed President Donald Trump’s newly crafted 28-point plan to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. The call, which also included U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, marked the first time that Zelensky spoke directly with the White House since Trump unveiled his new peace plan. While he did not address any specifics of the plan, Zelensky suggested that his country is ready to get to work on negotiations. “We managed to cover a lot of details of the American side’s proposals for ending the war, and we’re working to make the path forward dignified and truly effective for achieving a lasting peace,” Zelensky said. “I’m grateful for the attention and willingness to work together with us and our partners. We agreed to work together with the U.S. and Europe at the level of national security advisors to make the path to peace truly doable.” “Ukraine has always respected and continues to respect U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to put an end to the bloodshed, and we view every realistic proposal positively,” Zelensky added. “We agreed to maintain constant contact, and our teams are ready to work 24/7. Thank you!” Under the reported details of Trump’s plan, Ukraine would be forced to give up Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk, and parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, Axios reported. Ukraine would also commit to never joining NATO and limiting its standing military in exchange for security guarantees from the United States. Both Russia and Ukraine would receive amnesty for crimes they committed during the war, and all military and civilian prisoners would be returned to their respective sides. After details of the plan were reported, multiple European leaders committed to pursuing a peace plan that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty. “Ukraine can count on us,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “Together with [French President Emmanuel Macron] and [British Prime Minister Keir Starmer], I reaffirmed our full support to [Zelensky]. We will coordinate closely with Europe and the US, whose commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty we welcome. The contact line must remain the basis for any talks.” The Russia-Ukraine plan mirrors President Trump’s ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas that is monitored by Trump’s Peace Council. A senior U.S. official told The Daily Wire on Thursday that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has been “quietly working” on the Russia-Ukraine plan for a month, “receiving input from both the Ukrainians and the Russians on what terms are acceptable to them to end the war.” The call between Vance and Zelensky comes following months of talks between the Trump administration, Russia, and Ukraine, with little progress being made. In February, Trump, Vance, and Zelensky got into a heated back-and-forth in the Oval Office, part of which included the vice president scolding Zelensky for attacking “the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country.” The war is nearing the four-year mark, and President Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, who has ramped up his aggression in recent months. Earlier this week, a Russian missile and drone attack in Ternopil, Ukraine, killed 26 people, including three children, according to Ukrainian officials.

Media Madness co-host Natalie Sandoval reviews Teen Vogue's greatest hits

'Careless and inaccurate'

'Traitorous statement'

If You Live in Chicago, Move Out ASAP

The liberal ladies of ABC’s The View kicked off Friday’s show by praising the Democrats who put out a video instructing service members to ignore what they described as “illegal orders” from President Trump. While pretend independent Sara Haines ridiculously claimed those Democrats were “moderate” and “centrist,” moderator Joy Behar and co-host Sunny Hostin warned them that “following orders” would not protect them when they’re dragged into court for listening to Trump. Despite The View repeatedly calling Trump a “traitor” (a crime punishable by death), Haines hypocritically whined about Trump saying those Democrats were engaged in sedition: Here are a bunch of military veterans saying in measured tone and specifically, you do not have to obey an illegal order. Not any order you don't like or anything else. The answer is sedition, hang them, punishable by death. There is a difference in tone there. We can agree to disagree on whether a video should be released or whether that's a bad idea. Jumping to death by hanging seems like a steep jump that we really need to bring the rhetoric to a point of disagreeing civilly. Having a difference of opinions. We are not mortal enemies. This is ridiculous. Haines didn’t have any outrage in July 2023 when Behar asserted that Trump was thinking like Mussolini and that he could end up in a noose and “hung” like the Italian dictator.   The View cast "love" the video of Democrats telling the military to disobey orders and claim those in the video are "moderates" and "centrist." pic.twitter.com/NJJStff6T0 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 21, 2025   When asked by Hostin what she thought about the video, Haines said it was needed because we’re living in dangerous times, and ridiculously praised the Democrats in the video as “moderate” and “centrist”: HOSTIN: What do you think about the video? Do you think it should not have been we leased? HAINES: Well, I think we’re living – So, it’s funny, normal times I would say I feel like that's a step out of bounds. I particularly love the actual politicians in this video. Elissa Slotkin is someone I love. She’s a centrist. She is a pragmatic common sense person. Mark Kelly out of Arizona. So these aren't the extremes jumping out saying the House is burning down. These are pretty moderate people who also are military vets. “They're saying rank and order matters, we’ve lived it ourselves but if - god forbid - something came down that was illegal and wrong, you don't have to obey that,” she added. Things turned dark when Behar claimed, without evidence, that the military was already following illegal orders. “[When] Trump threatens to deploy active duty military to quell protests that is against the First Amendment. Protests are covered by the First Amendment,” she declared, despite the only deployments being to protect federal facilities from rioters and law enforcement agents from literal attempts to kill them. Without giving an example, Hostin chimed in with her own claims that laws were being broken: “I have to say, I had no problem with this whatsoever. I actually liked it. I thought that it was important, because there are some things in my view that are being done by the administration that are unconstitutional.”   Joy Behar suggests the National Guard being deployed to protect ICE agents and federal facilities from rioters is an illegal order. Sunny Hostin claims Trump "may not be the right person" to be giving them orders. Seemingly anticipating an eagerness to commit war crimes, Behar… pic.twitter.com/zD8InZImHq — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 21, 2025   Invoking the specter of the Nazis and Nuremburg trials, Behar warned service members that if they thought of hiding behind “I was just following orders,” it wouldn’t save them: BEHAR: So, you're saying the whole thing, ‘I was just following orders’ is not good enough. HOSTIN: No, it isn't. BEHAR: It's not going to hold up in court. HOSTIN: In history it hasn't been. BEHAR: That’s right. That echoed The View’s smears of service members back in June when they equated the National Guard and the Marines to Nazis: ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Correct, but I think it's very important to remember it's a commander-in-chief that’s made these decisions. They're following the orders. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yeah. Think back, y'all. Where have you heard that before? BEHAR: 1938! GOLDBERG: “I’m just following orders.” By my commander-in-chief. This was the same anti-military resentment that’s been percolating under the liberal media’s hood since Vietnam. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View November 21, 2025 11:04:19 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: Here are a bunch of military veterans saying in measured tone and specifically, you do not have to obey an illegal order. Not any order you don't like or anything else. The answer is sedition, hang them, punishable by death. There is a difference in tone there. We can agree to disagree on whether a video should be released or whether that's a bad idea. Jumping to death by hanging seems like a steep jump that we really need to bring the rhetoric to a point of disagreeing civilly. Having a difference of opinions. We are not mortal enemies. This is ridiculous. SUNNY HOSTIN: What do you think about the video? Do you think it should not have been we leased? HAINES: Well, I think we’re living – So, it’s funny, normal times I would say I feel like that's a step out of bounds. I particularly love the actual politicians in this video. Elissa Slotkin is someone I love. She’s a centrist. She is a pragmatic common sense person. Mark Kelly out of Arizona. So these aren't the extremes jumping out saying the House is burning down. These are pretty moderate people who also are military vets. HOSTIN: Yeah. HAINES: They know rank and order. They're the people we turn to. They're saying rank and order matters, we’ve lived it ourselves but if - god forbid - something came down that was illegal and wrong, you don't have to obey that. JOY BEHAR: When he threatens to -- Trump threatens to deploy active duty military to quell protests that is against the First Amendment. Protests are covered by the First Amendment. HOSTIN: Peaceful protesting, yeah. BEHAR: Peaceful protesting. That's one particular thing that they’re talking about, for instances. HOSTIN: I have to say, I had no problem with this whatsoever. I actually liked it. I thought that it was important, because there are some things in my view that are being done by the administration that are unconstitutional. I believe that. And traditionally the U.S. military adheres to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which does say that service members must obey lawful orders whether they agree with them or not but they are also obligated to not follow manifestly unlawful orders. HAINES: So, there's nothing shocking in this video. HOSTIN: So, there's nothing shocking in this video. And you know, I think what this president doesn't seem to realize is military members take an oath to the Constitution, not to the president of the United States. And so it is – [Applause] – It’s very clear. And I think it was really important for these vets and intelligence officers to come out and give guidance to our military, because the commander-in-chief may not be the right person to be giving them that type of guidance. BEHAR: So, you're saying the whole thing, ‘I was just following orders’ is not good enough. HOSTIN: No, it isn't. BEHAR: It's not going to hold up in court. HOSTIN: In history it hasn't been. BEHAR: That’s right. (…)

Jon Stewart went on an F-bomb-laden rant on Thursday’s episode of Comedy Central’s The Weekly Show podcast as he told conservative critics of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to “look in the mirror, fuck face.” According to Stewart, they are allegedly being hypocrites for not applying their same logic to President Trump amid his recent state dinner with the Saudi crown prince. Stewart dropped the first of his eight F-bombs when he tried to conflate official foreign policy business with people who support Mamdani politically, “Donald Trump hosted, you know, this was the whole fucking thing. Do you remember the Mamdani, you know, all these right-wing guys are like, ‘How dare he take a picture with an imam? Has he forgotten the lessons in 9/11?’”     Fact-check: It wasn’t just any imam. It was Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who claimed the FBI and CIA were the real terrorists. As it was, Stewart continued apace, “How—one guy came after me. ‘Has Jon Stewart, he's talking pleasantly with Mamdani, you know, this is a guy, has he forgotten 9/11?’ First of all, fuck you. Fuck you to the highest order of fucking you that you can be fucked. Don't you ever ask me about that, you fuck.” Fact-check #2: Stewart compared Mamdani to Jackie Robinson, which is outrageously stupid. Additionally, while Stewart wants to focus on “one guy” for suggesting he forgot 9/11 despite all his work to advocate for 9/11 first responders, it was not too much to ask that Stewart actually ask Mamdani some difficult questions. Stewart then tried to move on from the dinner to LIV golf: And second of all, your guy hosted a LIV golf tournament in the shadow of the towers with the Saudis and palled around with them. So, again, let me repeat myself. Fuck you. Like, the guy you support, like, how, how dare they? It's so shocking. And by the way, like, I'll even give it up for it. If you're a businessman, and they've got, you know, a funnel, and you've never made the case that your business has any moral underpinnings whatsoever. So, the idea that you want to hook up your mouth to the largest teats in that area and just suck down as much as that glorious Saudi money as you can get to, but I'm sorry, LIV golf tournaments are an elective. That is an elective. You make a choice like that. That is not something that your business requires, that it is foundational, that is an elective.” Circling back to Mamdani, Stewart added, “And so for any of those right-wing guys that wanna go out there and criticize the associations between, you know, anybody that would even talk to Mamdani, because clearly, you know, he's so out there with his points of view. Look in the mirror, fuck face.” The American people have no power to determine who governs Saudi Arabia. By contrast, New Yorkers do have the power to determine who they install as their mayor. If Stewart wants to get on his high horse and denounce LIV Golf, he is free to do so, but that should not be equated with official presidential business, nor should it mean that Mamdani is above criticism for associating with Islamic radicals. Here is a transcript for the November 20 show: Comedy Central The Weekly Show 11/20/2025 JON STEWART: Donald Trump hosted, you know, this was the whole fucking thing. Do you remember the Mamdani, you know, all these right-wing guys are like, “How dare he take a picture with an imam? Has he forgotten the lessons in 9/11?” How—one guy came after me. “Has Jon Stewart, he's talking pleasantly with Mamdani, you know, this is a guy, has he forgotten 9/11?” First of all, fuck you. Fuck you to the highest order of fucking you that you can be fucked. Don't you ever ask me about that, you fuck. And second of all, your guy hosted a LIV golf tournament in the shadow of the towers with the Saudis and palled around with them. So, again, let me repeat myself. Fuck you. Like, the guy you support, like, how, how dare they? It's so shocking. And by the way, like, I'll even give it up for it. If you're a businessman, and they've got, you know, a funnel, and you've never made the case that your business has any moral underpinnings whatsoever.  So, the idea that you want to hook up your mouth to the largest teats in that area and just suck down as much as that glorious Saudi money as you can get to, but I'm sorry, LIV golf tournaments are an elective. That is an elective. You make a choice like that. That is not something that your business requires, that it is foundational, that is an elective. And so for any of those right-wing guys that wanna go out there and criticize the associations between, you know, anybody that would even talk to Mamdani, because clearly, you know, he's so out there with his points of view. Look in the mirror, fuck face.

Very sad news for those of you who have become connoisseurs of the hilarious inadvertent comedy provided by Politico's over-the-top obsession with the Jeffrey Epstein files the past few months. Those good times might soon be gone. No more laughs provided by a panicked Politico publishing FIVE stories last July 18 solely on the topic of the Wall Street Journal possibly tossing President Donald Trump a "lifeline" in the form of a probable fake news story about a birthday letter supposedly sent by Trump to Epstein. Yes, the fun has continued for months culminating with Wednesday's Politico announcement of a possible Ukraine-Russia peace deal framed as a "distraction" from the Epstein files. This news about the end of Epstein files entertainment comes from a rather unlikely source. Someone who is completely obsessed about doing anything, absolutely anything, to take down Trump. None other than Politico's extreme TDS senior writer,  Ankush Khardori. His Trump antipathy bonafides have been thoroughly established over the years to the extent that in July 2024 Khardori urged, even after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump on presidential immunity, that Trump's J-6 trial be placed on speed dial just to tie him up and put him at a political disadvantage in the weeks leading to that November's election. And now Khardori is telling us that there is really is no there there in the Epstein files as you can see in this Wednesday Politico West Wing Playbook, "How to prepare for the Epstein release." This question was put to Khardori about the Epstein files: "How likely is it that there will be some big revelation or smoking gun?" And here is Khardori pretty much extinguishing all hope for those poor souls out there still seeking Epstein files salvation: It’s unlikely. But it’s important to separate two very important concepts: criminal misconduct versus highly embarrassing or evilly, morally-offensive conduct. I think the odds that we find some potent new evidence of criminal misconduct are low. Another factor for Khardori putting out the Epstein files prayer candle is the revelations have boomeranged horribly on the Democrats as he points out the sad fate of Larry Summers: "But I expect a whole lot of embarrassing stuff to come out. And we got a preview this week with the stuff on [Former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers." Khardori then pretends that the Epstein-files damage will probably be limited to Summers while conveniently avoiding the deep embarrassment also caused by the files with revelations about associates of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries inviting Epstein to a fundraising dinner after his first sex-crimes conviction. And let us not forget the revelation about Epstein texting advice to Democrat House Delegate Stacey Plaskett during a House hearing, advice she accepted.  That is why this Khardori observation has already been proven to be laughably erroneous: The investigation [into Democrats] that Trump has spun up is not real. You know how we know that? Because several months ago, this exact same Justice Department told us that there was nothing else to investigate. File the above under "Wishful Thinking" which is why Khardori has already begun downplaying the significance of the Epstein files with the rest of Politico likely to follow suit.

A postal worker was arrested for allegedly helping a man briefly escape detention from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Long Island.Tamara Mayorga-Wong, 57, was charged with obstructing a federal proceeding over the incident from Nov. 5 in front of a 7-Eleven convenience store next to a post office in Westhampton.Mayorga-Wong scolded a bilingual deportation officer by asking in English as well as Spanish, 'Why are you doing this to your people?' Homeland Security Investigations said the man had been placed in the back of a police vehicle when Mayorga-Wong ran up and opened the door to let him escape. She was wearing her USPS uniform at the time. HSI said she told them, "You can't do this!" The detention officers were able to nab the detained man again, and they went to put Mayorga-Wong into custody as well. She was trying to get into her personal vehicle and responded to the officers by kicking at them and flailing her arms.The complaint says that Mayorga-Wong scolded a bilingual deportation officer by asking in English as well as Spanish, "Why are you doing this to your people?"WABC-TV captured video of the woman leaving federal court in Central Islip on Thursday. RELATED: Outrage ensues when 13-year-old is arrested by ICE — then DHS releases devastating accusations She also allegedly asked the officers if they were from Mexico and if they had children."What are you going to tell your children about what you do?" she reportedly asked them.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!