The WNBA needs to leave Sophie alone

'Crowley has filed this claim saying that she was retaliated against'

DAVID BLACKMON: Trump Brings Hard Times For The Climate Alarm Movement

Mike Schwartz returns for this mini-episode to discuss his experience at San Diego ComicCon 2025, a Last Man Standing battle between Martian Manhunter and Vision, Casting Call for a The Authority movie by Mark Millar, CONTINUE READING... The post WIZARDS The Podcast Guide To Comics | Episode 113.5 appeared first on The Retro Network.

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., already facing two Justice Department investigations, could soon face another on Capitol Hill, legal experts say. A whistleblower has alleged that Schiff—while he was the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence—orchestrated the leaking of classified information to promote the conspiracy theory that President Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election.  Meanwhile, Schiff is also under investigation for allegedly providing inaccurate mortgage information for a Maryland home. Both cases are under review by the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group. According to the DOJ, the group is reviewing the work of federal agencies that conducted criminal or civil enforcement over the past four years to identify if their conduct may have had political objectives instead of legitimate government ones. Schiff has denied wrongdoing. A spokesperson called the charges “baseless smears” while his lawyer said the investigations were politically biased. Here’s what to know.  1. Potential Ethics Probe The alleged conduct occurred when Schiff was in the House of Representatives. Now, he’s a senator.  So which body’s ethics panel could investigate? The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a watchdog group, is exploring a potential complaint against Schiff to the Senate Ethics Committee.  “The House Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction when someone is no longer a member,” Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust Executive Director Kendra Arnold told The Daily Signal. “The Senate Ethics Committee does have the ability to punish someone for a case before they were in the Senate, but they use it sparingly.”  “Generally, it has to be tied to their duty in the Senate. It could be conduct in running for office that would reflect poorly on the body,” Arnold said. “In this case, his conduct in the House would be related to his official duties.” Both the DOJ and Senate should investigate, said Mike Davis, founder of Article Three Project, a conservative legal group. “Adam Schiff is in deep trouble no matter how he tries to spin it,” Davis, formerly chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Signal in a statement.  “As ‘Shifty’ Schiff has said repeatedly, ‘Nobody is above the law.’ The Senate Ethics Committee—and the Trump Justice Department—must spare no resource to ensure justice is delivered,” he said. 2. Mortgage Case In May, the Federal Housing Finance Agency sent a referral to the Justice Department alleging potential mortgage irregularities by Schiff. The agency said Schiff improperly filled out bank documents to get more favorable loan terms for a Maryland property.  “He may face more legal exposure from the investigation into alleged mortgage fraud,” Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former assistant U.S. attorney, told The Daily Signal.  Smith noted that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland scored a mortgage fraud conviction against former Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. However, the conviction was overturned this year on appeal.  The senator contends that he accurately represented to lenders that he and his wife would occupy and use the Maryland house they purchased in 2003 as a “principal residence” rather than a vacation home or an investment property, according to Schiff’s office. He further said he disclosed to his lenders that he maintained another home in California.  3. Leak Investigation If the “Russian collusion” leak allegations are true, Smith said it could be worse than a typical leak case because it involved classified information.  “Adam Schiff had access to this information, and he has a duty as a member of Congress to protect this information. There was a certain trust placed in him. If he violated that trust, it deserves punishment,” Smith said.  A declassified FBI memo says, “The leaks were driven from the top; they were structured and intentional. The message conveyed to staff was the U.S. was facing constitutional crisis and something needed to be done,” journalist Catherine Herridge first reported. The FBI memo said a Democrat staffer from the House Intelligence Committee was fired after objecting to the leaking of the classified information. A statement from a Schiff spokesperson called the situation the “latest smear” and “absolutely and categorically false.” The statement went on to attack the suspected whistleblower. “These baseless smears are based on allegations that were found to be not reliable, not credible, and unsubstantiated from a disgruntled former staffer who was fired by the House Intelligence Committee for cause in early 2017, including for harassment and potentially compromising activity on official travel for the committee,” the Schiff spokesperson said in the statement.  Schiff’s office also points to a December 2024 report by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General into leaking, which referenced an unnamed House Intelligence Committee staffer as having “unknown reliability.” 4. Legal Personalities Clash The Schiff leak investigation pits two major legal personalities on opposite sides, Ed Martin and Preet Bharara. Martin, director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group and former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, is investigating Schiff.  Today, exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, DOJ Weaponization Working Group Director Ed Martin @EagleEdMartin spoke about the investigations into Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.@FoxNews pic.twitter.com/WO2IDPVqba— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) August 17, 2025 Davis, of the Article Three Project, said he thought it was fitting that Martin is leading the task force investigating the matter: “It is cosmic justice that Schiff will be held accountable by Ed Martin after Schiff opposed his nomination to be U.S. attorney.”  Earlier this year, the Senate rejected Trump’s nomination of Martin to be U.S. attorney. Democrats and some Republicans  objected to the nomination because, in private practice, Martin represented individuals charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the Capitol. Schiff hired Bharara to represent him. Bharara is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York appointed by President Barack Obama and later fired by Trump in 2017.  Schiff’s office asked that The Daily Signal publish Bharara’s full statement on the matter because of the seriousness of the allegations: The allegations against Senator Schiff are transparently false, stale, and long debunked.  Now Ed Martin, the most brazenly partisan and politically compromised person possible for the task, has been picked to investigate a political adversary.  The bias here is glaring. Mr. Martin’s nomination to be U.S. attorney of the District of Columbia was derailed not only by his partisanship and unfitness, but also by the hold Senator Schiff appropriately placed on the nomination.  Mr. Martin is a January 6-defending lawyer who has repeatedly pursued baseless and politically motivated investigations to fulfill demands to investigate and prosecute perceived enemies. Any supposed investigation led by him would be the very definition of weaponization of the justice process. The Daily Signal could not immediately reach a spokesperson for Martin to respond to Bharara’s remarks. However, during a Fox News interview on Sunday, Martin said he is only focused on the facts of the case with Schiff and other investigations that the Weaponization Working Group is looking at. “We are going to follow the facts. Every American that has a mortgage and has documents they sign has to follow the law. We are going to go to the very bottom of the facts,” Martin told Fox News.  “If somebody did something wrong, we are not only going to hold them accountable, we are also going to look at everything else they’ve been doing, because when you’re a liar, you lie not just on one thing,” Martin continued. “When you are a cheater, you cheat, not just on one thing. When you are doing corruption, you generally don’t just do it on one thing. That’s what we’re asked to do as prosecutors, and that’s what we’re doing.”  The post ‘DEEP TROUBLE’: 4 Things to Know About Legal Probes of Adam Schiff appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Wyoming Republican senator on Tuesday endorsed newcomer Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, as a “proven leader” and sharply criticized Husted’s likely 2026 challenger, a Democrat seeking a return to the Senate, as “a failure” and “utterly out of touch with Ohio.” “Sherrod Brown was a failure as a senator – aggressively attacking innovation, relentlessly opposing President Trump, and utterly out of touch with Ohio,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., wrote in a post on the social media platform X, assailing her former Senate colleague, who lost his bid for reelection to a fourth term last November. Sherrod Brown was a failure as a senator – aggressively attacking innovation, relentlessly opposing President Trump, and utterly out of touch with Ohio. I’m proud to endorse @JonHusted, a proven leader who will fight for Ohio’s future and deliver Ws for Ohio in the Senate. https://t.co/EE3mnM8PuA— Cynthia Lummis ? (@CynthiaMLummis) August 19, 2025 Husted, who previously served as Ohio’s lieutenant governor, joined the Senate in January after being appointed to the seat by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. Husted, who will turn 58 on Monday, took the Senate seat vacated by JD Vance, who was elected vice president in November. A statement from Lummis highlighted grievances against Brown, as well as inflation rates under the Biden administration, with a warning about the effect on Ohio: “For years, Sherrod Brown led a relentless and unfair war against digital asset innovation in America. As the former Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Brown repeatedly blocked digital asset legislation and worked to stifle the crypto industry that created jobs and economic opportunity across the country. “Brown’s extremist policies don’t just hurt businesses—they devastate working-class Ohioans who have invested in Bitcoin and other digital assets as part of their financial planning. Thousands of Ohio citizens, and many younger voters, rely on digital assets for everything from international remittances to protecting their savings from Biden-era inflation. Yet Brown champions punitive laws designed to destroy their ability to access these financial tools and restrict their monetary freedom.” Lummis also linked Brown to liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and further elaborated on what she views as their intransigent opposition to digital assets. “While other countries were welcoming the digital asset industry and the jobs they create, Brown conspired with Elizabeth Warren to push policies that would force these companies to leave America and take their high-paying jobs elsewhere. Brown and Warren’s approach ignores how digital assets have revolutionized finance for millions of Americans who don’t have access to traditional banking, making it cheaper and faster to send money to family members while giving people more control over their own money and financial decisions. “To put it clearly: Brown’s anti-crypto stance put Ohio at a competitive disadvantage while limiting the financial freedom of his own former constituents. “States like Wyoming, Texas, and Arizona have attracted billions in crypto investment and thousands of jobs by embracing digital innovation. Meanwhile, Brown’s disastrous and failed record sent a clear message that Ohio was hostile to the financial technology sector and had no respect for its citizens’ monetary choices.” Lummis closed by praising Husted; Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, who defeated Brown in November; and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for governor as a Republican. “Ohio deserves a senator who champions digital assets as both American innovation and individual financial liberty—not someone like Brown who views these opportunities as threats to be eliminated through government overreach,” she said. “Crypto voters in Ohio delivered a crushing blow in 2024 when they overwhelmingly threw Sherrod Brown out of office and replaced him with Senator Bernie Moreno, a leader who champions digital assets and now serves as a leader on the Digital Assets Subcommittee, which I chair in the Senate,” Lummis added, concluding: Ohio voters decisively rejected Brown’s out-of-touch extremism, and they will deliver another resounding victory when they elect Jon Husted to the Senate in 2026. I’m pleased to endorse Sen. Jon Husted and know that he, alongside both Sen. Moreno and future Gov. Vivek Ramaswamy, will be fierce champions for the people of Ohio. Husted and Moreno voted in favor of the GENIUS Act, a bill on standardizing regulations for stablecoins, which passed the Senate in June with bipartisan support and sponsorship. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law last month. Among those sponsoring the bill, in addition to Lummis, were Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The Daily Signal reached out to Brown’s campaign for comment. A Lummis campaign spokesperson provided The Daily Signal with a further statement on the Wyoming lawmaker’s view of the state of the 2026 race. “Sherrod Brown failed the people of America with his insane anti-Trump, anti-crypto, anti-innovation obsession. Sen. Lummis believes that Ohio deserves two strong conservatives fighting for the America First agenda in Washington and isn’t afraid to make that support clear. It’s time to officially retire Sherrod Brown and his far-left agenda,” the spokesperson said. With Brown’s entrance into the race, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball and Cook Political Report consider the contest to “Lean Republican.” The post Wyoming GOP Senator Hails Ohio’s Husted, Blasts Democrat Seeking Comeback as ‘a Failure’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trump Hits the NOPE Button on Fed Approvals for New Wind and Solar

CNN used to use the tag line “facts first” in their advertisement campaigns, and on Tuesday’s NewsNIght, host Abby Phillip demonstrated why they stopped. In their discussions about racism and President Trump’s crackdown on crime in Washington, D.C., Phillip shouted down commentator Batya Ungar-Sargon when she attempted to cite facts and statistics. Spurred on to talk about racism in America because of a viral moment that happened on the show last week involving Jillian Michaels, Phillip kicked off Tuesday night’s episode with a monologue about slavery before going to her panel to discuss Trump’s new focus on the Smithsonian’s African American History Museum. “[H]e's focused on one thing, and that is that there's too much slavery being mentioned in the United States of America. That's very odd, Batya, honestly,” she directed the conversation to Ungar-Sargon. Ungar-Sargon started by noting she was honored to be part of the discussion and proceeded to recall what sociologists called “Great Awokening” where “white progressives suddenly start obsessing over race in a way that was actually far to the left of where Hispanic and Black Americans were on this issue.” Citing the findings of the sociologists, Ungar-Sargon began to read off how liberal media outlets had flooded the zone with woke terms and phrases, essentially trying to change the cultural zeitgeist, but Phillip wasn’t having it (Click “expand”): UNGAR-SARGON: So, for example, in 2010, the words white supremacy were mentioned 75 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times. PHILLIP: But the media's different from museums. UNGAR-SARGON: In 2020, the words white supremacy were mentioned 700 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and 2,400 times in NPR, the word racism 4,000 times in 2020, the words white and racial privilege from 2013 to 2019 grew by 1,500 percent in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the word slavery itself exponentially skyrocketed as a percentage of words. I'm offering this only to suggest -- PHILLIP: Yes, I understand. I'm just wondering what do you think is the problem so with talking about slavery, white supremacy, racism, et cetera, what's the problem? UNGAR-SARGON: So, the point I'm trying to make here is that liberals will say, well, this is a reflection of reality. But, of course, it isn't. This is a reflection of a newfound obsession that was driven by the media. And that doesn't reflect well, I guess I'm not either the moral evil or the historical accuracy. Phillip responded by lashing out and interrogating Ungar-Sargon on if she thought racism and white supremacy were real things. “You don't think it's a reflection of reality. Based on what?” she chided. “Based on the idea that those things don't exist based on that white, based on white supremacy doesn't exist, racism doesn't exist, that we shouldn't be talking about it anymore?”     Even with Ungar-Sargon saying all those things were “evil,” Phillip was still down her guest’s throat and suggesting Ungar-Sargon might be fine with Jim Crow laws (Click “expand”): UNGAR-SARGON: Based on the idea, obviously, all these things, I think, are evil, but there's not more slavery now to the -- PHILLIP: Yes. But I think part of the problem -- (CROSSTALKS) PHILLIP: Part of the problem is that back -- you know, not that long ago, in the 50s, 60s, even beyond that, when there was actual Jim Crow happening in this country, people were actually treating black people as second class citizens, we weren't talking about those things at all. Those words virtually never mentioned. So, is that that better? Was it better then or was it worse then? Later in the show, as they were discussing the crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital, Phillip attempted to shout down Ungar-Sargon for citing crime statistic that showed things were greatly improving. Phillip decried that the stats only covered about a week, despite the fact that that was about how long the operation had been underway (Click “expand”): UNGAR-SARGON: Everybody is sitting here saying they're doing nothing, that they've done nothing. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: Robberies down 46 percent since Trump -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: Okay, hold on a second. UNGAR-SARGON: Carjacking, down 83 percent. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: Car theft, down 21 percent. (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: That’s not a real stat. JENNINGS: It's from a D.C. policeman. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: -- down 22 percent. It’s from D.C. police. Obviously, it's related to the fact that these people on the streets -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: You're talking about -- you're talking about a week's worth of statistics. Citing an example of how the media have been “atrocious” on the D.C. crime story, Ungar-Sargon called out the Washington Post and New York Times for sharing a “totally false” map of the arrest locations in the district: Okay, thank you. The Washington Post put a map, okay? This map was supposed to show from a data point of view where the arrests were happening, alleging to prove that they were not happening in the crime-ridden cities “based on visuals and accounts from posts, reporters and social media posts.” It was retweeted by New York Times reporters, and it was totally false! But before going to a commercial break, Phillip lashed out at Republicans for caring about crime in Democrat-controlled cites. “And if Republicans wanted to try running cities, they should run in those cities, try to get elected, and maybe try to fix those problems,” she whined. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN NewsNight August 19, 2025 10:14:07 p.m. Eastern (…) ABBY PHILLIP: I also come back to why the focus so much on slavery when it comes to rewriting history? There's a lot of history that it's in these museums, but he's focused on one thing, and that is that there's too much slavery being mentioned in the United States of America. That's very odd, Batya, honestly. BATYA UNGAR-SARGON: So, I want to start by saying I actually agree with everything that's been said, and I loved your opening. And so I offer these comments very humbly, because it's an honor to be included in this conversation, which is very solemn, and I think we all understand that and we are all looking for the common ground here. And so what I'm about to say, I don't mean in any way to negate that tone, but starting around 2011, 2012, sociologists started to notice a shift in white liberal opinion polling to where white progressives became more extreme in their views on race than black and Hispanic Americans. And they called this, the sociologists did, called it the great awokening. And when they postulated, where did this come from? Why did white progressives suddenly start obsessing over race in a way that was actually far to the left of where Hispanic and Black Americans were on this issue, they found that the media had shifted radically how it talked about these issues. So, for example, in 2010, the words white supremacy were mentioned 75 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times. PHILLIP: But the media's different from museums. UNGAR-SARGON: In 2020, the words white supremacy were mentioned 700 times in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and 2,400 times in NPR, the word racism 4,000 times in 2020, the words white and racial privilege from 2013 to 2019 grew by 1,500 percent in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the word slavery itself exponentially skyrocketed as a percentage of words. I'm offering this only to suggest -- PHILLIP: Yes, I understand. I'm just wondering what do you think is the problem so with talking about slavery, white supremacy, racism, et cetera, what's the problem? UNGAR-SARGON: So, the point I'm trying to make here is that liberals will say, well, this is a reflection of reality. But, of course, it isn't. This is a reflection of a newfound obsession that was driven by the media. And that doesn't reflect well, I guess I'm not either the moral evil or the historical accuracy. PHILLIP: I do want to dive into what you mean by that, because you say that it's -- you don't think it's a reflection of reality. Based on what? Based on the idea that those things don't exist based on that white, based on white supremacy doesn't exist, racism doesn't exist, that we shouldn't be talking about it anymore? UNGAR-SARGON: Based on the idea, obviously, all these things, I think, are evil, but there's not more slavery now to the -- PHILLIP: Yes. But I think part of the problem -- (CROSSTALKS) PHILLIP: Part of the problem is that back -- you know, not that long ago, in the 50s, 60s, even beyond that, when there was actual Jim Crow happening in this country, people were actually treating black people as second class citizens, we weren't talking about those things at all. Those words virtually never mentioned. So, is that that better? Was it better then or was it worse then? UNGAR-SARGON: That 2013 is the same as the -- BAKARI SELLERS: But you're missing -- I respectfully not have this debate many times. UNGAR-SARGON: Do you really think that there's as big a difference between the 1960s -- PHILLIP: That's not my point. My point is that the use of the language in present day, or the lack of the use of the language back when racism was apparent, every single day in the streets of America, doesn't reflect really anything except perhaps a better awareness of the reality that we live in as a country. SELLERS: That's not the point. UNGAR-SARGON: Do you think the country was more racist in terms -- SELLERS: That's not the point. PHILLIP: I didn't say anything about whether the country was more racist now. (…) 10:46:21 p.m. Eastern PHILLIP: I'm not saying every city, but many of the cities in the top states are led by the Democrats. SELLERS: But that's actually -- PHILLIP: But that's because a lot of urban areas are run by Democrats. That's not a controversial thing. My point is, as not every city, some of them. My point is, even if that were the most important factors that party registration of who runs the city, those governors have the ability to step in if they wanted to and they are not. Why are they not doing that? UNGAR-SARGON: I think it's so amazing that the line on the left has gone from how dare, you know, Trump invoke the National Guard to D.C. to saying why aren't the National Guard being sent to other cities? Bakari, you keep saying they're protecting the Lululemons like it's a joke. I mean, is that really the message the Democrats want to be giving out? Like, where are -- the side that thinks you should be able to, you know, burn down the Lululemon, steal from the Lululemon? Let me just give some data. SELLERS: Lululemon hasn't gotten this much free advertising in a while. (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: But why are they not protecting the cities? Why are they -- hold on. UNGAR-SARGON: Everybody is sitting here saying they're doing nothing, that they've done nothing. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: Robberies down 46 percent since Trump -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: Okay, hold on a second. UNGAR-SARGON: Carjacking, down 83 percent. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: Car theft, down 21 percent. (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: That’s not a real stat. JENNINGS: It's from a D.C. policeman. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: -- down 22 percent. It’s from D.C. police. Obviously, it's related to the fact that these people on the streets -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: You're talking about -- you're talking about a week's worth of statistics. That's the first thing. (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: The second thing is that you skirted past the question that I asked, which is why -- why are these governors not policing crime in their own states? Why? UNGAR-SARGON: Abby, you're against Trump bringing the National Guard into D.C.! PHILLIP: I am conceding to you -- I am conceding to you your point, which is that this needs to be addressed, that crime is a problem. Maybe if your point is that the National Guard should be involved, let's take that as a given. Why are they not involved in their own states? UNGAR-SARGON: No, I have no idea why they didn't send them to their own states. SELLERS: But Batya and Abby are both wrong. Can I just say -- can I just say one thing? UNGAR-SARGON: But I do want to make one more point very quickly. SELLERS: Yes, please. UNGAR-SARGON: The media has been atrocious on this. Scott pointed out, 48 percent of the arrests were in the two most crime-ridden wards. (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: -- percent of the non-immigration arrests. Immigration arrests accounted for almost half of the arrests. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: Yes, yes. 48 percent of the -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: So, you're really talking about a quarter -- UNGAR-SARGON: One hundred arrests. 100 arrests out of 200 arrests. PHILLIP: You are talking about a quarter -- okay. But let's not play with statistics. UNGAR-SARGON: Okay. Okay. PHILLIP: You're talking about a quarter of arrests in a city where the – UNGAR-SARGON: 100 arrests out of 200. PHILLIP: Where most of the crime is happening in a certain part of a city. So -- (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: Can I jump in? No, no, one second. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR-SARGON: Wait, I need to make my point. (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: It's not a great statistic. (CROSSTALK) SELLERS: Get it out. Get it out. Come on. UNGAR-SARGON: Okay, thank you. The Washington Post put a map, okay? This map was supposed to show from a data point of view where the arrests were happening, alleging to prove that they were not happening in the crime-ridden cities “based on visuals and accounts from posts, reporters and social media posts.” It was retweeted by New York Times reporters, and it was totally false! (…)

On Wednesday's Morning Joe, Scarborough offered a profoundly deceptive defense of DEI.  Scarborough claimed that the 'E' in DEI stands for "equality." But as he well knows, it stands for "equity"—the diametric opposite of equality.  The American ideal is equality of opportunity. Equity stands for equal outcomes, regardless of merit. It's the difference between the right of people to the "pursuit of happiness" and the government being in the happiness-providing business—for favored groups.  Scarborough also claimed that "diversity" is fundamentally American, citing E Pluribus Unum—out of many one. But DEI advocates don't call for assimilation into "one" America of shared values. To the contrary, they promote multiculturalism, in which there is no interest in assimilation. They encourage people to remain in their separate identity groups. Just as they've divided museums.   JOE SCARBOROUGH: In law school, we always were warned about a slippery slope.  Look at the slippery slope here. We start with attacks against affirmative action, and then we go to attacks against, like, equality becomes a bad word.  Diversity becomes a bad word, which, of course, you know, E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. Diversity is etched, etched in marble in Washington, D.C. It is who we are. As Ronald Reagan said in his final, his farewell speech to America, when he left the White House, it is diversity that makes us strong. It is a diversity that keeps us young. When we stop being diverse, we will stop being strong.  And inclusion. [Laughs] Who's against inclusion, right? So we go from attacking affirmative action, to attacking equality, to attacking diversity, E Pluribus Unum.  Scarborough also cited Reagan's last speech as president on January 19, 1989 -- it was not his "farewell" speech, which came on January 11 -- in which he praised immigration from all corners of the world as keeping America young and vibrant. He didn't cite "diversity" as defined by the DEI crowd. What Scarborough omitted was that in that speech, Reagan also said that immigrants: "Believe in the American dream . . . They understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American. They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America, the greatest, freest nation in the world -- the last, best hope of man on Earth." The problem is that too many immigrants, in the mold of Ilhan Omar, come to America and promptly turn into some of its harshest critics. They see the American Dream as a fraud, and rather than viewing America as "the greatest, freest nation in the world," deny American exceptionalism.   Scarborough ended his pitch for DEI by saying: "Inclusion! Who's against inclusion?" He laughed [see screencap] as he said it, as if to say, who could be crazy enough to oppose inclusion? Actually, most Americans oppose inclusion—as defined and applied by DEI enthusiasts. Americans oppose DEI-style "inclusion" when it is used as a pretext to hire, promote, or grant college admission to less-qualified people who check boxes approved by the liberal powers that be. "Inclusion" is a watch word for putting boys in girls' sports, and drag queens in public libraries, but it often leads to excluding conservatives. Scarborough began his spiel by saying that opposition to affirmative action is a "slippery slope" that leads to opposition to DEI. The real slippery slope is the one Joe Scarborough has slid down: from proud conservative congressman to someone reduced to taking a paycheck to deceptively promote DEI.

The DOJ missive is not a legal argument. It is pure political intimidation.