ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel announced himself on Thursday as not be a fan of President Trump’s lawsuit against 60 Minutes, but whatever one thinks of the suit’s legal merits, Kimmel’s claim that the network did not deceptively edit the interview with Kamala Harris to make her look better fell flat. Kimmel began by dreaming about using Trump’s legal arguments against him, “Trump right now is reportedly one step closer to settling the lawsuit he filed against 60 Minutes. Trump's suing CBS for $20 billion because an interview they aired with Kamala Harris caused him ‘mental anguish.’ He can sue them for mental anguish; imagine how much we could sue him for. We're going to be rich.     Moving on to the actual controversy, Kimmel recalled, “Paramount, which is CBS's parent company, reportedly offered Trump $15 million to settle the case. He said no. His lawyers want at least $25 million, and even worse, they want an apology for not doing anything wrong. If you haven't been following this, during the election, 60 Minutes did a segment with Kamala Harris, and because 60 Minutes is only 60 minutes, they edited the interview, just like they always do.” Kimmel further explained, “But Trump, who never misses an opportunity to, A, whine and, B, abuse the legal system, claimed, based on no evidence, that 60 Minutes edited the interview deceptively to make his opponent look better.” That’s just not true. In the original video, Harris was pressed from the left by Bill Whitaker on why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not appear to be listening to the Biden administration. She gave a typical Harris word salad of an answer, “Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”   Remember Kamala’s word salad answer about Israel on 60 Minutes? It’s gone. This is what many Americans will now see. pic.twitter.com/H4w7btDv6x — MAZE (@mazemoore) October 8, 2024   In the version that aired on 60 Minutes, Harris came across as more competently, “We are not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.” As for Kimmel, he concluded, “He sued them for $10 billion. And then, even though he won the election, he raised it to $20 billion. Which, the whole company isn't even worth $20 billion. They're selling it for 8 right now. It's a plainly frivolous lawsuit, but Shari Redstone, who inherited Paramount from her horrible father, is trying to sell her company, and she knows Trump will vindictively use his power as president to block that from happening through the FCC. Now she's trying to pay him off, and she's going to pay him off. This is how it works now. It's just like the Mafia but with cheeseburgers instead of gabagool.” Harris’s actual answer took about 20 seconds, so Kimmel’s argument that 60 Minutes just needed to edit it down for time doesn’t pass the laugh test. Here is a transcript for the May 29 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 5/29/2025 11:39 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: Trump right now is reportedly one step closer to settling the lawsuit he filed against 60 Minutes. Trump's suing CBS for $20 billion because an interview they aired with Kamala Harris caused him "mental anguish."  He can sue them for mental anguish; imagine how much we could sue him for. We're going to be rich. Paramount, which is CBS's parent company, reportedly offered Trump $15 million to settle the case. He said no. His lawyers want at least $25 million, and even worse, they want an apology for not doing anything wrong. If you haven't been following this, during the election, 60 Minutes did a segment with Kamala Harris, and because 60 Minutes is only 60 minutes, they edited the interview, just like they always do.  But Trump, who never misses an opportunity to, A, whine and, B, abuse the legal system, claimed, based on no evidence, that 60 Minutes edited the interview deceptively to make his opponent look better. He sued them for $10 billion. And then, even though he won the election, he raised it to $20 billion. Which, the whole company isn't even worth $20 billion. They're selling it for 8 right now.  It's a plainly frivolous lawsuit, but Shari Redstone, who inherited Paramount from her horrible father, is trying to sell her company, and she knows Trump will vindictively use his power as president to block that from happening through the FCC. Now she's trying to pay him off, and she's going to pay him off. This is how it works now. It's just like the Mafia but with cheeseburgers instead of gabagool.  

Elon Musk’s time in government is over, Congress is poised to raise the debt ceiling by at least $4 trillion, and Republican fiscal hawks (and Musk himself) are understandably irritated about their progress in cutting the federal debt. This irritation, the changes in DOGE leadership, and the threat of hitting the debt limit in August or September have all combined to push the White House to propose codifying $9.3 billion in cuts to USAID, NPR, and PBS. The process, in which the legislative and executive branches agree to recall spending Congress previously appropriated, is called rescission. And while most things in Congress are fairly complicated, this one is pretty simple. Here’s how it works. Watch what Republicans do next. That will show you exactly how much their promises are worth. First, the White House signals which funds it’s been given but didn’t use or doesn't want to use and would like to return to the Treasury Department. That’s the proposal that’s reportedly heading to the lower chamber on Monday. Congress gave the president this power under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Next, the House of Representatives considers the cuts, makes whatever tweaks and changes it wants to the proposal, and votes. If a simple majority says yes, it sends the rescission package to the Senate. Then the Senate considers the proposal and can either pass it with a simple majority vote, thereby sending the rescissions to the president for his signature, or make its own alterations, in which case it goes back to the House of Representatives for another vote. As with just about everything, the two chambers must agree on the exact text before it can make the journey west to the White House. Simple enough! After all, Republicans make cutting government a top campaign pledge in every single race, and even Democrats claim they want to make cuts to federal bloat when they’re on the campaign trail. Of course, once they’re in D.C., Democrats don’t want to cut a dime, and few Republicans do either. So what happens next? You can get a good preview by looking to the fairly recent history of Donald Trump’s rescissions. In 2018, first-term President Trump proposed $15.4 billion in rescissions of unused, unobligated funds sitting in the Children's Health Insurance Program, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and Department of Energy's fuel-efficient vehicle loan fund. The request passed the Republican-controlled House with little problem but stalled and was ultimately defeated in the Senate 48-50, with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) voting no and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) absent, battling brain cancer. The Republican senators who voted no saw the rescissions as attacks on programs they cared about. How could you be against children’s health!? The water?! None of them were swayed that the money was not needed and that the programs had been funded for the next year, so no child nor waterway was under threat. They didn’t care at all. They couldn’t even bring themselves to cut the deficit by reclaiming unspent money. That was too much! This is what you’re up against in Washington – and from Republicans no less. So who are the Republican senators to expect trouble from this time around, when the money is being clawed back from agencies and organizations that have been pushing a progressive, anti-American, and partisan Democratic agenda? Susan Collins: Seven years after the failure of the 2018 rescissions package, Collins is the only no-vote Republican still in the U.S. Senate. She said her initial “no” was because she objected to the procedure being used at all — for anything. Money appropriated after careful negotiation by Congress should not be sent back, she reasoned, or senators will stop trusting the process. Oh no! There’s no sign she’s changed her views on this, and she’s been a fairly regular no vote on the rest of Trump 47’s agenda thus far. Lisa Murkowski: Back in 2018, the senior senator from Alaska pinched her nose and voted yes after some last-minute on-the-floor wrangling by then-Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and others. While these cuts don’t hit anything specific to her constituents, don’t expect her to have softened her stance. Mitch McConnell: While McConnell embraced rescissions as common sense in 2018, his cold relationship with the president has become openly antagonistic since the 2021 Capitol riot. More, foreign funding is dear to him — and he considers it his sacred duty to defend the Washington Blob’s foreign policy consensus against the president and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s America First agenda. While few will argue USAID spending wasn’t corrupt and wasteful, McConnell considers it an important tool of American statecraft. He’s a likely no with nothing to lose. Thom Tillis: While longtime observers have noted Tillis’ penchant for clashing with the president, the North Carolina senator also considers himself a fiscal hawk, and his office has tweeted that he's open to voting yes on rescissions — with Senate amendments. Roger Wicker: The Mississippi senator doesn’t hide his frustration. He sees the rescission debate as a distraction from what he considers the Senate’s real work. He hasn’t ruled out supporting the measure, but if it were his call, the chamber wouldn’t waste time on this right now. Any three Republican senators voting no would leave the decision to Vice President JD Vance, just as Mike Pence stood ready to break a tie in 2018. But four GOP defections would kill the measure outright. A loss would deal a humiliating blow to both the administration and the broader Republican Party. Fiscal hawks now claim a mandate that voters never gave them. Trump won office promising mass deportations, a secure border, a smarter foreign policy, an end to the DEI and trans ideology push, and aggressive tariffs — not deep cuts to the Department of Education or a crusade against USAID. The administration’s sudden focus on those targets reflects the influence of Elon Musk and OMB Director Russ Vought, not the will of the voters. But they’ve arrived. Their early shock-and-awe tactics grabbed the public’s attention, and the waste the DOGE uncovered has lit a fire — one that’s driving near-Tea Party intensity across Washington and social media. Voters are demanding more, and for good reason. Channeling that energy into codifying DOGE cuts through rescissions makes far more sense than sabotaging the president’s agenda over a reconciliation bill that doesn’t go far enough. This approach strengthens the republic. It deserves to continue. Even if the effort only serves to placate budget hawks like Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — senators still fuming over the debt ceiling hike — it’s a win. Watch what Republicans do next. That will show you exactly how much their promises are worth. Blaze News: EPA reverses Biden-era rules on greenhouse gas emissions Blaze News: Governor candidate John James hammers Michigan GOP over political failures: 'What are we even talking about?' Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

Chaos Theory is the best one. It has the bank mission, the Amon Tobin soundtrack, and a just-about-perfect mixture of stealth and aggression. But Pandora Tomorrow has that section on the train, and that shocking moment during the Jerusalem level (no spoilers). There’s also the original, with the CIA infiltration, and Double Agent, which plays more directly with the push and pull of Sam’s loyalty. What I’m saying is that the classic Splinter Cell games are all good. I’m not so keen on Conviction and Blacklist - they’re too slick, and skim over the murky morality of espionage and warfare - but after 12 years, I’d welcome the stealth game’s return. Turns out, that might be on the horizon. Based on a mysterious new post from Ubisoft, the long-whispered Splinter Cell remake could be about to break cover. Continue reading New Splinter Cell remake could be revealed soon as Ubisoft posts cryptic image MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best old games, Best stealth games, Best single-player games

WOW: Taylor Lorenz Takes EFFED UP to Whole New Level with Unhinged 9/11 Take, Gets PULVERIZED by All of X

Flashback: Stephanopoulos' Questions for Biden Made It Clear Exactly When Dems Ordered the Code Red

FromSoftware games are already known for their extreme difficulty, and I'm here to tell you that Elden Ring Nightreign may be the hardest of them all. As such, there's absolutely no shame in admitting that you may need an extra hand to get through all of the Nightlords in the game, which is exactly what we're here for.

While playing Elden Ring, if your starting class was Prisoner, Bandit, or Warrior, then you are in luck. The Dex/Int combo is back in Nightreign with Duchess. This virtuous thief is one character that you will interact with quite often at the Roundtable Hold, even when you aren't playing as her.

If you're a fan of using big weapons, such as Greatswords, Greataxes, and Hammers, then Raider is the perfect choice for you in Elden Ring Nightreign. He has the highest Strength stat out of all Nightfarers, allowing you to deal a ton of damage on an expedition.

Elden RingNightreign has eight character classes to play as, once you manage to unlock them all, and each one handles pretty differently. Because of this, it can sometimes be tricky to bounce back and forth between these Nightfarers without knowing exactly the type of playstyle you're getting into.

If you've been a long-time FromSoftware fan, you know that building out your character with the best stats, weapons, and armor is just as critical to success as your actual skill with the gameplay. I've spent hours of my life agonizing over equip loads, poise totals, and DPS as I've looked for any advantage I can find in a Soulsborne game.