Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tactical Takedown - Official Announcement Trailer | PC Gaming Show Here's your look at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tactical Takedown reveal trailer for this upcoming kinetic turn-based beat-em-up game from the developer behind I Am Your Beast, El Paso, Elsewhere, and more. Join the four iconic Turtles — Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo — and take the fight to the nefarious Foot Clan, among other iconic villains.Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tactical Takedown launches in 2025 on PC via Steam.
Tinubu Begins Three-day State Visit To France WednesdayTrudeau told Trump Americans would also suffer if tariffs are imposed, a Canadian minister says
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Republican senators pushed back on Sunday against criticism from Democrats that Tulsi Gabbard , Donald Trump's pick to lead U.S. intelligence services , is “compromised” by her comments supportive of Russia and secret meetings , as a congresswoman, with Syria’s president, a close ally of the Kremlin and Iran. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, a veteran of combat missions in Iraq, said she had concerns about Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's choice to be director of national intelligence . “I think she’s compromised," Duckworth said on CNN’s “State of the Union," citing Gabbard's 2017 trip to Syria, where she held talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Gabbard was a Democratic House member from Hawaii at the time. “The U.S. intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with America’s foes. And so my worry is that she couldn’t pass a background check,” Duckworth said. Gabbard, who said last month she is joining the Republican party, has served in the Army National Guard for more than two decades. She was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait and, according to the Hawaii National Guard, received a Combat Medical Badge in 2005 for “participation in combat operations under enemy hostile fire in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom III." Duckworth's comments drew immediate backlash from Republicans. “For her to say ridiculous and outright dangerous words like that is wrong," Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, said on CNN, challenging Duckworth to retract her words. “That’s the most dangerous thing she could say — is that a United States lieutenant colonel in the United States Army is compromised and is an asset of Russia.” In recent days, other Democrats have accused Gabbard without evidence of being a “Russian asset.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has claimed, without offering details, that Gabbard is in Russian President Vladimir “Putin’s pocket.” Mullin and others say the criticism from Democrats is rooted in the fact that Gabbard left their party and has become a Trump ally. Democrats say they worry that Gabbard's selection as national intelligence chief endangers ties with allies and gives Russia a win. Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat just elected to the Senate, said he would not describe Gabbard as a Russian asset, but said she had “very questionable judgment.” “The problem is if our foreign allies don’t trust the head of our intelligence agencies, they’ll stop sharing information with us,” Schiff said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” Gabbard in 2022 endorsed one of Russia’s justifications for invading Ukraine : the existence of dozens of U.S.-funded biolabs working on some of the world’s nastiest pathogens. The labs are part of an international effort to control outbreaks and stop bioweapons, but Moscow claimed Ukraine was using them to create deadly bioweapons. Gabbard said she just voiced concerns about protecting the labs. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, said he thought it was “totally ridiculous” that Gabbard was being cast as a Russian asset for having different political views. “It’s insulting. It’s a slur, quite frankly. There’s no evidence that she’s a asset of another country,” he said on NBC. Sen. James Lankford, another Oklahoma Republican, acknowledged having “lots of questions” for Gabbard as the Senate considers her nomination to lead the intelligence services. Lankford said on NBC that he wants to ask Gabbard about her meeting with Assad and some of her past comments about Russia. “We want to know what the purpose was and what the direction for that was. As a member of Congress, we want to get a chance to talk about past comments that she’s made and get them into full context,” Lankford said. Get any of our free daily email newsletters — news headlines, opinion, e-edition, obituaries and more.
Qatar tribune Agencies President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that his policies would reduce high borrowing costs and lighten the financial burden on American households. But what if, as many economists expect, interest rates remain elevated, well above their pre-pandemic lows? Trump could point a finger at the Federal Reserve, and in particular at its chair, Jerome Powell, whom Trump himself nominated to lead the Fed. During his first term, Trump repeatedly and publicly ridiculed the Powell Fed, complaining that it kept interest rates too high. Trump’s attacks on the Fed raised widespread concern about political interference in the Fed’s policymaking. On Wednesday, Powell emphasized the importance of the Fed’s independence: “That gives us the ability to make decisions for the benefit of all Americans at all times, not for any particular political party or political outcome.” Political clashes might be inevitable in the next four years. Trump’s proposals to cut taxes and impose steep and widespread tariffs are a recipe for high inflation in an economy operating at close to full capacity. And if inflation were to reaccelerate, the Fed would need to keep interest rates high. Because Powell won’t necessarily cut rates as much as Trump will want. And even if Powell reduces the Fed’s benchmark rate, Trump’s own policies could keep other borrowing costs — like mortgage rates — elevated. The sharply higher tariffs that Trump has vowed to impose could worsen inflation. And if tax cuts on things like tips and overtime payanother Trump promise — quickened economic growth, that, too, could fan inflationary pressures. The Fed would likely respond by slowing or stopping its rate cuts, thereby thwarting Trump’s promises of lower borrowing rates. The central bank might even raise rates if inflation worsened. “The risk of conflict between the Trump administration and the Fed is very high,” Olivier Blanchard, former top economist at the International Monetary Fund, said recently. If the Fed hikes rates, “it will stand in the way of what the Trump administration wants. ”Yes, but with the economy sturdier than expected, the Fed’s policymakers may cut rates only a few more times — fewer than had been anticipated just a month or two ago. And those rate cuts might not reduce borrowing costs for consumers and businesses very much. The Fed’s key short-term rate can influence rates for credit cards, small businesses and some other loans. But it has no direct control over longer-term interest rates. These include the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which affects mortgage rates. The 10-year Treasury yield is shaped by investors’ expectations of future inflation, economic growth and interest rates as well as by supply and demand for Treasuries. An example occurred this year. The 10-year yield fell in late summer in anticipation of a Fed rate cut. Yet once the first rate cut occurred on Sept. 18, longer term rates didn’t fall. Instead, they began to rise again, partly in anticipation of faster economic growth. Trump has also proposed a variety of tax cuts that could swell the deficit. Rates on Treasury securities might then have to rise to attract enough investors to buy the new debt. “I honestly don’t think the Fed has a lot of control over the 10-year rate, which is probably the most important for mortgages,” said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director at the Penn Wharton Budget Model. “Deficits are going to play a much bigger role in that regard.” Occasional or rare criticism of the Fed chair isn’t necessarily a problem for the economy, so long as the central bank continues to set policy as it sees fit. But persistent attacks would tend to undermine the Fed’s political independence, which is critically important to keeping inflation in check. To fight inflation, a central bank often must take steps that can be highly unpopular, notably by raising interest rates to slow borrowing and spending. Political leaders have typically wanted central banks to do the opposite: Keep rates low to support the economy and the job market, especially before an election. Research has found that countries with independent centr al banks generally enjoy lower inflation.Even if Trump doesn’t technically force the Fed to do anything, his persistent criticism could still cause problems. If markets, economists and business leaders no longer think the Fed is operating independently and instead is being pushed around by the president, they’ll lose confidence in the Fed’s ability to control inflation. And once consumers and businesses anticipate higher inflation, they usually act in ways that fuel higher prices — accelerating their purchases, for example, before prices rise further, or raising their own prices if they expect their expenses to increase. “The markets need to feel confident that the Fed is responding to the data, not to political pressure,” said Scott Alvarez, a former general counsel at the Fed. He can try, but it would likely lead to a prolonged legal battle that could even end up at the Supreme Court. At a November news conference, Powell made clear that he believes the president doesn’t have legal authority to do so. Most experts think Powell would prevail in the courts. And from the Trump administration’s perspective, such a fight might not be worth it. Powell’s term ends in May 2026, when the White House could nominate a new chair. It is also likely that the stock market would tumble if Trump attempted such a brazen move. Bond yields would probably rise, too, sending mortgage rates and other borrowing costs up. Financial markets might also react negatively if Trump is seen as appointing a loyalist as Fed chair to replace Powell in 2026. Yes, and in the most egregious cases, it led to stubbornly high inflation. Notably, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to reduce interest rates in 1971, as Nixon sought re-election next year, which the Fed did. Economists blame Burns’ failure to keep rates sufficiently high for contributing to the entrenched inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s. Thomas Drechsel, an economist at the University of Maryland, said that when presidents intrude on the Fed’s interest rate decisions, “it increases prices quite consistently and it increases expectations, andthat worries me because that means inflation might become quite entrenched.” Since the mid-1980s, with the exception of Trump in his first term, presidents have scrupulously refrained from public criticism of the Fed. “It’s amazing, how little manipulation for partisan ends we have seen of that policymaking apparatus,” said Peter Conti-Brown, a professor of financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “It really is a triumph of American governance.” Yes, most advanced economies do. But in some recent cases, as in Turkey and South Africa, governments have sought to dictate interest-rate policy to the central bank. And soaring inflation has typically followed. Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for years pressured the country’s central bank to cut interest rates even as prices spiked. He even fired three central bankers who had refused to comply. In response, inflation skyrocketed to 72% in 2022, according to official measures. Last year, Erdogan finally reversed course and allowed the central bank to raise rates. Copy 06/12/2024 10(From left) Wee, Mohamad Razi and Ko join the participants in a Zumba session before the flag off. KUCHING (Nov 25): More than 1,000 people took part in the Silent Run 4.0 Kuching Edition yesterday morning in support of athletes with hearing disability. They were flagged off by Deputy Minister for Women, Childhood and Community Wellbeing Development Datuk Mohamad Razi Sitam at the Kuching South City Council (MBKS) compound in Jalan Padungan. The run, divided into the 3km and 5km categories, was organised to heighten public awareness of deaf athletes and also raise funds for Sarawak Deaf Sports Association (SSDeaf) to send athletes to competitions. The Sibu and Miri editions of Silent Run 4.0 were held on May 5 and Sept 8 this year, respectively. In his brief speech, Mohamad Razi urged everyone to support SSDeaf’s efforts to raise funds to help finance deaf athletes competing in deaf sports at national and international levels. “I understand that this charity run was also held in Sibu and Miri before the Kuching edition today, with all three editions attracting a total participation of more than 2,000,” he said. Also present were Kuching South Mayor Datuk Wee Hong Seng, SSDeaf president Ko Ming Liang, and event organising chairman Hii Lik Nyuong. In his speech, Ko thanked all parties who made this charity run a success, saying all funds collected would be used to finance deaf athletes competing in sports events. He also said for next year, Kuching will host the Malaysian Deaf Games and hoped that the public would support the event.
Australia news LIVE: Last-minute legislation on final sitting week agenda; Climate deal struck at COP29
PITTSBURGH (AP) — Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Darnell Washington was minding his own business during practice recently, doing his due diligence while running his route when the ball suddenly came his way. Washington wasn't sure what option he was on the play. he certainly wasn't first. Probably not even second. Maybe not even third. Washington was on the back side all by his lonesome while a sea of wide receivers and running backs zig-zagged across quarterback Russell Wilson's field of vision. Only, Wilson didn't like what he saw. Not enough to throw it anyway. So he pivoted to his left and found Washington wide open for a big gain. Asked if he was surprised to find the ball in his hands, Washington nodded. “A little bit,” he said. “I don't know. I don't know what was going on with the other people.” Wilson did. He almost always seems to these days for the first-place Steelers (9-3), who find themselves atop the AFC North behind the play of their resurgent 36-year-old quarterback, who has taken a decidedly democratic approach to resurrecting his career. The nine-time Pro Bowler threw the ball to 10 different players while piling up 414 yards last week against the Bengals . Sure, mercurial star George Pickens got the ball. But so did Washington. And third tight end MyCole Pruitt. And wide receiver Ben Skowronek, who turned his second catch of the season into a 23-yard gain on a drive that ended with one of Wilson's three touchdown passes. “You never know when it’s coming your way,” Skowronek said. Not with Wilson at the controls. Fourteen different players have at least one catch this season for the Steelers. That includes Mike Williams, whose lone grab a month since being acquired from the New York Jets is a 32-yard rainbow for the winning score in the final minutes against Washington. It also includes Skowronek, who spent the early portion of the season on injured reserve and worried he'd sort of lost his place in line while he rehabbed. Skowronek and his teammates have quickly learned that with Wilson, there is no “line." During his six starts since returning from a calf injury, Wilson has thrown it wherever, whenever. “It’s like in baseball,” said Wilson, a former minor league second baseman. “You’ll never hit a home run if you don’t swing. And I really believe that you’ve got to swing, you’ve got to trust guys. You’ve got to be able to trust yourself.” Something that hasn't been an issue for Wilson for years, even if he arrived in Pittsburgh at a crossroads following an abrupt fall from grace in Denver. The Steelers couldn't sign Wilson to a one-year deal for the veteran minimum fast enough, and Wilson wasted little time building a rapport with players who were relative strangers. What began with throwing sessions in San Diego has morphed into team dinners and Friday nights where Wilson and first-year offensive coordinator Arthur Smith will hole themselves up in the team facility poring over tapes and bouncing ideas off each other until their wives call wondering where they are. On game days, that work manifests itself in various ways. It's tight end Pat Freiermuth drifting toward an open area while Wilson scrambles, as he did two plays after Skowronek's grab for a 25-yard touchdown. It's Wilson calling an audible at the line of scrimmage late against Cincinnati to hit Van Jefferson for a 43-yard gain that led to a clinching field goal. It's not just good for the stat sheet, it's good for the vibes. “Morale is a big part,” Smith said. Guys who want to be invested. Spreading it around is beneficial in a myriad of ways. It means players don't feel they are “decoys on every play,” as Smith put it. It also means once you put it on film, it means opponents have to find a way to defend it. And the more things an opponent has to defend, the better for an offense, particularly one led by a quarterback who will make his 195th start on Sunday when Cleveland (3-9) visits. “Russ has seen every coverage,” Skowronek said. “He’s ran all these concepts before. So he knows progressions like probably the back of his hand.” Besides, Wilson knows he can't just preach about the importance of being unselfish without practicing it a little bit too. That means giving opportunities to those who have worked for it, no matter where they might fall on the depth chart. “I think that the best part about it is that we’re all super close,” Wilson said. “And I think that bond is really everything too, and just the understanding of each guy and the relationships that we have together, it’s fun. We’re having a great time.” It sure looks like it. The Steelers are averaging a healthy 28.7 points since Wilson recovered from a calf injury that forced him to watch the first six games from the sideline. For the first time in a long time, Pittsburgh no longer has to rely exclusively on its defense to get by. While Mike Tomlin will never get comfortable with the idea of getting into a shootout — blame his defensive coaching roots before taking over in Pittsburgh in 2007 — it's nice to know his team can match opponents score for score if necessary. Another one could be looming against the Browns, who piled up more than 500 yards in a loss to Denver on Monday night. If one materializes, Wilson is ready to do whatever is necessary and find whoever is necessary, regardless of pedigree, salary or resume. “We got to love that part of it,” Wilson said. “We can’t fear it. We’ve got to want it. We’ve got to expect it. We’ve got to embrace it. We’ve got to challenge that. We’ve got to be in those moments and be locked into that moment. I think we do an extremely good job of that.” AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nflStoli vodka files for bankruptcy in the United StatesThey have literally learned nothing. Nothing. The establishment media are at it again, now openly attacking President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks with salacious and unverified misinformation in an apparent campaign they are waging to try to sink the president-elect’s incoming administration. Meanwhile, the sitting and outgoing President of the United States, Joe Biden, just issued what amounts to one of the most controversial pardons in American history on Sunday evening when he pardoned his son, Hunter Biden. Biden’s complete and unconditional pardon of his son spans more than a decade and is more expansive than Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. Yet, again, what are the establishment media focused on? Well, the supposedly respected and revered New York Times and New Yorker are leading a campaign to try to tank Pete Hegseth’s appointment by Trump to be the Secretary of Defense in his incoming administration, while CNN’s deep state stooges are going ballistic over attorney Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to run the FBI. Others are attacking his nominee for Director of National Intelligence, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii–a former Democrat who left the party and joined the GOP this year when she endorsed Trump–over nonsensical claims that she is somehow a Russian agent. Obviously all of these smears are dubious at best, and frankly many of them are being spread by the very same people who spread fake attacks repeatedly on Trump for a decade–and also importantly by people who covered for the deep state and Democrats including Biden during this same timeframe. It begs several questions: How did the media industry get so far off on the wrong track and does anything they say even matter anymore? What are the origins of this fact-free information warfare? Why are they waging it? What’s their end game? On whose behalf are they doing it? Will they ever change? Let’s start with delving into what should be the biggest story in American politics by far: Biden pardoning his son Hunter after repeatedly lying to the country and telling everyone for years he would not do exactly what he just did is a massive scandal. The pardon is expansive, and will take months if not years to fully investigate but some things are abundantly clear from the outset: The president’s actions shield not just his son but himself as well from scrutiny. This pardon covers a span dating back to January 2014, when Biden was Vice President of the United States and his son was working for the natural gas company Burisma in Ukraine. Biden, of course, threatened to withhold aid to the Ukrainians if they did not fire a government prosecutor who was investigating his son’s employer. Well, the pardon of Hunter Biden by his father the president ensures that there will be no criminal consequences for that whole fiasco if there were ever going to be any to begin with. There are plausible legal arguments in favor or against the pardon. In favor of it, former Biden family press aide Michael LaRosa offered a justification in an interview with The Hill by saying he thinks the various cases against Hunter Biden on the tax and gun issues were weak and that legally the pardon makes sense: Okay fine, even if you agree with that argument–but certainly if you do not–you cannot miss the fact that what appears to be the first ever presidential pardon of a family member this close to the sitting President of the United States is hugely politically controversial at best and perhaps devastating for Democrats long-term. Even LaRosa understands the political problems of this, and particularly the quagmire Biden forced them into by repeatedly lying to the country and claiming that he would not under any circumstances do what he just did. But then we cross into the theater of the absurd when we look at how some others are framing it. What does the New York Times’s top columnist, Ezra Klein, have to say about the pardon? Well, he blames Trump for it. What?!?!?!? Seriously? How is Biden issuing a more expansive pardon than Ford’s Nixon pardon post-Watergate to his own son even remotely possibly Trump’s fault? Regardless of that ridiculous argument, there are at least a million follow-up questions that need to be asked of Biden and his White House. First off, is he done pardoning family members? Does he intend to pardon himself? How about his brothers and sister? What about other family members? What about administration officials like his cabinet members or White House staff? Biden, for good measure, issued the pardon moments before he hopped on Air Force One to jet overseas for what is likely his last foreign trip as president off to Angola ensuring he will not be in the spotlight here at home on this in the days immediately following the highly controversial move. There are no White House press briefings for several days either, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre–one of the least honest people to ever hold the job–will not have to face cameras for some time on this. To their credit, some Democrats like Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) did publicly criticize Biden’s move immediately: Since Sunday night with those statements, other Democrats have joined the party late. Per Axios , other members like Reps. Jared Golden (D-ME) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) have joined in criticizing it. Several other Democrats have joined in on the chorus criticizing Biden too: But former Attorney General Eric Holder, the right hand man of former President Barack Obama–to whom Biden served as Vice President and whose administration some of the Hunter Biden pardoned activities like the aforementioned Ukraine shenanigans happened during–was out actually defending the pardon. It’s no surprise to see Holder, who was voted into criminal and civil contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with lawfully issued congressional subpoenas over the Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal that led to the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent named Brian Terry, show such a disregard for the rule of law. But again, this perverted vision of justice and law and order that most of the Democratic Party has embraced in the modern era–a vision that Americans have rejected at the ballot box multiple times including most recently less than a month ago when they sent Trump back to the White House–does seem to have begun with Holder during his time as attorney general during the Obama administration. Regardless of Holder’s nonsensical argument attempting to justify this egregious action by Biden, this pardon of Hunter Biden is absolutely one of the most damning political indictments of Democrats as a party and could have serious long-term damaging consequences for them as time goes on. Nate Silver, the statistician and polling analyst whose modeling every election cycle aims to capture the picture of the electorate, sounded off furiously about the pardon on Sunday evening noting that while he voted for Vice President Kamala Harris against Trump in the November election that nobody should ever vote for any Democrat who does not condemn Biden’s pardon of his son. This decision by Biden to pardon his son is both shockingly egregious and completely unsurprising. Of course, in hindsight, the president was without question going to do this. And of course he, the White House, and the Democrats were going to absolutely lie about it until he did it. But the fact of the matter is the move is so over-the-top–even though expected–that it deserves major scrutiny of how the nation got here. First off, back when stories about Hunter Biden first surfaced like the New York Post’s original report on his “laptop from hell,” deep state actors from the so-called “intelligence community” circulated a letter calling it disinformation. Then later when that collapsed and Hunter Biden was charged and then convicted of several crimes–despite a last second plea deal attempt that collapsed with the slightest bit of scrutiny from a federal judge–the establishment media went all in on the lies from Biden and the White House that Biden would not pardon his son. None of these people has shown even the slightest bit of remorse for their actions in this. All of them–at least as far as we can tell right now–think they did nothing wrong. In fact, some of them even as recently as Monday morning when asked by Breitbart News if they had any remorse for their actions got extremely defensive and claimed they were just reporting what the president said at the time. Others, like CNN’s Elie Honig, are putting the blame on Biden saying that he lied to the country for a long time about this: The deeper issues with America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies date back much further than Biden’s presidency, to be fair, but he and his inner circle have not only done nothing about fixing them they have actually very much exacerbated them. The FBI, Justice Department, CIA, NSA, and many others in the intelligence and federal law enforcement apparatus–broadly, the “deep state”–have issues that date back to even long before Obama ascended the presidency in 2008. There were Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege back in the early 1990s, sure, but things really seem to have intensified when Obama was elected and when he picked Holder as his attorney general. Holder, by almost every account, was by far the most partisan attorney general in modern history. He gladly bore the informal title of Obama’s “wingman,” and he regularly engaged in highly partisan activity atop the Justice Department. In fact, emails uncovered thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showed that Holder’s staff regularly colluded with George Soros-funded Media Matters for America to smear conservatives including journalists like specifically me when I worked for Daily Caller more than 12 years ago. The Justice Department under Holder lied about this for years, and then finally released the records years later. That was the beginning of the weaponization as it’s been seen in modern times, and since then after Trump’s first term in office when Biden rose to power we’ve seen his attorney general, Merrick Garland, and specifically Garland’s deputy Lisa Monaco (who Trump told Breitbart News recently is clearly “really running” things over there at Main Justice) refine the tactics first deployed by Holder to include actual law enforcement actions against conservatives like the January 6 protesters and pro-life activists among others. That doesn’t even get into what the Biden DOJ did to Trump himself. They charged Trump with ridiculous allegations of federal crimes–charges they have now dropped post election, essentially an admission the case was purely political from the get-go–and they had the FBI raid his home at Mar-a-Lago. Think about that for a minute: Joe Biden’s Justice Department and FBI raided the personal home of his chief political rival on obviously ridiculous charges that they now admit were purely political since they are no longer pursuing the cases. Perhaps that’s why seeing Holder’s comments on the Hunter Biden pardon is so fascinating–and it brings us to the next major point to focus on here as Trump assembles a government to take over after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025. In literally the exact same social media post as the one in which Holder defends the Hunter Biden pardon he then proceeds to attack Trump’s pick of Patel to lead the FBI. Why does Holder not want Patel at the FBI? Is it because Patel will actually bring some real reforms to the bureau that may uncover some nasty and gnarly things Holder himself or his goons did when he was in power? Holder asks a rhetorical question in that post defending the Hunter Biden pardon which is whether Patel is “qualified” to lead the FBI, then answers his own question by saying “hell no.” Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sounded off on CNN literally within seconds of Patel’s appointment announcement, too, with the same argument: Holder and McCabe–and everyone else ripping him–are ignoring Patel’s impeccable credentials. Patel was a senior attorney on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). He was the Pentagon chief of staff. He was a senior adviser to the Director of National Intelligence. He served as a top counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council (NSC) in the White House during Trump’s first term, literally helping plan the counterterrorist actions against people like ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi–where Trump ordered his assassination and once and for all ended ISIS after the Obama-era geniuses who ran the military and intelligence communities said ISIS could never be defeated. Patel had an illustrious career before that as a federal prosecutor–yes, he prosecuted more cases than Kamala Harris did–and even won an award from the very same Obama-era DOJ that Holder led for his successful prosecution of terrorists. In other words, Patel is absolutely eminently qualified to serve as FBI director and anyone who argues otherwise–like Holder or McCabe–is lying. That begs the question: Why are they lying? What it is about Patel they hate so much that they would blow their own credibility in a desperate mad dash to stop him? Well, it’s probably that Patel is going to actually reform the way things work at the FBI if confirmed, and that change is coming to the bureau at long last. What would that mean for people like McCabe and Holder? What would it mean for the establishment media figures who have worked closely with people like them for the last decade or longer? Well, beyond an ideological shift from the left to the right, people like Patel getting confirmed into positions like FBI director mean serious institutional change that could threaten the very livelihoods of those who have made careers out of things generally staying the way they long have been at these places. In other words, no it’s not that these folks are engaged in widespread criminality that the FBI is all of a sudden going to uncover if Patel is confirmed and calling the shots over there–though there certainly might be some of that–it’s more that the drastic changes to the way things have long been shifts power and control away from the failed people of the past toward a different and new future and that change is scary to powerful people who pull down hefty salaries and have built lives around what they’re doing. A similar type of scenario exists with Hegseth. No part of the federal government is swampier than the Department of Defense, and the Pentagon blows through cash like newborn babies blow through diapers. Since he’s not part of the current Pentagon leadership structure of generals and political officials from which presidents usually pick Secretaries of Defense, Hegseth represents a major institutional shift away from the ways of the past toward serious change. As Trump’s other allies over at the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have already made clear, DOGE is very likely to focus on Pentagon waste. That makes insiders who currently control the levers of power–and thereby the flow of cash–very uneasy. So cue the media attacks, as the New York Times dug up Hegseth’s divorce records to uncover a deeply personal from his mother–one she retracted almost immediately, as Breitbart News reported–to smear Hegseth. The New Yorker followed suit with a suspect report on Hegseth written a decade ago before he even worked at Fox News back when he was running a veteran’s group. The media is likely to continue these attacks all the way until either Hegseth is confirmed or not. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer ironically calls Breitbart News a mouthpiece for Trump, yet she in her story reveals she was actually whipping Senate votes against Hegseth because she quotes Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) as reacting to the terrible character assassination of Hegseth contained within her piece. (Mayer was upset that Breitbart News preempted her piece with one of our own, thereby taking the sting out of her reporting). Then of course there are other Trump picks like Gabbard and RFK who are also under fire. And the anti-Trump forces already got former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to withdraw as Trump’s pick for attorney general–Trump has since replaced him with former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who’s likely to sail to confirmation–so they are clearly on the hunt for as many scalps as they can get. The question really becomes whether Republicans in the Senate fall for it–again–or if they reject the smear campaigns of these increasingly desperate leftists and media figures like they did when they confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Time will tell.