President Joe Biden, just days before he will exit the White House, announced on Friday that the Equal Rights Amendment, which would enshrine in the U.S. Constitution equal rights for women, is now the 28th Amendment and “the law of the land.” Although he has some legal scholars backing this declaration, experts say there are still legal hurdles and a legal battle to overcome.

“Today I’m affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” President Biden wrote. “I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years and have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex. We must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all.”

“On January 27, 2020,” President Biden explained in his statement on the White House website, “the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens FBI Office, Alleges ‘Corruption,’ Demands They ‘Preserve All Records’

“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”

CNN calls Biden’s announcement “a last-minute move that some believe could pave the way to bolstering reproductive rights.”

“It will, however, certainly draw swift legal challenges – and its next steps remain extremely unclear as Biden prepares to leave office.”

The news network also credits U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) with “making a major push for certification, saying in a memo to interested parties that it would give Biden a way to ‘codify women’s freedom and equality without needing anything from a bitterly divided and broken Congress’ in the aftermath of the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.”

In 2020, after Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, the necessary requirement of three-fourths ratification may have been met.

As The Brennan Center for Justice noted just days later, “there are still hurdles in the ERA’s path. The ratification deadlines that Congress set after it approved the amendment have lapsed, and five states have acted to rescind their prior approval. These raise important questions, and now it is up to Congress, the courts, and the American people to resolve them.”

READ MORE: ‘My Eyes and Ears’: Trump Names Ambassadors to Hollywood, Critics Question Motives

Congress could try to waive the deadline and try to ignore the states that rescinded their ratification.

President Biden did not order the National Archivist to certify the ERA as the 28th Amendment. Some have suggested neither has the legal authority to do so at this point.

But some have also suggested the deadline was unconstitutional.

The Associated Press called President Biden’s declaration “a symbolic statement that’s unlikely to alter a decades-long push for gender equality,” and “unlikely to have any impact.”

“Presidents do not have any role in the amendment process. The leader of the National Archives had previously said that the amendment cannot be certified because it wasn’t ratified before a deadline set by Congress,” the AP added. It noted that the National Archives said, “the underlying legal and procedural issues have not changed.”

Donald Trump has announced about 100 nominations to his administration that require Senate confirmation, from cabinet secretaries to ambassadors to foreign countries, but on Thursday the President-elect announced the “nomination” of three more “ambassadors” — to Hollywood.

“It is my honor to announce Jon Voight, Mel Gibson, and Sylvester Stallone, to be Special Ambassadors to a great but very troubled place, Hollywood, California,” Trump declared on social media. “They will serve as Special Envoys to me for the purpose of bringing Hollywood, which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries, BACK—BIGGER, BETTER, AND STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE! These three very talented people will be my eyes and ears, and I will get done what they suggest. It will again be, like The United States of America itself, The Golden Age of Hollywood!”

Calling it a “seemingly unprecedented role,” Politico reports, “Voight, Gibson and Stallone have been vocal supporters of Trump in recent years.”

The three will not require Senate confirmation, as there is no official role of Ambassador to Hollywood.

READ MORE: DeSantis’ Rubio Replacement Seen as Trump Loyalist and MAGA Culture Warrior

“Trump has long had deep ties within the entertainment industry. His pick for envoy to the United Kingdom is his old producer from ‘The Apprentice,’ Mark Burnett.”

The Chicago Tribune noted that “Trump’s decision to select the actors as his chosen ‘ambassadors’ underscores his preoccupations with the 80s and 90s, when he was a rising tabloid star in New York, and Gibson and Stallone were among the biggest movie stars in the world.”

“Stallone is a frequent guest at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club and introduced him at a gala in November shortly after the election,” the Tribune reported. But the paper noted, the “decision also reflects Trump’s willingness to overlook his supporters’ most controversial statements.”

“Gibson’s reputation has been altered in Hollywood since 2006, he went on an antisemitic rant while being arrested for allegedly driving under the influence. But he’s also continued to work in mainstream movies and directed the upcoming Wahlberg thriller ‘Flight Risk.'”

“Voight is a longtime Trump supporter who has called Trump the greatest president since Lincoln,” the Tribune added.

But while some mocked the very idea of “ambassadors” to Hollywood, some political observers see a different motivations.

“If you’re to believe Trump, a task force comprised of three men with an average age of 77 is precisely what Hollywood needs to reclaim its glory days,” reported Vanity Fair‘s Chris Murphy.

“There is no reason to think that Trump genuinely wants to help the U.S. film industry, which has rejected and mocked him since he entered politics,” writes New York Magazine “Intelligencer” senior editor Margaret Hartmann, who described the appointments as “trolling Hollywood.”

READ MORE: Trump Ran on Promise to Lower Grocery Prices — Few Americans Now Believe He Will

She also notes that “there’s the underlying idea that Trump needs to appoint ambassadors to Hollywood, like it’s not part of the United States. He underscores this by calling it a ‘great but very troubled place.’ Referring to Hollywood as a location, not just an industry, and describing it as ‘troubled’ make it impossible not to think of the wildfires.”

Hartmann also says, “it’s not clear what it means to be Trump’s ‘eyes and ears’ in the film industry, unless he’s trying to conjure fears about another Red Scare.”

Others have made suggestions about American culture.

“It means that just like in the Third Reich with the Nazis, MAGA is hyperfocused on gaining control of culture. You can’t control people unless you control culture. Like I said, Hollywood is about to FO [find out],” declared political analyst Rachel Bitecofer.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported, “while some have welcomed the picks,” of Stallone, Voight, and Gibson, “others, such as departing President Joe Biden have warned of an emerging ‘oligarchy’ in the US.”

READ MORE: ‘Concerns From Mar-a-Lago’: Speaker Johnson Boots Pro-Ukraine Intel Chair in ‘Big Shakeup’

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has selected Attorney General Ashley Moody to succeed U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, should Rubio be confirmed as Secretary of State. Moody, 49, has served under Governor DeSantis for five years. If she chooses to remain in the Senate, she would need to run in a special election in 2026.

Both Lara Trump and Matt Gaetz had been rumored at one time to be interested in consideration. DeSantis’s wife, Casey DeSantis, had also been rumored as a possible replacement. Lara Trump announced she would not seek the appointment. Some political observers suggested DeSantis, who is term limited and cannot run for a third term in 2026, could appoint himself to the role, but he announced he would not.

As Florida’s Attorney General, Moody has taken an aggressive, right-wing stance on key cultural issues.

In 2023, Moody appeared to compare a popular LGBTQ children’s book about gay penguins to “Nazi propaganda.”

After citing “a new ruling in Russia that bans the LGBTQ movement,” MSNBC‘s Ja’han Jones wrote: “In Putinesque fashion, the Florida AG argued that because schools are able to ban Nazi propaganda under ‘value-based judgments,’ they should be allowed to make similar decisions about LGBTQ content.”

READ MORE: Trump Ran on Promise to Lower Grocery Prices — Few Americans Now Believe He Will

“In a legal brief filed over the summer,” Jones noted, Moody had “argued that schools’ homophobic book bans are constitutional because ‘public-school systems, including their libraries, convey the government’s message, and, when the government speaks, it may ‘regulate the content of … its own message.’ ‘”

Moody “once sued Donald Trump for alleged fraud,” The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake reports.

She is currently suing Starbucks, CBS News reported, over alleged “racial quotas” that an investigative agency denies are quotas.

“Moody in May filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that Starbucks had policies that ‘appear on their face to be racial quotas.’ But after an investigation, the commission’s executive director in November issued a determination that there was ‘no reasonable cause’ to believe that the Seattle-based coffee company violated a state anti-discrimination law,” CBS reported.

Moody’s appointment was quickly met with strong criticism.

“Ashley Moody has a long record of opposing abortion rights and even sought to keep an abortion rights amendment off of Florida’s ballot. She went further and supported threatening TV stations who played ads advocating for abortion rights,” according to Nico Delgado, the spokesperson for the liberal Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century. “Moody also sought to get the Affordable Care Act declared unconstitutional, which would hurt over 4.6 million Floridians. Moody also abused her elected position and took a lead role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election and joined the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the results. Moody supported book bans and is in the pocket of Big Oil – while ignoring climate change.”

The Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried declared Moody has “ignored the growing property insurance crisis and let wealthy corporations rip off Floridians. Instead, she spent her time chasing political attention and currying favor with the far right. She worked for over a year to silence the voices of Floridians who wanted Amendment 4 on the ballot, weaponizing state law and the Florida Constitution to score the political points that got her this appointment.”

READ MORE: ‘Concerns From Mar-a-Lago’: Speaker Johnson Boots Pro-Ukraine Intel Chair in ‘Big Shakeup’

DeSantis used the opportunity of announcing Moody’s appointment to hold a press conference to say she will “work with President Trump to deliver on the mandate he earned,” is “willing to shut the border” and will “make sure any legal immigration to this country is putting Americans first,” as CBS News reported.

He also, according to the nonprofit and nonpartisan news outlet NOTUS, said Moody has pledged that, as a Senator, she will “defund” the United Nations “once and for all.”

Moody told DeSantis she is “ready to show up and fight for this nation and fight for President Trump to deliver the ‘America First’ agenda on Day One.”

NOTUS justice reporter Jose Pagliery, in a social media thread, called Moody a “close DeSantis ally who keeps filing lawsuits for the MAGA cause.”

He adds that Moody “fought mask mandates during COVID,” has “claimed that FEMA was discriminating against Trump supporters,” and “accused the Biden administration of ‘flat out refusing to secure the border.'”

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Targets Former Biden Official’s Religious Faith in House Hearing

Just days before he is set to raise his right hand and place his left on a Bible to swear an oath to the Constitution, President-elect Donald Trump faces low public confidence in his ability to fulfill one of his top campaign promises: lowering the price of groceries. According to a new Associated Press poll, most Americans, many of whom cast their ballot on that pledge, do not believe he will bring them relief.

“From the day I take the oath of office, we’ll rapidly drive prices down and make America affordable again,” Trump told supporters on the campaign trail in North Carolina, the Washington Post reported. “Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down fast.”

Just weeks before Election Day, Trump promised, “Vote Trump and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down,” Business Insider reported.

He repeatedly vowed to voters that he would “get the prices down,” “end inflation,” and even “slash your prices.”

READ MORE: ‘Concerns From Mar-a-Lago’: Speaker Johnson Boots Pro-Ukraine Intel Chair in ‘Big Shakeup’

Then, after winning the election largely on that platform, TIME magazine asked Trump, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?”

“I don’t think so,” Trump insisted, before seeming to backtrack on one of his top campaign promises. “I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

Despite having voted for him, in many cases, on his pledge to lower the cost of groceries, voters now appear to have come to believe he will be unable to do that.

“Only about 2 in 10 Americans are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ confident that Trump will be able to make progress on lowering the cost of groceries, housing or health care this year, according to a survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, while about 2 in 10 are ‘moderately’ confident,” the AP reported.

The AP poll finds 61% are slightly or not at all confident in Trump’s ability to lower the cost of food and groceries.

An extensive AP survey “showed that about 4 in 10 voters in the November election identified the economy and jobs as the most important issue facing the country and that about 6 in 10 of those voters cast their ballot for Trump.”

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Targets Former Biden Official’s Religious Faith in House Hearing

Those voters who believe Trump will not be able to fulfill his promise to lower prices may be correct.

Just days after the November election, the Associated Press reported, “many economists think Trump’s plans, including putting tariffs on imported foods and deporting undocumented workers, could actually make food prices rise.”

There is one person who appears to be holding Trump to his promise to lower prices, however. Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, now his incoming White House Press Secretary.

“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin, giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt told the AP after the election. “He will deliver.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has taken the unusual step of removing U.S. Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Turner, a center-right lawmaker, is well-regarded on both sides of the aisle for his strong commitment to traditional Republican principles, particularly in matters of national security and defense.

Punchbowl News first reported the move, which CNN’s Annie Grayer is calling a “big shakeup.” Punchbowl’s Andrew Desiderio adds that “Turner is one of the biggest Ukraine supporters among Republicans on the Hill and is also very involved with NATO. Much more hawkish than Trump-aligned R’s would like.”

CBS News’s Margaret Brennan reports Turner told her that Speaker Johnson “cited ‘concerns from Mar a Lago’ as justification for the removal.”

Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-CT) weighed in with concern on the removal of his colleague: “I have confidence that Mike Turner would do the right thing. The fact that he may have been removed just sends a shiver down my spine,” he said, as Semafor’s Kadia Goba reported.

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Targets Former Biden Official’s Religious Faith in House Hearing

Politico called Turner “an outspoken advocate for Ukraine funding and other hawkish national security stances.”

Axios noted that Turner “has at times broken with party leadership in a way that angered his GOP colleagues.”

“Most notably, he put out a jarring but cryptic statement last February warning of a ‘serious national security threat’ that turned out to be about Russian nuclear anti-satellite weapons.”

Last year, then-Chairman Turner agreed that Russian propaganda was a problem in the GOP, and that some Republican members of Congress had even spread it on the House floor.

“There are members of Congress today, who still incorrectly say that this conflict between Russia and Ukraine is over NATO, which of course it is not,” Turner told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly made that same false claim.

Turner was one of the few Republicans to oppose then-Congressman Adam Schiff’s censure. He also did not sign Johnson’s U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election.

READ MORE: Pam Bondi Refuses to Say Trump Legitimately Lost the 2020 Election in Confirmation Hearing

In 2022, Turner was one of just 47 House Republicans who voted to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, protecting existing same-sex and interracial marriages.

Heath Mayo, founder of the pro-democracy center-right group Principles First observed, “Demoting some of the few serious and competent people the House GOP conference has to offer. That’s Trumpism, though. Intelligence and expertise are threats. As a result, American leadership gets dumber and weaker.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Vowed ‘100%’ to End Ukraine War Before Inauguration — Now He Says It’s ‘Up to Putin’

This article has been updated to add reporting from CBS News.

During a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) invoked God and religion to harshly question Martin O’Malley, the former Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and a former Governor of Maryland, about his personal views on abortion and his Catholic faith.

In her highly confrontational interrogation of O’Malley, a longtime Democrat who also served as Governor of Maryland for eight years and ran for president in 2016, Congresswoman Greene, a self-avowed Christian nationalist, invoked his Catholic faith to attack his beliefs about abortion.

“Since you’re very interested in being DNC chair, you are after all a lifelong Democrat politician — I don’t even know if you had a job in the real world, but you have been an elected politician for years,” Greene accused (video below). “Mr. O’Malley you’re also a Catholic, are you not?”

“I am,” O’Malley confirmed.

READ MORE: Trump Vowed ‘100%’ to End Ukraine War Before Inauguration — Now He Says It’s ‘Up to Putin’

“Do you serve God or do you serve the Democrat Party?” Greene asked.

“I serve God,” O’Malley responded.

An off-camera committee member interjected: “Mr. Chairman, as a Roman Catholic, I take offense at the suggestion that somebody has [inaudible] to God and their service as a Catholic.”

Greene tried to talk over the objection, which went unaddressed by the Republican majority chair.

“Mr. O’Malley, will you be supporting the murder of the unborn up until the day of birth like your party does? As DNC chair, will you be supporting the murder of innocent unborn people? Is that in line with your faith in God and the Catholic Church?” Greene said, appearing to grandstand.

“I trust the judgment of women and doctors over the judgment of government,” O’Malley patiently replied.

“Now, do you trust God’s judgment?” Greene continued. “Do you trust God that he loves and has created every single human being? Do you support the murder of unborn children and are you going to uphold that evil practice that the Democrat Party wants to continue? You see, abortions over 95% of them are unintended pregnancies. They use abortions as birth control. So are you going to continue the birth control practice of murdering the unborn children as chair of the DNC? Will that be, that be a policy?”

READ MORE: Pam Bondi Refuses to Say Trump Legitimately Lost the 2020 Election in Confirmation Hearing

O’Malley, appearing to near the end of his patience, replied, “I am pro-choice, and I trust the judgment of women and their doctors over judgments of government.`

“Well, thank you for letting God know where you stand with the murder of —” Greene snapped back before O’Malley interjected.

“I talk to God every day,” he declared.

“Yeah, well you might want to talk to him a little bit more, Mr. O’Malley, because you’re definitely in the wrong,” Greene charged.

The Republican from Georgia was not finished.

Minutes later she posted a short clip of her attack on O’Malley to social media, and wrote: “WATCH: ‘Catholic’ Martin O’Malley confirms abortion is the sacrament of the Democrat Party.”

O’Malley has been called “a Pope Francis Democrat” and a “a pray-every-morning, church-every-Sunday” believer, according to a 2015 Religion News Service article.

Watch the video below or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Antisemitism Is Wrong, But’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Pilloried for Promoting Antisemitic Claim

On the campaign trail last year, candidate Donald Trump, time after time, not only suggested he could swiftly bring an end to Russia’s unlawful war against Ukraine, but at times even insisted he could—and would—do it before being sworn into office. But with Inauguration Day fast approaching, President-elect Donald Trump has washed his hands of a peace settlement, instead declaring that any resolution is now entirely in the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I would fix that within 24 hours, and if I win, before I get into the office, I will have that war settled. 100% sure,” Trump said on Fox News in March 2024, HuffPost reported.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled — we’re going to get it settled and stop the death,” Trump adamantly told supporters in June 2024.

READ MORE: Pam Bondi Refuses to Say Trump Legitimately Lost the 2020 Election in Confirmation Hearing

“I would fix that within 24 hours, and, if I win, before I get into the office, I will have that war settled. 100% sure,” Trump vowed as far back as March 2023.

“If I’m president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours,” Trump said again just months later, at a CNN town hall in May 2023, as TIME reported. “It will be over. It will be absolutely over.”

These are just a few of the many times Trump promised to personally end Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Now, he has an entirely different set of promises.

Sunday night, during an interview with Newsmax, Trump was asked, “You’ve said you want the Ukraine war ended in 6 months. What is the strategy to do that?”

“Well, there’s only one strategy,” Trump replied, “and it’s up to Putin. And I can’t imagine he’s too thrilled with the way it’s gone, because it hasn’t got exactly well for him either. And I know he wants to meet and I’m gonna meet very quickly.”

READ MORE: Torture? Shoot Protesters? Greenland? Question After Question, Hegseth Refused to Answer

“I would’ve done it sooner but…you have to get into the office. For some of the things, you do have to be there,” Trump conceded, Reuters reported.

At a press conference last week, Trump went from promising peace before he took office, to six months after.

“I hope to have six months,” Trump told reporters, USA Today reported, before adding, “I hope long before six months.”

Trump has named Keith Kellogg to be his Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia.

Kellogg, appearing to attempt to split the difference, settled on a timeline for peace of just over three months.

“Let’s set it at 100 days and move all the way back and figure a way we can do this in the near-term to make sure that the solution is solid, it’s sustainable, and that this war ends so that we stop the carnage,” he said, HuffPost reported.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial and, many say, unqualifiednominee to lead the millions of people serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and oversee the Pentagon’s $842 billion budget, refused to give straight answers to numerous questions posed by U.S. Senators during his short, four-hour-and-fifteen-minute confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

Democrats on the committee had requested multiple rounds of questions so they could follow up with the nominee, a former Fox News weekend host who has been accused of sexual assault, “aggressive drunkenness,” sexism, mismanaging two veterans’ non-profits, and an apparent embrace of Christian nationalism. Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) refused, despite precedent with multiple nominees before the committee over many years. Wicker also refused to allow the FBI’s report on Hegseth to be made available to all members of the committee.

Hegseth, at times combative, frequently battled Democratic Senators, talking over them and refusing to answer numerous questions, while often praising Donald Trump — and invoking his name as a shield. Questions he did answer often came from Republicans on the committee. They included questions like, How many genders are there? How many pushups can you do? What do you love about your wife?

But Hegseth refused to give straight answers to a large number of basic questions, such as: Would you submit to an expanded FBI background check? Agree to use the military to seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? In each of your weddings you’ve pledged to be faithful to your wife? Should allegations of spousal abuse be disqualifying?

One question Hegseth initially refused to answer was what his use of the apparent slur, “jag off” means.

“I don’t think I need to, sir,” he told the Ranking Member, Jack Reed, when politely asked.

“Why not?” Reed, surprised, asked.

“Because the men and women watching understand,” Hegseth replied.

He only explained it when Reed reminded him that “perhaps some of my colleagues don’t understand.”

READ MORE: ‘Loyalty to a Tyrant’: Cheney Invokes Jack Smith’s Report to Warn Senate on Trump Nominees

“It would be a JAG officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the war fighters,” Hegseth finally said. (JAG is Judge Advocate General, a military attorney.)

Hegseth’s history of comments against women and LGBTQ service members is well-documented. U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) repeatedly pressed him on his beliefs on women in the military.

“Will you commit to preserving the Women, Peace, and Security Law at DOD and including in your budget the requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs throughout the DOD?” Senator Shaheen asked, referring to this law.

“I, Senator, I will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with America First, national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality and readiness. And if it advances American interests, it’s something we would advance,” Hegseth smugly replied. “If it doesn’t, it’s something we would look at.”

“Well since former President Trump signed it into the law, I hope that he agrees with you,” Shaheen responded.

At one point, when Hegseth grew combative, he talked over U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), forcing her to repeatedly say, “I’m not hearing the answer to my question.” He then refused to answer if he would “resign if you drink on the job, which is a 24/7 position?”

Senator Hirono also asked Hegseth if he would comply with an order from the Commander-in-Chief, who will be Donald Trump, to shoot protestors. He refused to give a straight answer.

“In 2020, then President Trump directed former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to shoot protesters in the legs in downtown D.C., an order Secretary Esper refused to comply with. Would you carry out such an order from President Trump?” she asked.

Hegseth launched into what appeared to be a defense of Trump’s order, but would not answer, leading Hirono to say, “Sounds to me that you would comply with such an order, you will shoot protesters in the leg.”

Asked, again by Hirono, if he would “carry out an order from President Trump to seize Greenland, a territory of our NATO ally Denmark, and, “comply with an order to take over the Panama Canal,” Hegseth again refused to give a straight answer.

“Senator, I will emphasize that President Trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful Commander-in-Chief —” Hegseth replied.

“We’re not talking about the election,” Hirono reminded him.

“Senator, one of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand,” Hegseth, again lavishing praise on Trump, replied, again not giving a straight answer.

In a similar vein, Hegseth refused to give a straight answer to U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who asked if there are any orders a Commander-in-Chief could give that would be unlawful and violate the Constitution.

“I reject the premise that President Trump is going to be giving illegal orders,” he exclaimed.

He also refused to give a straight answer when asked if he has been in conversations about using active duty military within the U.S., and using active duty military in U.S.-based detention camps.

RELATED: FBI Report on Hegseth ‘Insufficient’ Says Top Dem: ‘I Do Not Believe You Are Qualified’

Hegseth’s back-and-forth with U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) however were among the most damaging, as veterans’ advocate Paul Rieckhoff noted.

At one point, Hegseth refused to answer if spousal abuse would be disqualifying for someone to be Secretary of Defense, after refusing to say he would release his former wives from NDAs if there were any.

“Did you ever engage in any acts of physical violence against any of your wives?” Kaine asked.

“Senator, absolutely not,” Hegseth replied.

“But you would agree with me that if someone had committed physical violence against the spouse, that would be disqualifying to serve as Secretary of Defense, correct?” Kaine continued.

“Senator, absolutely not have I ever done that,” Hegseth stressed.

“You would agree that would be a disqualifying offense, would you not?” Kaine pressed.

“Senator, you’re talking about a hypothetical,” Hegseth responded, again refusing to answer.

“I don’t think it’s a hypothetical. Violence against spouses occurs every day,” Kaine insisted. And if you as a leader are not capable of saying that physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact, for being Secretary [of Defense] of the most powerful nation in the world, you demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment.”

The liberal Super PAC American Bridge put out this clip, saying, “Pete Hegseth refuses to say he doesn’t support waterboarding, torture, or abandoning the Geneva Conventions. This guy has dangerous ideas that have no place at the Department of Defense.”

In that exchange with Senator Angus King (I-VT), Hegseth also declared, “what an America First national security policy is not going to do is hand decisions over to international bodies.”

And when asked to give just true or false answers to questions about numerous alleged instances of intoxication, Hegseth repeatedly replied, “anonymous smears.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s vetting of Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s highly controversial nominee to head the U.S. Department of Defense, an $842 billion entity that employs more than 2.8 million people, was “insufficient,” Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee warned at the start of his confirmation hearing Tuesday.

The FBI’s report on Hegseth was made available only to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, not the rank-and-file Senators on the Committee. Ranking Member Reed asked that the report be made available to the entire committee, but the Republican Chairman, Roger Wicker, refused.

Critics have noted that, similarly to how the FBI conducted its investigation into sexual harassment allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Bureau reportedly did not interview the person who allegedly was sexually abused. In October 2018, as ABC News reported, the FBI did not interview Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

READ MORE: ‘Loyalty to a Tyrant’: Cheney Invokes Jack Smith’s Report to Warn Senate on Trump Nominees

ABC News also, on Tuesday, reported the FBI did not interview the woman, whose name has not been made public, who “told investigators in October 2017 that she had encountered Hegseth at an event afterparty at a California hotel where both had been drinking and claimed that he sexually assaulted her.”

The New York Times on Tuesday published a report detailing concerns Democrats have voiced about Hegseth and the FBI’s report.

“Quite a few of the women with significant allegations against him have not been interviewed by the F.B.I. investigators,” Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said on MSNBC on Monday evening, The Times reported, “adding that some of those women feared for their safety and that of their children.”

“My understanding is that some of them would like to be contacted by the F.B.I. investigative team, or the vetters, and they have not been talked to,” Duckworth also told MSNBC.

“One missed opportunity,” The Times reported, “came when the bureau did not interview one of Mr. Hegseth’s ex-wives before its findings were presented to senators last week, according to people familiar with the bureau’s investigation.”

Another Democratic Senator on the Armed Services Committee, Richard Blumenthal, told The Times: “There are significant gaps and inadequacies in the report, including the failure to interview some of the key potential witnesses with personal knowledge of improprieties or abuse.”

READ MORE: LA Mayor a ‘Communist’ Alleges Fox News Host With Ties to Trump Nominee

Tuesday morning, Ranking Member Reed told Republican Chairman Wicker: “You and I have both seen the FBI background investigation, as they have said, and I want to say, to the record, I believe the investigation was insufficient.”

“Frankly, there are still FBI obligations to talk to people, they have not had access to the forensic audit, which I referenced, and the person who had access to was quite critical of Mr. Hegseth, and I think people on both sides have suggested that they get the report.”

“I know your colleagues have asked for it, [Senate Republican Majority Leader] Thune assured me personally that he thought it was the appropriate idea.”

Reed noted that another of Trump’s nominees, “had similar, very complicated personal issues,” and the “report was made available for all the members.”

Chairman Wicker refused Ranking Member Reed’s request.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Reed went on to tell Hegseth, “I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Republican former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, who served as vice chair of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, on Tuesday cited the Special Counsel’s just-released, 174-page report on Donald Trump’s involvement with the January 6 insurrection, and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to deliver a prescient warning to members of the Senate. Starting today, the Senate begins confirmation hearings on the President-elect’s highly-controversial cabinet nominees. Focusing on Justice Department nominees, she warned Senators that those “compromised by personal loyalty to a tyrant” should not be confirmed.

Jack Smith, who resigned as Special Counsel on Friday ahead of the President-elect’s inauguration next week, emphasized in his report that there was sufficient evidence to warrant prosecuting Donald Trump. He also noted that if those cases had proceeded to a jury trial, the evidence was strong enough to secure convictions.

Smith wrote, “after conducting thorough investigations, I found that, with respect to both Mr. Trump’s unprecedented efforts to unlawfully retain power after losing the 2020 election and his unlawful retention of classified documents after leaving office, the [Principles of Federal Prosecution] compelled prosecution.”

READ MORE: LA Mayor a ‘Communist’ Alleges Fox News Host With Ties to Trump Nominee

His final words in his report state that the Special Counsel’s office “assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

Cheney says that Smith’s report makes clear that Trump’s nominees, specifically, Justice Department nominees, had anything to do with his efforts to overturn the election, they must not be confirmed by the Senate: “if those nominees cooperated with Trump’s deceit to overturn the 2020 election, they cannot now be entrusted with the responsibility to preserve the rule of law and protect our Republic.”

“The Special Counsel’s 1/6 Report,” her statement begins, “made public last night, confirms the unavoidable facts of 1/6 yet again. DOJ’s exhaustive and independent investigation reached the same essential conclusions as the Select Committee. All this DOJ evidence must be preserved.”

READ MORE: Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility

“But most important now, as the Senate considers confirming Trump’s Justice Department nominees: if those nominees cooperated with Trump’s deceit to overturn the 2020 election, they cannot now be entrusted with the responsibility to preserve the rule of law and protect our Republic. As our framers knew, our institutions only hold when those in office are not compromised by personal loyalty to a tyrant.”

“So this question is now paramount for Republicans: Will you faithfully perform the duties the framers assigned to you and do what the Constitution requires? Or do you lack the courage?”

Sarah Longwell, a Republican and the publisher of The Bulwark, responded, writing: “This. Donald Trump has revealed how shallow the vast majority of the current GOP’s commitment is to the constitution and the American experiment. These confirmation hearings will be another inflection point for the few who claim they value their oath. I hope some rise to the occasion.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a six-term Democratic former U.S. Representative, is being branded a “solid communist” and a “communist sympathizer” by a Fox News host whose husband is a Trump cabinet nominee. The attack comes as the city deals with the massive wildfires that have killed 24 people and caused tremendous and historic damage to over 60 square miles of California. More than 12,000 structures reportedly have been destroyed and 92,000 people are under evacuation orders.

Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy is married to former Fox News host and Republican former U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, President-elect Donald Trump’s Transportation Secretary nominee. She has a history of throwing around the divisive “communist” label. On Monday, she joined the pile-on of attacks against the L.A. mayor.

“You know, listen, a lot of people have been talking about, you know, who’s to blame, you know, whether it’s [Governor] Gavin Newsom or the mayor,” Campos-Duffy told the right-wing channel’s viewers in what appeared to be prepared remarks. “A lot of people don’t realize that Karen Bass is actually, you know, we talk about these left wing, left wing policies.”

READ MORE: Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility

“She has ties to communism —she was cutting sugar cane in Cuba, um, she’s had 15 trips to Cuba, met with Fidel Castro,” Campos Duffy continued. “She is a solid communist, so don’t be surprised that your policies make your city, um, look like this when you, when you put a communist, somebody, a communist and a communist sympathizer at the top of your um of the heap as the mayor of Los Angeles, it’s uh, not surprising. Um, they manage things— look at how Cuba’s managed and now look at this.”

Campos-Duffy, a devout MAGA supporter and longtime Trump defender, earlier this month called January 6 rioters “political dissidents,” a term traditionally reserved for individuals persecuted for opposing authoritarian or oppressive governmental authority or policies.

Bass has indeed has traveled to Cuba, according to multiple reports, and “spent part of the 1970s working construction in Fidel Castro’s Cuba with the Venceremos Brigade, a group that has organized annual trips to Cuba for young, leftist Americans for half a century,” The Atlantic reported in 2020.

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

That was five decades ago, work that began when Bass was 19 and doing volunteer work.

“The best way to think of Bass’s politics at the time—and now—is ‘as a Black activist who was deeply concerned about what the activists are raising today: systemic racism,'” Bass told Edward-Isaac Dovere, when he wrote for The Atlantic. She added: “I was also deeply concerned on the international front about issues like apartheid in South Africa and supporting the independence movements in Africa. And a lot of times that did not align with U.S. policy.”

Bass has said point-blank she is not a communist.

“I’m not a socialist. I’m not a communist,” Bass told NBC News in 2020. “I’ve belonged to one party my entire life and that’s the Democratic Party, and I’m a Christian.”

Political commentator Keith Olbermann declared he hopes Mayor Bass sues Campos-Duffy “into the ground.”

Watch the video clip below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

A freshman Republican Senator is promoting an unusual interpretation of the Senate's role in the constitutionally mandated "advice and consent" responsibility.

U.S. Senator Katie Britt, elected in 2022, is the first woman Alabama voters have sent to the U.S. Senate. She gained national attention, and bipartisan criticism, after delivering the Republican response to President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address. During her speech, Britt criticized President Biden’s immigration policies and referred to an incident involving human trafficking, suggesting in her remarks a woman had been sexually trafficked because of Biden's policies. However, as NBC News reported, the incident occurred two decades earlier, in Mexico, not in the United States.

READ MORE: Wildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting

At the time, even Republicans were outraged and mystified by her speech. One GOP strategist told The Daily Beast it was "one of our biggest disasters ever." A Trump advisor told Rolling Stone, “What the hell am I watching right now?” as The Guardian reported.

This weekend, Britt spoke with CNN's Jake Tapper about President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet nominees. Senate Republicans are beginning hearings this week, CBS News reports.

Senator Britt, an attorney, told Tapper that Trump's "great nominees" will be on Capitol Hill, where they will "have the opportunity not only to make their case" to the members of various committees, "but they'll have their opportunity to make their case to the American people of why they are best, where they are best suited to move President Trump's agenda forward."

In contrast, Senator Angus King (I-ME) recently outlined his view of the Senate’s role in evaluating cabinet nominees. In an op-ed last week, he wrote that a president's "advisors, and especially Cabinet Members, must be qualified for the sake of the people they represent."

"My position on Cabinet nominees has always boiled down to two priorities: the candidate needs to be experienced and capable, and not have a stance that is hostile to the department or bureau they would be leading," Senator King added. "The framers of our Constitution set up a Senate confirmation process as a check on the executive branch to make sure that all parts of government are working by the people and for the people."

READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

Senator Britt appeared to suggest alignment with Trump's goals should be a key qualification, telling Tapper that she and the Senate will see if they "are best suited to move President Trump's agenda forward."

Tapper continued to press her.

"Why would you think somebody who's willing to lie about the election results in Pennsylvania is going to restore integrity in the Justice Department the way that you are calling for?" Tapper asked.

After a brief pause, Britt replied: "Look, Jake, I've had very direct conversations with each and every one of these nominees that I've had the opportunity to sit down with. I take my duty as a United States senator seriously, Article Two, Section Two, mandates that I do."

"We have an obligation both to the American people and to the president, to ask these tough questions. I asked that question very directly. And with each and every nominee, the answers that I have been given with them, has satisfied me that they're gonna move forward in that direction."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Jake Tapper to Katie Britt: "Why would you think somebody who's willing to lie about the election results in Pennsylvania is going to restore integrity in the Justice Department the way that you are calling for?" pic.twitter.com/aTCa5fg8Cq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 12, 2025

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

House Republicans, especially the California delegation, are facing sharp criticism after spending portions of the weekend with President-elect Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence. They reportedly discussed ways to take the unprecedented approach of tying passage of relief funds—for the Golden State’s historic wildfire disaster—to raising the debt ceiling, as the fires continue to burn and the death toll rises to 24 people.

“Of the nearly two dozen House Republicans who attended the Sunday dinner at Mar-a-Lago, where this option was discussed, several are caucus leaders and appropriators with major influence in upcoming budget reconciliation and government funding negotiations,” Politico reports. “Trump also discussed the wildfires Saturday night with a group of House Republicans from California, New York and New Jersey.”

According to J.D. Wolf of MeidasTouch News, the California GOP members of Congress “chose to leave the state at its most vulnerable moment,” and “have drawn criticism for abandoning their … state during the crisis, opting instead to join Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.”

READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

“California [GOP] Representatives Jay Obernolte, Tom McClintock, Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, Darrell Issa, Ken Calvert, Vince Fong, and Young Kim were spotted in a photo with Trump this weekend when they could have been back home seeking ways to help even if the fire isn’t in their district,” he declared. “Instead, these lawmakers have prioritized meeting with Trump over exercising leadership in their home state. Their absence sends a troubling message to their state.”

In a stern rebuke, Wolf added: “In doing so, they have not only abandoned their duty to Californians but also cast doubt on their priorities and dedication as elected officials.” He also wrote: “Californians are left wondering if these leaders will ever prioritize their needs over political maneuvering.”

One House Republican from California was “not invited,” according to Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill.

“But all the talk of unity at Mar-a-Lago this weekend only went so far – Trump did not invite David Valadao (R-Calif.), 1 of the 10 House Rs who voted to impeach after Jan. 6, to the mtg of CA, NY and NJ GOP members.”

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

Valadao’s presence would have made sense. Hill reports he is a caucus chief and senior appropriator.

Trump, who has a history of trying to withhold relief aid to California, has been accused of politicizing the tragedy, which Politico notes, “could become the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.”

It may become even more costly.

The Associated Press reports, “firefighters are preparing for a return of dangerous winds that could again stoke the flames on Monday.”

Over the weekend, on his social media website, Trump reposted this:

View the social media post above or at this link.

President-elect Donald Trump, at 10:07 AM ET on Friday, was sentenced by Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan after a jury of his peers found him guilty on 34 criminal felony counts of business fraud for what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg described as “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.”

He received no punishment. In 10 days, Donald Trump will become the first person to enter the White House as President of the United States as a convicted felon, barring any extraordinary efforts.

Trump’s “conviction, a Class E felony offense, is eligible for a penalty of up to four years in prison and several thousands of dollars in fines per count,” Politico reports. But Judge Merchan “instead issued a so-called ‘unconditional discharge,’ a decision that will spare the incoming president any jail time, fines or probation.”

Merchan told Trump, “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgement of conviction, without encroaching on the highest office of the land is unconditional discharge,” The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports.

READ MORE: ‘MAGA Friendly’ Fetterman Blasted for Accepting Trump Mar-a-Lago Invite

Trump said Thursday night he will appeal the conviction.

The President-elect was allowed to appear virtually and was accompanied by his attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump has indicated he will nominate Blanche to be the United States Deputy Attorney General.

A billionaire real estate magnate who entered politics with no experience in 2015 by showcasing his wealth and attacking Mexican immigrants, Trump found his 2016 presidential campaign in jeopardy after the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. It showed a grown man making lewd comments about women, including what many perceived as him joking about, and appearing to brag and admit to, sexual assault. Originally recorded in 2005, it was released just one month before the 2016 election to widespread and bipartisan condemnation. Denying his comments were admitting to sexual assault, Trump called it “locker room talk.”

Trump was found to have paid “hush money” to adult film actress Stormy Daniels—with whom he reportedly had a sexual encounter—in what prosecutors said was an effort to protect his presidential campaign.

A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump in March of 2023. He was arraigned days later. The jury trial was held in April of 2024. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts.

Trump had made desperate attempts to delay sentencing, which originally had been scheduled for July 11, and had already been postponed twice. But Thursday night, after three New York courts refused his requests, the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to stay Friday’s sentencing.

“Over the past week, Trump’s lawyers filed hundreds of pages of high-pitched arguments in four courts, at every level of the NY judiciary and SCOTUS, in a failed bid to stop these proceedings,” reported Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.

During Friday’s sentencing, New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass berated Trump and his actions.

“This defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm’s way,” he told Judge Merchan, according to Courthouse News reporter Erik Uebelacker.

Steinglass added that Trump “engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposely bred disdain … for the rule of law,” Uebelacker also reported.

Klasfeld reported that Steinglass also told the court: “Today’s sentence ‘cements’ Trump’s ‘status as a convicted felon’ and ‘gives full respect to the jury’s verdict.'”

“After confirming that prosecutors recommend a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Klasfeld added, “Assistant DA Joshua Steinglass tears into [Trump] and his ‘threats’ to ‘retaliate against prosecutors.'”

READ MORE: Alito’s ‘Unmistakable Breach’ Warrants Recusal in Trump Case: Judicial Policy Expert

Politico’s Kyle Cheney observed, “The reality of Trump’s long-delayed sentence means he will have to fight the appeal while in office, a dynamic his lawyers argued would be a distraction on the presidency. But an appeal is also his only chance to erase the ‘felon’ label, and he seems eager to begin that process.”

“NOW you can call him a convicted felon,” remarked NBC News Justice and Intelligence Correspondent Ken Dilanian.

Some critics, including legal experts, are expressing disappointment and frustration.

“Donald Trump sentenced to a complete and total victory over the justice system,” civil rights lawyer Matthew Segal, the co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, wrote from his personal social media account.

“Trump, escaping all punishment for dozens of felonies, says he’s been treated ‘very unfairly,'” observed Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall.

“45, 47, Felon,” remarked former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, an MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst.

SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah, a lawyer, lamented the outcome: “No where can you find a person convicted of 34 felonies who is sentenced to no penalties. Period,” he wrote.

“Trump should not be heading to the White House. He should be reporting to prison,” he added.

Obeidallah also predicted that “Trump will 100% commit more crimes in the next few years. How do I know that? Simple, because Trump knows he will never be held accountable.”

Former TIME magazine managing editor Richard Stengel, who served as an Under Secretary of State for President Barack Obama, commented: “I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to live in a country where no person—not a president-elect, not a president—is above the law.”

MSNBC/NBC News legal correspondent Lisa Rubin notes that “now that the sentencing is over, the gloves could come off. Why? Merchan has no more leverage over Trump. The sentencing is over, and so, according to a June 2024 order, is the gag order Trump constantly complains about and frequently distorts. That order expressly expires with ‘the imposition of sentence.'”

U.S. Senator John Fetterman is facing criticism after accepting an invitation from Donald Trump to meet at the President-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence. Just hours after the Democratic freshman senator from Pennsylvania confirmed his decision, his top communications aide reportedly resigned.

Senator Fetterman increasingly appears to be taking controversial positions that are at odds with many elected and rank-and-file Democrats, such as suggesting Trump’s call for the U.S. to take over Greenland is a “responsible conversation.”

“If anyone thinks that’s bonkers, it’s like, well, remember the Louisiana Purchase?” Fetterman said, The New Republic reported.

He defended his decision to travel to Mar-a-Lago in a statement Thursday.

“I’ve been clear that no one is my gatekeeper. I will meet with and have a conversation with anyone if it helps me deliver for Pennsylvania and the nation,” Fetterman said, according toNBC News’ Frank Thorp V. “President Trump invited me to meet, and I accepted. I’m the Senator for all Pennsylvanians— not just Democrats in Pennsylvania.”

READ MORE: Alito’s ‘Unmistakable Breach’ Warrants Recusal in Trump Case: Judicial Policy Expert

“I think that one, he’s the president, or he will be officially,” Fetterman also said, according to CBS News. “And I think it’s pretty reasonable that if the president would like to have a conversation — or invite someone to have a conversation — to have it.”

“I’m not the person that’s going to set what [the conversation is] going to be,” Fetterman also told reporters (video below).

And while Senator Fetterman says he does not know what he and the President-elect will discuss, as CBS News noted, Trump “hopes Fetterman will support some of his nominees, including Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, a source said.”

During his 2022 Senate campaign, Fetterman was forced to deny he used illegal drugs, after Trump baselessly accused him of doing so.

“Fetterman supports taxpayer-funded drug dens and the complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, and ultra lethal fentanyl,” Trump said, according to People magazine. “By the way, he takes them himself.”

Fetterman’s support for Republicans’ anti-immigrant legislation, the Laken Riley Act—a bill that requires the federal government to detain undocumented immigrants if they have been arrested for crimes such as theft—has also been controversial.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker was the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill in the Senate, angering immigrants’ rights activists, some of whom are calling it, “an attack on constitutional protections and a green light to Trump’s mass deportation agenda.”

U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego, another freshman Democrat, also co-sponsored the bill.

After passing the House, the bill stalled in the Senate, but Thursday afternoon, the bill appeared headed for passage. Less than ten Democrats voted against allowing the bill to proceed.

“Fetterman and Gallego and a few others are undercutting the possibility of mounting a more united front that could fix its worst elements,” The New Republic’s Greg Sargent wrote.

Some critics are saying Fetterman appears likely to switch parties, after his apparent embrace of Trump.

“Fetterman is likely to switch parties. Let’s face it. Full horseshoe,” claimed Tom Watson, who writes “The Liberal” at Substack. “Too many people are forgetting that the Democratic Party is basically a liberal party. There’s no possible room for a pro-Trump Democrat to hold major office. If Fetterman thinks being a MAGA Dem is possible, he’ll find out it’s not,” he added.

Meanwhile, Politico reports, Carrie Adams, Fetterman’s communications director, “has left his office, a person close to the senator said.” She had joined Fetterman’s office in April, “after he lost three top staffers in a matter of months, then drew criticism last year after she was quoted openly disagreeing with her boss’ stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict in an August interview with the Free Press.”

“Fetterman’s shifting political persona in Congress has shocked many who worked for him during his 2022 campaign. While he eschewed the ‘progressive’ label, he had endorsed Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run and advocated for some left-wing policies in his campaign,” Politico adds. “In recent weeks alone, he’s made a habit of taking time to speak to President Donald Trump’s nominees and of reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans on legislation.”

READ MORE: ‘Cowardice Spreads Like Wildfire’: Kinzinger Trolls Republicans With Their Own J6 Comments

The New Republic also noted the shift in Fetterman’s politics.

“Fetterman’s reaction to Trump’s idea [to take over Greenland] seems to be part of a pattern by the Pennsylvania senator, who has boasted about shifting away from progressive politics for more than a year. Pennsylvania’s only Democratic senator even bragged that brain damage resulting from his near-fatal stroke has allowed him to ‘say the things that I have to really believe in and not be afraid of if there’s any kind of blowback.’”

In response to Fetterman’s remarks on Greenland, investigative journalist Dave Troy notedon Wednesday: “As I’ve been saying, expect Fetterman to be a cheerleader for all things Musk, Putin, and Trump 2.0 henceforth. And no, it’s probably not the brain injury.”

Several critics and political observers blasted Fetterman.

“Fetterman is becoming the new Manchin,” wrote activist George Takei.

“Fetterman isn’t up for reelection till 2028 and already very busy reinventing himself as MAGA friendly,” noted HuffPost senior politics reporter Igor Bobic.

Back in December, Fetterman stood for a photo with Trump UN Ambassador nominee Elise Stefanik.

That same month he praised Trump’s political acumen while rejecting allegations of fascism for the President-elect.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Mexican America’: President of Mexico Trolls Trump With Vintage Map

Justice Samuel Alito accepting a telephone call from Donald Trump, hours before the President-elect would file a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to delay sentencing in his criminal business fraud case, was an “unmistakable breach” of ethics and judgment, and warrants recusal from the case, a longtime judicial ethics and policy expert says.

Alito told ABC News the two did not discuss the case, and reportedly said Trump called for a job reference regarding a former clerk of Alito’s.

“It’s obviously an unmistakable breach of protocol,” Gabe Roth, founder and executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Fix the Court, told NPR‘s Michel Martin Thursday morning. Alito has “got to know better,” and “should have not taken the call, and known that this is inappropriate.”

“You have an individual in the President-elect who is petitioning the Supreme Court related to his sentencing in the hush money case, a Supreme Court justice, who frankly should know better,” he explained. “This conversation should not have taken place.”

READ MORE: ‘All Eyes on SCOTUS’ After Trump Loses Sentencing Bid at Top NY Court

Roth said “it doesn’t make sense,” and that the former clerk, whom he named as Will Levi, “has plenty of other credentials.”

“He worked for [Republican U.S. Senator] Mike Lee, he could have Mike Lee call.”

“He’s been a partner in the law. His dad’s a former federal judge, his grandfather was the Attorney General.”

Roth said that “this episode shows the justices don’t really care about the ethics because they know that no one’s going to stop them from doing whatever it is that they want to do.”

And while he doesn’t see that any laws were broken, Roth said, “there are certain protocols that if you are a Supreme Court justice, you really don’t intermingle with the executive branch or the incoming executive branch,” and, “especially at a time when President Trump we know is going to have all these executive orders coming down the pike whose fate will be decided by the justices, this to me just seems like an opportunity for him to have a an audience before one of the nine people determining his administration’s fate in so many of these issues.”

Calling the Trump “hush money” case “fairly significant,” Roth asked if the Supreme Court justices are “going to stand for the rule of law and stand behind what the New York jury” decided.

READ MORE: Trump Blames Wildfires on ‘Biden/Newscum Duo’ in Multiple Attacks as Californians Lose All

Alito’s breach “potentially could violate a rule. There is a federal law that applies to the Supreme Court justices that says, a justice shall recuse himself from a case when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. People are a reasonably questioning Alito’s impartiality given this call with Trump, so that would mean he would be required to recuse from any Trump related cases.”

But, Roth acknowledges, “there is no way to enforce that” because it’s “all self enforcing and self policing.”

“Usually the justices are better at at hiding their ethnics issues, but I guess, you know, now that the Supreme Court green lit near absolute immunity for the president, and Congress has refused to pass any sort of enforceable ethics for the justices, it looks like they’re not even trying to hide it.”

Listen to Roth’s remarks via NPR below or at this link.

Less than two weeks before his inauguration, President-elect Donald Trump took time on Wednesday to criticize—four times—California Governor Gavin Newsom, as three “wind-fueled wildfires” tore through Los Angeles and surrounding areas. The fires caused several deaths, destroyed more than one thousand buildings—including homes and businesses—and left massive devastation in their wake.

The Los Angeles Times called it “one of the most destructive firestorms to hit the region in memory.” At least 70,000 people have been evacuated, according to the latest AP report, and, as ABC News notes, more than 1.5 million are without power.

Wednesday afternoon, Trump blamed the massive destruction directly on Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom: “He is the blame for this,” Trump declared, calling him “Gavin Newscum.”

“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump wrote on his social media website.

READ MORE: ‘Mexican America’: President of Mexico Trolls Trump With Vintage Map

Trump’s claim about refusing to sign a “water restoration declaration” was deemed false in a statement from the governor’s office.

“There is no such document as the water restoration declaration – that is pure fiction,” the governor’s office stated. “The Governor is focused on protecting people, not playing politics, and making sure firefighters have all the resources they need.”

Trump’s attacks continued, claiming Newsom “wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn’t work!), but didn’t care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!”

Later on Wednesday, Trump appeared to delight in the wildfire disaster.

“As of this moment, Gavin Newscum and his Los Angeles crew have contained exactly ZERO percent of the fire. It is burning at levels that even surpass last night. This is not Government. I can’t wait till January 20th!”

Trump continued to blame Newsom, and added President Joe Biden to his attack.

“The fires in Los Angeles may go down, in dollar amount, as the worst in the History of our Country. In many circles, they’re doubting whether insurance companies will even have enough money to pay for this catastrophe. Let this serve, and be emblematic, of the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the Biden/Newscum Duo. January 20th cannot come fast enough!”

On Wednesday, in an all-caps rant, Trump also wrote: “No water in the fire hydrants, no money in FEMA. This is what Joe Biden is leaving me. Thanks Joe!”

The Hill reports that “Newsom and President Biden announced last month new rules to carry water to California farmers, as well as Los Angeles area residents, as a modification to the 2019 Trump-era regulation. Environmental advocates had pushed for the new rule in order to protect fish, including smelt.”

READ MORE: DOJ to Release Special Counsel’s J6 Report on Trump, His Lawyers Expected to Object: Report

On the campaign trail in September, then-candidate Trump threatened Newsom with withholding federal funds “to put out all his fires.”

Former Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor blasted Trump, saying: “Everyone in LA is terrified right now and trying to figure out what to do, where to go, and how to keep their kids safe from fire and smoke. Our president-elect’s response is to launch another stupid political attack and pretend that the governor can stop the Santa Ana Winds.”

Meanwhile, Republicans jumped on the bandwagon and began attacking California.

Far-right U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona attacked California, suggesting they are not managing water properly, while also attacking FEMA, and spreading a false, debunked claim that the federal agency “diverted, uh, well over a billion, almost two billion dollars, to illegal alien care, and not emergency management care.”

“So we’ve got a lot of a lot of uh things that we need to assess at the federal level, uh, and and I I don’t want to jump all over this too much, but don’t forget that California uh, they, they really need to do a job statewide, managing their water resources. They, the millions of acre feet of water that they just allowed to flow out to to the uh the ocean every year.”

Independent journalist Justin Glawe, who writes the Substack newsletter “Welcome to American Doom,” noted: “If you want an idea of the capacity for empathy from the American right, Sean Hannity is kicking off his radio show right now by blaming California wildfires on Democrats and claiming Trump was right about ‘raking’ forest floors in 2018.”

President Joe Biden, who is in California, met with Governor Newsom and offered support.

“The White House said it was surging resources to the impacted areas of California, including five U.S. Forest Service air tankers, 10 federal firefighting helicopters and dozens of fire engines from the Forest Service,” The Hill adds.

“Newsom offered praise for Biden’s response to the fires, saying during Wednesday’s briefing that it was ‘impossible for me to express the level of appreciation and cooperation we’ve seen from the White House and this administration. So on behalf of all of us, Mr. President, thank you for being here.'”

Juliette Kayyem, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy school, a CNN national security analyst, and a “national leader in homeland security and crisis management,” remarked: “In all my years in and studying disaster management, I have never seen a president (elect) blame a jurisdiction WHILE the disaster was still out of control. It distracts, is cruel to first responders and victims, and could impede effective response.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced in a filing that it intends to publicly release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation and prosecution of Donald Trump for alleged interference with the 2020 presidential election, including his role in the January 6 insurrection, but will hold his report on the classified documents portion of his work while two of the President-elect’s co-defendants remain on trial in that case.

The classified documents portion of the report, officially “Volume Two,” will be available to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, DOJ noted, “upon their request and agreement not to release any information from Volume Two publicly.” Volume One, the 2020 election interference portion, DOJ says, will also be made available to Congress.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointee, temporarily blocked the release of the Special Counsel’s report on Tuesday, NBC News reported. Lawyers for Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, had “filed a motion Monday night asking … Cannon to block the report, citing her previous ruling that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.”

Legal experts say Judge Cannon has no jurisdictional authority to block the release of the report.

READ MORE: ‘Unprecedented Intervention’: SCOTUS Responds to Trump ‘Hush Money’ Sentencing Delay Bid

The DOJ’s announcement on its intention to release Volume One did not indicate a timeline, but NBC News producer Daniel Barnes, who covers the federal courts and the Justice Department, offered some insight: “The timing of Volume One’s release is now in the hands of the 11th Circuit. Judge [Aileen] Cannon’s injunction from yesterday lasts until three days after the circuit rules, but DOJ is asking the circuit to immediately vacate that order.”

But, as The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports on the DOJ’s intent release Volume One, “Trump lawyers will almost certainly contest this per people familiar — they view Judge Cannon’s injunction as being binding on the ENTIRE two-volume report.”

The DOJ’s filing, posted by Lawfare senior editor Anna Bower, stated: “The Attorney General intends to release Volume One to Congress and the public consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c) and in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter.”

“But to avoid any risk of prejudice to defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, the Attorney General has determined, at the recommendation of the Special Counsel, that he will not publicly release Volume Two so long as defendants’ criminal proceedings remain pending,” the filing also reads. “For the time being, Volume Two will be made available for in camera review only by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon their request and agreement not to release any information from Volume Two publicly. This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants’ interests.”

RELATED: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), ignoring his home state’s aerospace and defense industries that manufacture military aircraft components and ships, is siding with President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to take back the Panama Canal from Panama, by claiming America needs the canal to defend Taiwan against China.

“We’ve got to take the Panama Canal back,” Tuberville told Fox Business on Tuesday (video below), hours after Trump spoke. “We’ve got to do something because if we were to happen to go to war with uh China over Taiwan and they were to shut the Panama Canal down, we’d have to go eight to ten-thousand miles longer just to get things back uh, to the to the war zone if we had to go from the east coast to China.”

China does not control the Panama Canal, contrary to Trump’s claim and Tuberville’s suggestion.

During his rambling and wide-ranging press conference, Trump had said he would not rule out taking control back of the Panama Canal by military force.

“It might be that you’ll have to do something,” Trump told reporters, claiming the U.S. needs the canal “for economic security — the Panama Canal was built for our military.”

RELATED: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically

“Uh, look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It’s being operated by China,” Trump falsely declared. “China, and we gave the Panama Canal to Panama. We didn’t give it to China.”

If China attacked Taiwan, and if the United States decided to get involved — as President Joe Biden has vowed — contrary to Senator Tuberville’s expressed concerns, the U.S. military has planes it could fly to the area, planes manufactured and maintained in part from components made in Alabama.

There’s also the Pacific Fleet, which, according to the U.S. Navy, “remains the world’s largest naval command, extending from the West Coast of the United States, into the Indian Ocean, encompassing three oceans, six continents, and more than half the Earth’s surface.”

Senator Tuberville, who has repeatedly attacked the U.S. military, ignored that his home state is home to the military industry’s “Big Ten,” according to Business Alabama. The Alabama Department of Commerce has an entire website devoted to aerospace and aviation that is “Made in Alabama.”

In 2023, Tuberville was accused of “putting our national security at risk” by the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force in rare public remarks.

Watch Tuberville’s remarks below or at this link.

RELATED: Trump Refuses to Rule Out Using US Military to Take Control of Greenland, Panama Canal

U.S. Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT) is blasting Donald Trump, after the President-elect held a rambling 70-minute press conference aired live by cable news stations on Tuesday, during which he declared he will rename the Gulf of Mexico, threatened the possible taking of Greenland and the Panama Canal by military force, threatened annexing Canada as the 51st state via “economic coercion” if necessary, suggested Hezbollah was part of the January 6 insurrection, criticized the late U.S. President Jimmy Carter on the day his body is set to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol before his funeral Thursday, declared rain comes “down from heaven” while ranting about states trying to conserve the precious commodity, claimed windmills are “driving the whales crazy” while threatening to ban them, and threatened if the Gaza hostages are not released by the time he is sworn in to office, “all hell is going to break out.”

Congressman Himes railed against Trump’s remarks, noting that, “Mexico is really, really important to us in stopping fentanyl, and helping us with the migration problems we have that at the southern border. Canada’s really important to us, another NATO ally. We should not be gratuitously pissing these people off.”

The Connecticut Democrat asked, “where is the economic benefit for the people who voted for Donald Trump when he’s off, you know, telling tales of Greenland and renaming the Gulf of Mexico?”

READ MORE: Trump Refuses to Rule Out Using US Military to Take Control of Greenland, Panama Canal

The CNN host responded, “the way he pitches it is, you know, when it comes to Greenland, for example, it’s for ‘national security purposes.’ Is there any credence to that statement?”

“No, it’s bananas,” Himes replied. “It’s, it’s insane.”

“I mean, you know, again, Denmark, which owns Greenland, I think that’s probably a fact that most Americans are learning, um, is a NATO ally, right?” he continued. “So it’s just complete madness from a national security standpoint, and it also is antagonizing, right? What if some leader in Canada or Mexico is elected and says, ‘you know, Mexico, we want California back. We’re getting California back.'”

“And taking Greenland from the Danish, where’s the economic message there?” Congressman Himes asked, referring to Trump’s repeated vows during the campaign he would lower the costs of groceries and mortgages, and put a cap on credit card interest rates.

READ MORE: ‘Truth Must Prevail’: Garland Urged to ‘Release the Damn Report’ on Jack Smith’s Trump Probe

“I certainly see your point about the economic message being a big driver for the election, but a lot of his supporters also just like that he bucks tradition, that he he doesn’t do what what others do, that he’s willing to, you know, to throw stuff out there that may be controversial,” the CNN host responded. “Um, and, you know, he portrays himself as a negotiator and a businessman, and a lot of his supporters frankly like that. A lot of his supporters frankly like what he threw out about, you know, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.”

“Ma’am, I, I get that. I get that,” Himes said. “Politics has become entertainment in this country, and by the way, I’ll be the first to say that there are some apple carts that should be turned over. It takes me years to get a build a bridge built, in Connecticut. You know, we’re not moving projects that are critical to the American people as fast as you, as we should like. But at the end of the day, the business of government is very, very serious.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Cowardice Spreads Like Wildfire’: Kinzinger Trolls Republicans With Their Own J6 Comments