News The Brave and the Bold New Batman Movie in the Works With Birds of Prey Writer on Board Gadzooks! The film will focus on the Caped Crusader and Damian Wayne as Robin By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on January 21, 2026 Credit: DC Comics Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: DC Comics DC Studios is moving forward with their plans for a non-Matt Reeves Batman film. According to The Hollywood Reporter (first reported by the InSneider newsletter) Christina Hodson—whose previous credits include Birds of Prey (ed note: EEEEE!!!!), Bumblebee, and The Flash—is working on a script for The Brave and the Bold. The movie will focus on the relationship between Batman and Robin, and the Robin in this instance will be Damian Wayne, the biological son Batman didn’t know he had, who meets up with his dad after being raised by a group of assassins.   The Brave and the Bold was one of the first ten projects that DC Studios announced after James Gunn and Peter Safran took over. Andy Muschietti (IT: Welcome to Derry) has been attached to the project since it was first announced, though THR reports that he might not be the director for whenever the movie makes it to production because of scheduling issues. That timing thing is currently nebulous; it’s not clear when Hodson will have a script ready to go, but DC Studios doesn’t seem to be concerned if it’s a few years before a Caped Crusader who isn’t Robert Pattinson heads to the big screen. Pattinson is currently starring as the Bat in Matt Reeves’ The Batman: Part II. That movie takes place in a separate universe from other DC films under Gunn and Safran, and there is reportedly a concerted effort to make the DC Universe Batman give off different vibes than Pattinson’s emo Bruce Wayne. The question remains, of course, as to who will eventually play Batman and Robin in this latest iteration of the characters. Time will tell, and we’ll keep an eye out for the Bat Signal announcing further news. [end-mark] The post New Batman Movie in the Works With <i>Birds of Prey</i> Writer on Board appeared first on Reactor.

Republican California Assemblyman David Tangipa told The Daily Signal he has filed an emergency injunction with the United States Supreme Court to challenge the Golden State’s new congressional map. Tangipa’s motion comes after The Daily Signal reported that Tangipa had the desire to bring the case before the Supreme Court after a federal district court refused to hear the case. “The Supreme Court should pick up this case as soon as possible,” Tangipa told The Daily Signal. “It is very clear that race was a predominant factor, and the violations of the 14th Amendment cannot continue.” Tangipa alleges that the map violates the 14th and 15th amendments of the U.S. Constitution by redrawing five congressional districts, currently held by Republicans, on the basis on race. If the court decides by Feb. 9 to take the assemblyman’s case, the court will pause the state’s new congressional map and conduct a review of the map’s constitutionality. ? Officially taking Governor Newsom to the Supreme Court over Prop 50 redistricting. Emergency injunction filed.You’re going to hear a lot of: “If Texas could do it, why can’t California?”Here’s the key difference.California’s mapmaker openly admitted race was a driving… pic.twitter.com/dfcIUZTr3r— David Tangipa (@DavidTangipa) January 20, 2026 The Golden State’s new map was enabled by California voters’ approval of Proposition 50 in November, a ballot measure that handed redistricting control from the state’s independent commission to state elected officials. Proposition 50 and the new map have been supported by major California Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Tangipa recently stated that the map’s author, Paul Mitchell, “openly admitted” to racially gerrymandering the new congressional map to give Democratic voters an advantage. “California’s mapmaker openly admitted that race was a driving factor,” Tangipa wrote on X. “He said the number one thing he focused on was creating a Latino majority/minority district.” Tangipa remains optimistic that the court will agree to review the case. “We believe the court will take this case since the split decision was very clear,” Tangipa told The Daily Signal. “We have asked the courts to issue a temporary pause while this is being debated over.” “Hopefully, this is wrapped up by the second week of February,” Tangipa added. The post California Lawmaker Files Emergency Injunction With SCOTUS Over Redistricting Map appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Conservative-leaning justices had tough questions for whether President Donald Trump can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, in a Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on monetary policy and the economy.  Trump had attempted to oust Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook based on alleged misstatements she made on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing.  The question in the case Trump v. Cook is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, or whether the institution created in 1913 has independence from the executive branch. At oral arguments in the case on Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the court should consider the severity of an accusation in determining whether a firing is justified.  “If she were accused of murder or something like that, if we’re talking about something that was really an infamous crime, should we take the nature of the crime into account?” Barrett asked.  Solicitor General John Sauer said the court should consider the “sweeping, powerful authority over the entire United States economy” that a Federal Reserve governor has to set interest rates. He said the court should also consider how the board member’s objectionable conduct looks to “ordinary Americans.” “There’s the appearance of having played fast and loose, or at least been grossly negligent, in getting favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, currently the subject of a criminal investigation by Trump’s Justice Department over allegations of misspending, was present in the chamber on Wednesday for oral arguments. Members of the Federal Reserve board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president removed a board member.  The Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy, has a heightened role for perceived independence. It is also funded primarily by private financial institutions, and not Congress.   Cook contested her firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, and that the act includes due process. The administration argues the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the board of governors, and contends the allegations of Cook’s mortgage misstatements meet the “for cause” standard. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was concerned that a “law bar” for the firing would weaken, if not “shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.” Sauer said the administration is not arguing that Fed board members can be fired without cause.  “In a sense, it’s a very high bar,” Sauer said. “It does protect them from the one thing that Congress was apparently most worried about, which is removal for policy disagreement.” Kavanaugh replied that Cook’s firing could set a political precedent: “What goes around comes around.” “A current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president or January 20, 2033,” Kavanaugh said. “Once these tools are unleashed, they’re used by both sides.” Sauer replied that “the president has always had this tool to remove governors for financial improprieties,” and that in recent years, governors have been “credibly accused of financial improprieties” but chose to resign. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and other justices suggested sending the case back to the lower courts. However, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why the court should delay deciding the matter.  “I don’t quite understand what sending it back [to lower courts] would be for, other than airing of the same sort of issues that we’ve been airing. this morning,” Roberts said.  In an emergency order in October, the Supreme Court ruled that Cook could keep her job until the case is decided.  By contrast, Justice Samuel Alito asked why the case must happen “in a hurried manner?” “You began by laying out what you claim to be the factual basis for the for-cause removal. But no court has ever explored those facts,” Alito said to Sauer. “Are the mortgage applications even in the record in this case?” Sauer said, “The text of the social media post that screenshots to the mortgage applications is in the record, but I don’t recall the, the paperwork itself is in the record.” Trump had posted a screenshot of Cook’s mortgage paperwork in a social media post. Alito also pressed Cook’s attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, about the assertion that conduct before an official takes office could not be grounds for their removal. “Suppose that the office holder was permitted to resign from a previous job under a non-disclosure agreement based on a long and egregious pattern of sexual misconduct. That would not be cause for removal?” Alito asked.  Clement replied that would “not be ‘for cause’,” but “would certainly be a basis for impeachment.” Alito followed, “How about if, after the person assumes office, videos are disclosed in which the officeholder is expressing deep admiration for Hitler or for the Klan?” Clement replied to the hypothetical, “I’m going to stick with my position, and I’m going to say that’s an official that would be impeached in a heartbeat.” The post Hitler, Klan, Murder Hypotheticals Abound in SCOTUS Arguments on Trump Fed Firing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Closing Arguments Today in the Adrian Gonzales Trial

Nattering About Trump Organization

It may have been used by Neanderthals or Homo heidelbergensis.

The 17-year-old began suffering delusions he was American football player Paul Lowe, less than halfway through the experiment.

Before flying out to Davos, President Donald Trump sat down with Katie Pavlich for an extensive interview on her new and eponymous program. The interview was significant, newsworthy, and a refreshing departure from the usual Elitist Media fare.  Here are some of the most notable moments: The rapid-fire interview went straight to business and opened with a question on the day’s biggest story: the anti-ICE protests in Minnesota that escalated to a church incursion and subsequent DoJ civil rights investigation. First question in the Pavlich-Trump interview is on Minnesota: Trump denounces the professional protesters, calls Don Lemon a "loser" pic.twitter.com/RDYLqRpluc — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 KATIE PAVLICH: Thank you, Mr. President for having us here at The White House to mark the one-year anniversary to your second term in The White House. Minnesota continues to be Ground Zero for the left's war against your deportation efforts. Just today you saw the Department of Justice issue a number of subpoenas against Democratic officials there- Governor Tim Walz, the mayor of Minneapolis and the Attorney General, Keith Ellison. What is the status of Minneapolis and what is your administration doing to ensure that your deportation efforts can continue in that city and around the country?  DONALD TRUMP: I think you have two problems: number one, you have $19 billion dollars worth of stolen money, at .I think the number's going to be much higher, and you have that in California, you have it in other states also, I believe, when you- when you go through it. So that's a big problem. And then you have the agitators, anarchists. You know, I watched sort of everything. I see it all. And I see people screaming, “shame, shame”. You know, this is not people that are, like, living in Minnes- these are professional paid people. They’re like actors. I mean, I watched the guy last night in the church. He was- and not just Don Lemon, Don Lemon’s a loser.  But what you got last night in the church- this guy's a professional guy and he actually admits to it. He gets paid a lot of money to go and cause trouble. And you see that. But they don't see is that ICEgets rid of murders, drug dealers, Tren de Aragua. I mean, the worst gang in the world anywhere in the world- MS-13, Tren de... But these are the worst gangs and they get rid of them. They take them out- and I say, something's wrong when a place like Minnesota, which is a good place, it’s got a horrible governor. It’s got horrible people- this Ilhan Omar is horrible.  I mean, she comes from a country that doesn't even have a government, they have nothing. And she comes here and she lectures us on the Constitution. She's got constitutional rights. She's just horrible. Somebody said she's worth 30 million dollars. Therefore, she's obviously a very dishonest person. And she should be looked at for that, so you have a couple of things. You have the money thing and then you have the- all of the fake nonsense going on and- screaming. The people, they’re so professional. They hold their cameras up high and it's a terrible thing going on in Minnesota.  Pavlich quickly moves to a potential invocation of the Insurrection Act as a result of the unrest in Minnesota. Trump broke news by assessing that an invocation of the Insurrection act is not yet necessary. Trump, on the Insurrection Act: “I don’t think it is yet. It might be at some point. It is actually very common—you know, with me they’ll make it like a big deal—but, it’s been used by over 40 percent of the presidents during their term. It's something I would have no problem… pic.twitter.com/Co8XMyzaW1 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 PAVLICH: Well, you've threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act if the governor did not get things under control, they clearly don't have things under control and don't seem to want to get them under control yet. These activists storming churches now. They're still impeding these investigations of child sex offenders, murders. At a press under stay at The White House you held up a number of photos of the people that ICE has been supporting. The Insurrection Act would allow you- requires, essentially, that if federal law cannot be enforced, that you can invoke and it would allow it to be enforced. So where are you with that threat? Do you still think it's necessary?  TRUMP:I don't think it is yet, it might be at some point. It is actually very common, you know, with me, they'll make it like a big deal, but, uh, it's been used by over 40% of the presidents during their term. Uh, it's something I would have no problem doing if I think we needed it. We have great people in ICE, uh, they're strong people, they're smart people. And I don't think it's necessary yet, but I, you know, I see they're building up like, "Oh, if he ever did that." Uh, over 40% of the presidents used it. Some presidents used it actually many times. And it does make life a lot easier. Uh, you don't go through the court system, you don't, you know, it's just a much easier thing to do. But I don't think we need it, uh, at this point, and hopefully we won't need it. But I would, I would not have any problem with invoking it if we needed it. The conversation continued along that immigration track before moving to Greenland. Here, Trump explains his national security rationale behind the emphasis on Greenland. Trump on the Greenland imperative: its location is critical to national security and the Golden Dome. pic.twitter.com/gZLrjDed0o — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 PAVLICH: You're on your way to Davos this week. TRUMP: Right. PAVLICH: And there's a lot of talk about Greenland, of course. Uh, European leaders are not so happy about your increased pressure to acquire Greenland. For the average American who maybe doesn't understand why the United States is pursuing this piece of property -- TRUMP: Right. PAVLICH: -- what, what do you say to them? Why do we need Greenland? TRUMP: It's located in such a place that is literally so important for national security. When you come to Russia, when you come to China, a lot of Chinese boats, a lot of, uh, Russian, you know, ships, military ships, uh, it's, uh, in a location that is very important for our national security and also for the international security of the world, literally. It's a very big piece of land. It's really cold, got a lot of ice on it, so it's not like we're gonna put, build a nice real estate development or anything. PAVLICH: No golf course on Greenland? TRUMP: Well, I don't see a golf course. You'd have to be very, you'd have to wear a lot of very heavy clothes. Like we're not gonna set any records with golf. But I will tell you that it's very important, uh, to the United States. And, uh, as an example, we're building the Golden Dome, which we're gonna have a dome over the country. If somebody wants to shoot missiles, it'll not come out of the air like match decks. It'll, it'll go very nicely. It's amazing. You know, Ronald Reagan wanted this many, many years ago. He was ahead of his time, but the problem is you didn't have equipment that worked. Today, the equipment is unbelievable. You've seen it. I mean, we can knock a missile coming at thousands of miles an hour. It's like, and you get literally 100% of them. The technology is so good. So we're building a Golden Dome and having Greenland makes it a much more effective Golden Dome. PAVLICH: So you're saying Greenland is essential for the security of the United States in the free Western world -- TRUMP: Correct. PAVLICH: -- for the sake of missile defense? TRUMP: That is correct. PAVLICH: And that's why we need Greenland. TRUMP: That is correct. And even beyond missile defense, but it is so important for the Golden Dome. It's so important for just national and actually international security. Moving to domestic policy, Pavlich asks Trump about domestic policy goals- Trump calls on Congress to codify his executive orders: Trump calls on Congress to codify his executive orders ahead of the midterm pic.twitter.com/BMabgSHrbs — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 PAVLICH: So, looking back here at home domestically, last year you worked with Congress very closely, Republicans in charge of both the House and the Senate, and of course you're in the White House and you worked with them on the Big Beautiful Bill. For 2026, especially in a midterm election year, what is your goal for Congress in terms of getting your agenda through? What, what is on the agenda? What expectations do you have for, for Congress? TRUMP: Well, one of the things I'd like to do, you know, we pass so many executive orders. I have great executive orders that are really common sense and good and have, I mean, like water coming out of a sink, uh, the water wouldn't come out. They had all sorts of ridiculous restrictions. I took all of that off. So, I pass so many different things like that and much more important things, but like that. They are, they are important, they're quality of life. And I'd like to have all of that confirmed by Congress if we can. And we've done a lot of it. We've done probably 35, 40%. I'd like to get them all, uh, confirmed, every one of them. PAVLICH: So, you want your executive orders codified in law, so to speak? TRUMP: Uh, ideally we get them codified and we get them codified soon, yes. This kicked off a segment on domestic economics where Trump asserted that tariffs could replace the income tax, expects a boom in 2026, and stresses the need to expand the electrical grid in order to sustain AI. Shifting to foreign policy, Pavlich asked about the sonic weapon deployed during the raid to capture Nicolas Maduro. Trump acknowledged the existence of such weapons.  Trump demurs when asked about the sonic weapon deployed during the Maduro raid: "We have weapons that nobody knows about. And I say it's probably good not to talk about it but we have some amazing weapons. That was an amazing attack." Trump cites the Maduro regime as a root cause… pic.twitter.com/uBCX6JdXcQ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 PAVLICH: Speaking of Venezuela, there was a, a weapon used, a sonic weapon that took out many of the Cuban bodyguards that were used to, to  TRUMP: Yeah. PAVLICH: -- defend Maduro. Uh, lots of people saw the details about that weapon and were concerned. Is that something that Americans should be afraid of, something the United States is combating? TRUMP: Well, yeah. It's something I don't wanna, nobody else has it. We have weapons that nobody knows about. And I say it's probably good not to talk about it, but we have some amazing weapons. That was an amazing attack. Don't forget, that house was in the middle of a fort, an army base, a big one. A lot of soldiers, and they came in and they did their job. We had, we lost nobody. PAVLICH: Uh, do you feel like, uh, Maduro's gonna make some kind of deal when it comes to the charges he's up against to give you intelligence about what the Russians and Iranians are doing in his country?  TRUMP: Well, I'm leaving, uh, that up to the Department of Justice. We'll see how it all goes. But, uh, look, he killed a lot of people. I mean, you look at what happened with the drugs. And he also was responsible more than any other country for emptying his jails, his mental institutions. Just emptied them out and brought him into the United States. And that's what we're talking when we talk about Minnesota, when we talk about all this crime stuff. We're getting rid of, Biden left us a mess. We're getting rid of the mess. He had open borders. He had an open border policy. So Maduro came in and let all of his criminals into the United States because of Biden's open border. They didn't even question. They'd look at some people, they'd say, "They're criminals. I don't want to get into it. " They'd say, "They're criminals." And it's, "Come on in."  And what we're doing is getting them out. And, and believe me, it takes a big part of my time. This was a self-imposed error. This was just a terrible, what they did to this country can never be forgotten. He was the worst president. And what Biden did, and, you know, it's the people that, that use the autopen, you can call it a lot of different things, but he was surrounded by people, the beautiful resolute desk in the Oval Office, which I'll show you right after this.  PAVLICH: Oh, fantastic. TRUMP: But, uh, it's beautiful, but it was surrounded by radical left lunatics. And what they did to this country can never be forgotten. They let in millions of, of criminal, you know, you have probably 25 million people that were let into this country, and no checking, no vetting, no anything. They come, many of them came from prisons. Many of them came from mental institutions --  PAVLICH: Yeah. TRUMP: -- gang members, drug dealers. They just let 'em into our country -- PAVLICH: Yeah. TRUMP: -- and I've got to get 'em out. Pavlich then asks Trump about Iran issuing fresh assassination threats, which provides a notable quote: Trump, on retaliation against an Iranian assassination attempt: Well, they shouldn't be doing it, but I've left notification. Anything ever happens, we're going to blow the—the whole country is going to get blown up. So, we've, you know, originally, Biden should have said… pic.twitter.com/OLASDoNGwv — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 PAVLICH: Iran. Uh, you mentioned in the press conference today that you did in the briefing room with reporters that they canceled or at least put on hold hundreds of hangings that were scheduled. TRUMP: Yeah. PAVLICH: However, there are reports that they are still burning thousands of protestors alive. They also issued an assassination threat against you over the weekend. I know that you can't talk about what's on the table, but what is your response to Iran's, uh, leadership in the regime continuing to taunt you, threaten you, especially given over the weekend you said it's time for new leadership in Iran. TRUMP: Well, they shouldn't be doing it, but I've left notification, anything ever happens, we're gonna blow the hell, the whole country's gonna get blown up. So w- -- we've, you know, originally, uh, Biden should've said something, you know, when they made a statement. We always said, "Why isn't Biden saying anything?" Because he didn't. But a president has to defend a president, like if I were here and they were making that threat to somebody, even, not even a president, but somebody, like they did with me, uh, I would absolutely hit them so hard. But I have very firm instructions, anything happens, they're gonna wipe 'em off the face of this earth. Pavlich asked the legacy question, with Trump saying he’d like to be remembered as a great president.  Trump on his legacy: I would love my legacy to be that I was a great president. pic.twitter.com/PosrXnnImz — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 21, 2026 PAVLICH: What do you want your legacy to be that now that you have three le- -- years left in your term? If you can pick one. TRUMP: I would love my legacy to be that I was a great president, and a great president covers a lot of territory. Uh, we were safe, we were prosperous, we were doing well, we were happy as a country. Uh, I'd like to be known as a great president. A great president takes it all in. Towards the end of the interview, Trump joked that the Democrats will impeach him for having a good economy, should they retake the House. The interview ended with Trump’s thoughts on the dangers of the presidency, then proceeded to a panel segment that was cut short due to Air Force One’s late emergency landing due to electrical issues.  The interview proved to be a refreshing change of pace from the usual Elitist Media slop. Pavlich appears not to be consumed with the narcissist impulse to be the story. This allowed Pavlich to be efficient with her time, engage Trump on a wide array of matters, and emerge with a very newsworthy interview. A home run all around.

Joe Scarborough is obsessed with "Rape Island." He climbed up on that hobby horse no fewer than seven times in Morning Joe's opening segment today.  Scarborough's motive, revealed at the end of his spiel, was to claim that President Trump is falling into a trap by asserting that Denmark has no legal right to Greenland other than having landed boats there hundreds of years ago..  Scarborough turned to an unusual source: a New York Post article reporting it appears that there was a treaty in 1917 by which the US recognized Denmark's right to Greenland in return for Denmark granting the US rights to islands in the West Indies that included what eventually became Epstein Island, or "Rape Island," as Scarborough loves calling it.  So, according to Scarborough, questioning Denmark's right to Greenland will inevitably lead to something Trump would like to avoid: mentions of Jeffrey Epstein and the files that the Trump administration has not yet completely released. Meanwhile, is there a more boorish, big-footing, liberal media TV host than Scarborough? He embarrassed Mika [see screencap] with his multiple mentions of Rape Island, and arrogated to himself Mika's traditional role of introducing the show, inducing head-shaking exasperation from his wife.  And despite inviting co-host Jonathan Lemire to explain the history of the treaty, Scarborough didn't let him get more than a few words out before cutting him off to give his own explanation of the relevant history.  And before letting Lemire (briefly) speak, Scarborough humiliated co-host Willie Geist, forcing him to admit that he hadn't read the New York Post story on the treaty. There's a more apt term for the likes of Joe Scarborough, but NewsBusters being a family-friendly site, we'll stick with "boor."  Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 1/21/26 6:00 am ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a deal made! A deal's a deal.  MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That's a different deal.  SCARBOROUGH: Greenland for Rape Island, but we'll talk about that in a second. That's what you call a tease.  Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, January the 21st [Mika shakes her head because it's traditionally her role to introduce the show that way.] Willie, it's so good to have you here. We also have Jon Lemire. Are you aware, Willie? He does work here.  Are you aware, Willie, as Mr. Lemire,  have you read Rupert Murdoch's New York Post this morning to understand the history behind the Danish getting Greenland?  WILLIE GEIST: No, I think Jon's going to bring that to us. I'm not familiar.  . . .  SCARBOROUGH: We learn, thanks to the New York Post, that the United States in 1917, Jonathan, recognized the Danish right to Greenland, not because they brought ships there 500 years ago. But tell us exactly why did the United States State Department agree to the Danish controlling Greenland in 1917?  JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, this update comes to us from the investigative journalists at the New York Post, and I posted a story last night, and I'll just read from it. "The last time the United States purchased land from Denmark, the sale included Jeffrey Epstein's future notorious island, known as Epstein Island. It's because of the 1917 --- SCARBOROUGH: [Interrupts Lemire] Wait, wait, wait. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on. So you're saying that actually, the Danish have rights to Greenland today in a large part because the United States recognized that right after a part of islands, which contained Jeffrey Epstein's Rape Island, was part of that deal.  . . .  SCARBOROUGH: So, Willie, so Willie, it's not because -- MIKA: We're read in now. SCARBOROUGH: -- of 500 years, cause the Danish sent a boat 500 years ago. It's because in World War I, the United States gave the Danish rights to Greenland for Rape Island [rings a bell.] We can ring the bell. It's official. It's official. Greenland for Rape Island.  MIKA: Ugh! SCARBOROUGH: Congratulations, our Danish friends.  GEIST: First of all, I didn't know we had an ISO cam on the bell. That's just great work by our team in the control room. Wow, it's there when you need it.  SCARBOROUGH:[Rings bell again] Yeah, get it.  GEIST: Fantastic. You know, I think it was called something else at the time. It later became the island that you're describing there. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: Right. Right. But we are also bringing up the fact that Rape Island -- MIKA: Oh my God! SCARBOROUGH: -- which was a part of St. Thomas, was part of the deal in 1917.  . . .  MIKA: Presidential historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jon Meacham joins us this morning.  SCARBOROUGH: Little known fact: he won the Pulitzer Prize based on that land transfer in 1917.  MIKA: Also had a camera focused, just like on the bell.  SCARBOROUGH: Exactly! I'm still trying to figure out, Willie, though, how did he pull in, how did he pull in the French-Indian War, and Shays' Rebellion into the 1917 transfer -- MIKA: Yes! It's so hot.  SCARBOROUGH: -- of Greenland for St. Thomas and Rape Island. Only Jon Meacham could do that, Willie.  . . .  [Trump aides] don't have books at home, I'm sure. But if they just checked the Google machine! The Google machine would say the Danish got the rights to Greenland because in 1917 the United States said, give us the Danish West Indies, which includes Saint Thomas, which includes Rape Island -- MIKA: Oh my -- SCARBOROUGH: -- wasn't called that, of course, until Jeffrey Epstein bought it. But don't you think there'd be one person there saying, Mr. President, you know, probably be better for you not to say, that because it's going to lead back to the very thing that you're trying to distract the American people and the world from. That, of course, is Jeffrey Epstein. And the fact that the White House and the DoJ continues [sic]  to break the law every single day -- MIKA: More than a month now. SCARBOROUGH: -- for over a month, by not releasing all the files which they are required by law to release, but they only released about 1% of them. Don't you think there would have been one person in the White House that would have checked that out and told the president?

Whether it’s Jimmy Kimmel’s increasingly unhinged rhetoric or carbon-copy monologues from all the late-night hosts accusing President Trump of having a relationship with Epstein — comedy has taken a serious nose dive.And BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere is among those getting a little tired of it.“Late-night hosts have come to this place where now they seemingly, anytime Trump does anything, they just accuse it as being somehow tied to the Epstein files,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere tells film critic and reporter Christian Toto on “Stu Does America.”“Jimmy Kimmel ... he’s one of the smallest, and he obviously had this big back-and-forth with the president where he tried to be Mr. Tough Guy, and he was praised by Hollywood and the left for this,” he continues.“He’s calling him a maniac for not only just killing people overseas but killing an unarmed 37-year-old woman during the ICE operation. He put a shirt on TV that said Donald Trump is going to come kill you. This is a man who’s almost been assassinated multiple times,” he adds.“Yeah, squint all you want. You’re not going to see comedy,” Toto responds. “That’s not even the point at this point.”“You know, the thing that makes me really sad about the culture at large is that I think it was 2017, Kathy Griffin put up that fake Trump head, you know, it was bloody, it was disgusting. And collectively, as a culture, we recoiled, and her career just vanished overnight,” he continues.However, while Griffin's move was career-ending, Toto points out that today no one would bat an eye.“I think people on the right would blink for sure, and they’d be upset about it, but I think center-left people, people who just go about their day-to-day business, I don’t think anyone would bat an eye. ... And Jimmy Kimmel is part of the reason why,” he says, adding, “And what he’s doing is wildly irresponsible.”Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.