A Texas man filed a complaint against a Kentucky school district this week, according to News From The States, alleging that his "online speech" was "restricted" after "he criticized the school district’s posts opposing the amendment that would have opened a path to school vouchers and charter schools" in the state.

Per the report, Corey DeAngelis — whose Cato institute bio says "he has been labeled the 'school choice evangelist'" — was blocked from the Pulaski County Schools Facebook page "after he raised questions last August" concerning the amendment.

"Bless his heart," Pulaski County Schools Superintendent Patrick Richardson said in response to the complaint.

READ MORE: Despite Trump’s win, school vouchers were again rejected by majorities of voters

"Oddly enough, I wonder why a person from Texas would be so interested in Kentucky, especially Pulaski County?"

He added, "I really don’t have a comment on something I have not officially been made aware of yet."

News From The States reports DeAngelis — who also serves on the board of the constitutional law firm Liberty Justice Center —
said "he filed the lawsuit to uphold the First Amendment rights of all Americans and remedy the issue for Kentucky families that may follow the school district’s page and were not able to voice their opinion while all comments were limited on the online posts."

READ MORE: Mike Johnson retaliates against House Republican who voted against him in speaker election

News from the States' full report is available at this link.

Four days before Donald Trump takes office, Economist Editor in Chief Zanny Minton Beddos used her weekly editor's picks newsletter Thursday to tear into the incoming president's foreign policy plans, according to Mediaite.

Beddos submitted that while "Trump's critics have often accused him of buffoonery and isolationism" — even before taking the White House again — the MAGA leader "has shown how much those words fall short."

She writes, "He has helped secure a ceasefire in Gaza and shocked European politicians with a taboo-busting bid for control over Greenland. It’s already clear that the impact of Mr. Trump’s second term on the rest of the world will be both more disruptive and more consequential than his first. Mr. Trump is supplanting a vision of America’s role in the world that held sway since the second world war. Welcome, instead, to the Trump Doctrine."

READ MORE: Rubio cornered over Trump’s business dealings with foreign governments

Beddos — who's the first woman to hold her position — continued, "Gone is the idea of America as the indispensable defender of democracy, settled borders and universal values. Mr Trump has little truck with alliances, multilateral rules or any other elements of what is often called the ‘post-war world order."

"Instead the Trump Doctrine is based on the belief that American strength," she continued, "wielded in unorthodox and opportunistic ways, is the key to peace and prosperity. This approach, simultaneously swaggering and unpredictable, transactional and norm-busting, will be tested in three conflicts: the Middle East, Ukraine and America’s cold war with China. In some places, such as the Middle East, it may prove surprisingly successful."

Beddos then issued a clear warning.

"But there are serious risks and worrying inconsistencies, especially over what the Trump Doctrine would mean for Taiwan," she wrote. "When the use of power is untethered from values, the result could be chaos on a global scale."

READ MORE: 'Humiliation will escalate': Foreign diplomat says Rubio won’t last long as sec of state

Mediaite's full report is available here.

Republican senators are at odds over the looming ban of the social media website, TikTok, expected to take place Sunday, January 19 if the US Supreme Court doesn't stop or delay it.

Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio wrote via X on Thursday, "Fascinating political dynamics on TikTok. [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer (D-NY) just now backed a delay in implementation of the TikTok forced divestiture law that Congress passed last year, effectively siding with Trump. [Senator] Tom Cotton (R-AR) , Intel chair and No. 3 in leadership, blocked an effort to extend the deadline yesterday."

Desiderio also noted that after Senator [Ed] Markey (D-MA) attempted to extend the deadline, Cotton said: "Let me be crystal clear: there will be no extensions, no concessions, and no compromises for TikTok. ByteDance and the Chinese Communists had plenty of time to make a deal."

READ MORE: Ex-Trump solicitor general representing Chinese social media giant in case against US government

The Punchbowl News reporter added that he "asked [Senator Marco] Rubio (R-FL) last week about [President-elect Donald] Trump’s posture on TikTok," and found that the GOP lawmaker changed his position on the matter.

"Rubio is about to be secretary of State and was Congress’ loudest critic of TikTok & the national security risks associated with it," Deseterio wrote via X.

"If I’m confirmed as secretary of State, I’ll work for the president," Rubio said.

READ MORE: Republicans in 'chaotic disarray' as US faces 'difficult for years for democracy': analysis

Democrats, unsurprisingly, are not the biggest fans of the Donald Trump nominees awaiting confirmation as he prepares to take the White House next week, but there's one name who came "as a pleasant surprise" to Democratic party leaders, according to The Atlantic's Russell Berman.

The MAGA labor secretary nominee, former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR), Berman notes, is "one of just three House Republicans to co-sponsor the labor movement’s top legislative priority: a bill known as the PRO Act, which would make unionizing easier and expand labor protections for union members."

United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten told The Atlantic, "It’s a positive move for those of us who represent workers and who want workers to have a better life."

READ MORE: Trump AG pick has long history of 'rigging the system' for GOP donors

The Democratic ally emphasized that Chavez-DeRemer "bucked her party not only by supporting the PRO Act but also by voting against private-school vouchers and cuts to public-education funding."

Berman notes, "Yet until his selection of Chavez-DeRemer, Trump’s support for unions had stopped at rhetoric. He’s surrounded himself with conservative billionaires and generally sided with business interests by opposing minimum-wage increases, enhanced overtime pay, and other policies backed by organized labor."

Still, the Atlantic staff writer adds that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, "If Chavez-DeRemer commits as labor secretary to strengthen labor unions and promote worker power, she’s a strong candidate for the job."

Weingarten noted, "'This is where the rubber hits the road about whether the parties stay in their own preexisting camps' with regard to labor,'" Berman writes, "She said she would lobby Democratic senators to support Chavez-DeRemer if the nominee sticks by her pro-union positions. But if she renounces them, Weingarten said, 'then all bets are off.'"

READ MORE: 'That is not true': Legal expert examines 'red flags' raised during Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing

Furthermore, Berman adds, "Chavez-DeRemer might be the best nominee Democrats can get under Trump, but labor leaders like Weingarten 'will be watching closely to see how she squares her recent support for union-friendly legislation with an administration that is, in other key positions, empowering business leaders and billionaires.'"

Berman's full report is available at this link (subscription required).

Republican Senators expressed their eagerness Wednesday to "erase" a list of President Joe Biden rules and regulations as soon as possible, according to Axios.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told the news outlet that he has a "'fairly lengthy list' of last-minute Biden regulations" he's like to see undone over the next few weeks, while Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has his eyes set on rules set by the president over the few months.

"We are scrubbing right now to determine what is eligible," Thune said during an event Tuesday, according to Axios.

READ MORE: 'Is that a joke?' Biden gives snarky response to reporter’s question during press conference

Meanwhile, the news outlet notes that Cruz is expected "to kick things off next week by introducing three resolutions to erase Biden moves on crypto, energy and internet access."

Axios reports, "One resolution would rescind a December regulation by the Energy Department that regulated gas water heaters," while the second would get rid of an IRS rule that "requires more reporting on income earned in cryptocurrencies."

The third, according to the report, "is a FCC regulation that allow schools and libraries to lend Wifi hotspots to students through the E-Rate program. Cruz argued it violates the Communications Act, increases taxes and "opens up children to real risks of abuse" with no limits on their broadband usage."

READ MORE: GOP proposes repealing Biden’s student debt relief to fund new tax cuts for the rich

Axios' full report is available at this link.

Now that Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith has resigned from his post — after unsuccessfully prosecuting Donald Trump in the president-elect's January 6 and unclassified documents cases — one GOP lawmaker may go after the prosecutor.

Politico reports House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Wednesday that he's considering calling Smith to testify before the committee.

"Everything’s on the table," the Ohio lawmaker said, according to Politico. "I’m just now looking at his report."

READ MORE: DOJ: Judge Cannon 'lacks authority' to withhold Jack Smith’s classified docs report

Aside from the special counsel's recent resignation, this comes after Smith's final report on Trump's 2020 election case, in which he argued "that he would have been able to obtain a conviction had Trump not won reelection in 2024, making him immune to prosecution."

The final report on the incoming president's Mar-a-Lago classified documents case is expected to be released before Attorney General Merrick Garland's exit.

In November — just five days after Trump's victory — NBC News reported, "Asked specifically multiple times whether Jordan would call on Smith to testify, Jordan repeatedly dodged the question, saying simply, 'Maybe that’s been the norm, but we’re not taking anything off the table. I’m not saying for sure, but we want the information.'"

READ MORE: Outraged Trump lashes out at Seth Meyers as explosive Jack Smith report unveiled

Politico's full report is available here.

Following Donald Trump attorney general nominee Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Mary McCord — who served as Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security of the United States — suggested that the MAGA pick appeared to showed two different sides of herself.

Speaking with McCord, who was also a federal prosecutor in the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace noted, "There's no political analysis that suggests that she's at risk of not being confirmed, but she'll only be successful, including in Trump's eyes, if she's able to do what she was attacking [Senator] Adam Schiff (D-CA) for — if she's able to use the department effectively to bring cases against federal crimes and federal criminals. And she'll only be able to do that — you can't do that by yourself — she'll only be able to do that if she's able to lead the vast majority of that workforce."

Wallace then asked McCord, "Why have answers so detached from reality?"

READ MORE: 'I just familiarized you': Senator exposes Pam Bondi in tense exchange

McCord replied, "Based on all the reporting I've seen, including your clips, it almost seems like we saw two Pam Bondi's, right? We saw the Pam Bondi who was trying to say that she believed in the independence of the Department of Justice, that she would take very seriously her obligations when it came to investigations and prosecutions, and doing those things with dispassion."

"Yet, on the other hand, every time there was an opportunity to kind of be a cheerleader for Donald Trump, she did so," the ex-federal prosecutor continued. "And I think probably that's because she was playing to a couple of different audiences today. One was Donald Trump himself, and the other were the members of the Senate that have to vote on her. And so that's why I think she was resistant to questions about fraud in the election."

McCord emphasized, "That's why I think she was resistant to the questions that Adam Schiff posed to her. I will say, though, one of the things that I thought Senator Schiff did that was really important at the end of the hearing, or I guess the second round, was when he posited to her, look, we're asking you these questions because we want to know if you can put your loyalty to the president aside when you're making decisions, particularly investigative and prosecutorial decisions."

"Now, as we all know, when it comes to policy, that's one thing," McCord concluded. "Executing the president's policy priorities are very different than individual prosecutions and investigations. And what he said to her was, there will come a day — because it that day comes for everyone — where your loyalty to the president may diverge from your duty to the country as the attorney general, and the question is, what will you do? Because that's what you will be remembered for. And I think that's really one of the key things here. And I don't know what her response is."

READ MORE: 'That is not true': Legal expert examines 'red flags' raised during Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Andrew Weissmann — legal analyst and former FBI counsel — on Wednesday highlighted the biggest "red flags" raised during Donald Trump's attorney general nominee Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing.

Speaking with Weissmann during the latest episode of MSNBC's Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace noted, "The Department of Justice is predicated on a politically unintentioned administration of the rule of law, and she couldn't make it clear that that's what she would do in the post."

The ex-FBI counsel replied, "Look, she's helped by the fact that you have [Trump defense secretary pick Pete] Hegseth the day before, and that everyone knows that [ex-Rep.] Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was the first choice [for AG nominee]. So, compared to that, she's doing great."

READ MORE: 'I just familiarized you': Senator exposes Pam Bondi in tense exchange

Weissmann then pointed to several video clips Wallace played from Bondi's hearing earlier in the segment, in which he identified several "red flags."

The first, he said, "In her answer about who won the presidency, and whether there was outcome determinative fraud, she threw in there —not just that Donald Trump had a massive, current win — which overplays what happened, which is concerning, but also said there was a peaceful transfer of power."

Weissmann continued, "We all saw with our own eyes that that is not true. So that is very concerning because it's just it's a spin that is completely counter to a DOJ indictment, and charge and something we all saw. And the second is in response to Senator [Adam] Schiff (D-CA) when she throws in we should be talking about is the crime rate in your state."

"That is such a political answer," the legal expert emphasized. "If this was a political debate, if you were advising politicians, maybe that's an okay answer, right?That's not the right response for somebody who's supposed to be the role of the attorney general of the United States is to be dispassionate, is to be apolitical. And she agreed with that, that it should be just based on the facts and the law. But those statements belie that. And it gives you a sense of that whatever she's trying to portray, she still has in her all of the realness of the Fox News clips that you were playing."

READ MORE: 'Major problem': CNN legal expert pinpoints potential answer that could derail Pam Bondi

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) — Donald Trump's nominee to head the Department of State — was corned by his colleague Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) during his confirmation hearing Wednesday over the Florida lawmaker's refusal to answer questions about the incoming president's ongoing business dealings with foreign governments, according to Mediaite.

Murphy said:

It used to be that, you know, somebody with these big financial business interests would come into government and take actions like setting up a blind trust or divestment in order to make sure there was no connection between their personal financial interests and the business they were conducting in government.

But President Trump has just done the opposite right over the last eight years while he was in office. And since he’s been out of office, he and his family have become more deeply dependent on revenue from governments in the Middle East during his last presidency. Middle East interest sent about $10 million to Trump properties after he left office.

READ MORE: Historian explains why defense nominee reflects Trump’s 'wronghead values and intentions'

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was his primary Middle East envoy, was handed $2 billion in investment by the Saudis, even though a Saudi investment board said the investment was a bad business decision. That investment actually comes up for renewal in 2026, giving the Saudis massive leverage over the Trump family. And then to make matters worse, right after the election, the Trump Organization said that in this term, the president elect’s second term, it would drop its previous prohibition on doing new deals in the Middle East with private foreign companies aligned with foreign governments.

So the Trump Organization is going to be signing new business deals in the Middle East with private companies that have connections to foreign governments. At the very moment that you are going to be conducting sensitive diplomacy in these countries. That’s just extraordinary. Never before in the history of this country has a president been, I mean, literally receiving cash from foreign governments and from foreign companies that are backed by foreign governments in the middle of their term. If you or I had done this as senators, we would be in violation of Senate ethics rule rules. That’s not permitted on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Murphy then asked, “And so I guess my question to you is a pretty simple one. Do you see how this fundamentally compromises your diplomatic efforts? Do you have an issue or you raise an issue with the president about his growing financial connection with the governments that you’re going to be negotiating with?”

Rubio replied:

Well, first of all, I am neither authorized nor in any position to give you sort of any insights into any of these arrangements you’ve pointed out. You know, you mentioned Jared Kushner as an example. He’s a private citizen, happens to be a Floridian. I don’t know what, if any, engagement he has in the work that’s going on now.

READ MORE: Trump AG pick has long history of 'rigging the system' for GOP donors

I can tell you what I know. Obviously, I’m not in the State Department yet, but I can tell you, as an example, the president’s envoy to that region who was charged, Steve Witkoff, who was charged with being an envoy towards reaching an accommodation between the Israelis and the Saudis, has been working cooperatively and together with the Biden administration.

And in fact, I dare to say that all involved deserve credit for the ceasefire that the chairman’s just announced. But Steve, of course, being a critical component of it and has been involved in it from day one, I think the broader consideration about whether we want to see a Saudi-Israeli mutual recognition and relationship would be one of the most historic developments in the history of the region. For all the factors we’ve discussed here today, it would be and one of the impediments to it has been this conflict and the ongoing conflict and the lack of a cease-fire. I also think it’s going to be important for the Saudis and others to be participants in post-conflict stabilization efforts in Gaza and beyond.

So all I can tell you is that what I’ve said from the very beginning, from the opening statement, and that is our foreign policy is going to be driven, as the president’s made abundantly clear by whether some action makes it matter is in the interest of that of the United States and our national security. And that’s what it’s going to be driven by, and that’s how all these policies should be judged by. And that’s certainly the job that I believe I’ve been tasked with executing on.

The Connecticut lawmaker then said, "Well, let me then simply ask you this question. Do you believe that the president should refrain from doing new business deals with Middle East governments during his term in office?"

READ MORE: 'Public display of fealty': Trump nominees’ face their biggest test ahead of confirmation

Rubio replied:

My understanding, again, I’m speaking out of turn, but the president doesn’t manage that company. His family members do. And they have a right to be in the business. I mean, that’s the business that they’re in. They’re in the real estate business. They’ve been for a very long time, both domestically and abroad. They have properties in multiple countries. So at the end of the day, I don’t know.

His family is entitled to continue to operate their business. The fundamental question is not whether his family’s involved in business. The fundamental question is whether that is in any way impacting the conduct of our foreign policy in a way that’s counter to our national interest.

And the President’s made abundantly clear that every decision he makes and every decision we are to make at the State Department should be driven by whether or not it serves the nation, the core national interests of the United States. And that’s how I hope our policies will be judged by not what business his family’s conducting while the president. Is here in Washington working not on this business, but from the Oval Office.

Murphy agreed with Rubio setting a standard that all foreign policy must first be in the national interest, but added that he remains concerned whether or not that will be the case as Trump’s family business interests remain tied to both the president and foreign countries.

Watch Mediaite's video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump nominee’s 'outrageous lie' before Senate singled out by MSNBC host

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) challenged her Democratic colleague, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, (TX) to a fight during a House Oversight Committee organizational meeting on Tuesday.

As the Texas lawmaker referenced Mace's ongoing crusade against transgender people — which officially resulted in Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) being forced to use the men's bathroom in the Capitol building last week — Mace issued a threat to Crockett.

"If you want to take it outside, we can do that," the South Carolina lawmaker said.

READ MORE: 'Take it outside': Nancy Mace challenges Jasmine Crockett to fight in committee hearing

Crockett took aim at Mace hours after the incident via social media, writing: "Nancy Mace loves the 'uneducated' as Trump calls them. Please explain to me how the same damn Karen that called Cap Police on a child who shook her hand wanted to act like she wanted to fight me?! ME… the same person who has represented real killers in court."

The Democratic leader continued, "She’s an attention seeking loser who clearly has some fundraising goals to hit… and to be clear that is the only thing that she will hit."

Crockett added, "Republicans incite violence from the highest levels of government & ALSO claim to be the party of law & order. The two cannot be true! Do yourself a favor, decide to require better of your electeds. Last I checked, threatening members in a committee room doesn’t exactly reduce the cost of eggs."

READ MORE: 'Pitiful embarrassment': PR agent who fired Nancy Mace scorches her in several viral posts

One of President-elect Donald Trump's priorities when he officially assumes office next week includes imposing a 25 percent tariff on all goods from Canada.

While the country's Conservative Party leader, Pierre Poilievre, has already "stood his ground against the tariffs" on social media, according to The Daily Beast, the New Democratic Party's leader, Jagmeet Singh, also spoke out against the tariff plan on Tuesday.

Per the Beast, Singh "called on Canadian leaders to impose 'retaliatory tariffs' on U.S. imports and cut off exports of crucial minerals like cobalt and lithium," in a statement.

READ MORE: Why Trump’s Denmark tariff would send the price of drugs like Ozempic through the roof

Singh wrote, "In order to continue to export all minerals and products to the United States without job-killing tariffs, we need to stand up to the bully now."

The news outlet notes that the left-leaning party leader also fired back at Trump in a video over the weekend, saying, "If you think you can pick a fight with us, there’ll be a price to pay."

He added, "If Donald Trump imposes tariffs on us, we should respond with retaliatory tariffs in kind."

READ MORE: Economist Paul Krugman explains why Trump voters are being 'brutally scammed'

The Daily Beast's full report is available here (subscription required).

An expecting Democratic lawmaker won't be able to cast her vote as Donald Trump nominees are confirmed this week.

US Rep. Brittany Petterson (D-CO) wrote via X on Monday: "Today marks the first day I am unable to fly to DC for votes due to travel restrictions ahead of my due date. It shouldn't be this way."

The Colorado lawmaker added, "Congress must pass my bipartisan resolution to allow Members who are new parents to vote remotely."

READ MORE: Mike Johnson retaliates against House Republican who voted against him in speaker election

NBC News' Sahil Kapur reported on Tuesday that the resolution "is a no go," writing via X that Speaker Mike Johnson "says the Constitution doesn’t permit proxy voting."

The GOP leader said, "I’ve filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court asserting that proxy vote is unconstitutional. That's been my belief as a constitutional law litigator, and I don't see any way around that. And it's unfortunate."

Johnson continued, "I have great sympathy, empathy for all of our young women legislators who are of birthing age. It’s a real quandary. But I'm afraid it doesn't fit with the language of the Constitution, and that's the inescapable truth that we have."

However, one Republican lawmaker voiced her support of the resolution.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) wrote: "That would be the case if the quorum clause wasn’t removed. I am calling up a discharge petition and am confident it will pass. I disagree with the speaker and so do other members. It will pass."

READ MORE: Mike Johnson 'wants to extend debt limit' for 'entirety of Trump’s presidency'

House Speaker Mike Johnson faced backlash after suggesting that there should be "conditions" placed on aid given to California amid its ongoing wildfire crisis — but several of the state's own Republican lawmakers agree with their leader.

According to Mediaite, in a Monday report published by The Bulwark, national political reporter Joe Perticone wrote that "at least two GOP California House members ;want to stick it to the residents of their own state.'"

Perticone noted that although Rep. Tom McClintock's (R-CA) district has not been impacted by the fires, the area is still "wildfire-prone."

READ MORE: 'New level of shamelessness': Johnson slammed over response on California aid

Nonetheless, Mediate reports that McClintock said he believes "'it would be a mistake to grant money to the very same people responsible for the policies that have produced this disaster,' and added that he was willing to restrict aid to people in his own state because as a Californian, he was also 'one of the victims of these policies,' which he described as 'downright dangerous.'"

His colleague, Rep. Kevin Kiley's (R-CA) district, the news outlet notes, also has not been affected by the disaster, but has experienced "devastating fires" in the past.

Mediaite reports, "While he told Perticone that it was his 'priority' to rush aid funds to the victims 'as quickly as possible,' he was still amenable to imposing conditions like reforms to water and forest management policies."

Kiley told Perticone, "I think that there’s a broader question of the federal government’s role in oversight going forward with what’s going on in California, because it’s clear that a lot of things went wrong, and we’re going to need to — I think there’s gotta be some accountability."

READ MORE: Wildfire relief tied to debt ceiling? Trump, GOP spark outrage after Mar-a-Lago meeting

Perticone's report is available at this link. Mediaite's report is here.

Less than one week ahead of Donald Trump's inauguration, US national security officials warn of possible violence, according to a Tuesday Politico report.

Per the report, despite the fact that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have said that, so far, "there are no specific credible threats" to worry about, they say the vicinity could be "'an attractive potential target' for violent extremists."

According to a threat assessment obtained by the news outlet, the national security officials wrote persons specifically with "election related grievances" could see the event as "their last opportunity to influence the election results through violence."

READ MORE: DC hotel bookings way down for Trump inauguration as even protesters decide to skip

Furthermore, the officials are concerned that protests could turn violent.

"Past protests by some of these individuals have involved traffic blockades, trespassing, property destruction, and resisting arrest," the assessment reads.

Politico reports one ex-counterterrorism official who worked to secure President Joe Biden's 2021 inauguration — John Cohen — said, "said this year’s event faces more threats than" the current president's.

"As somebody who was involved in the planning of the last inauguration, the threat environment was dangerous," Cohen told Politico.

READ MORE: 'Quite unlikely': Analysis exposes key Trump campaign promises as unrealistic — if not 'impossible'

"As I sit here today, based on the work I’ve been doing with law enforcement for the past four years, the threat environment today is even more volatile and more dangerous than it was in 2021."

Politico's full report is available at this link.

Top Democratic lawmakers believe an ex-campaign treasurer is responsible for the "'misappropriation' of hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds," according to an exclusive Rolling Stone report.

Per the report, Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA) — who lead two out of the four Democratic political committees accusing former treasurer Katherine Buchanan of misappropriating the funds — are conducting their own internal investigation on the matter after notifying law enforcement officials.

In a letter sent to the Federal Election Commission on June 6, Kaine's campaign committee confirmed it "does not know the extent of Ms. Buchanan's apparent misappropriations," but Buchanan has been fired from her position.

READ MORE: GOP lawmaker hit with $125K FEC fine for repeated campaign law violations

Rolling Stone reports, "Federal authorities contacted Kaine’s campaign about Buchanan in April, and the campaign 'immediately removed the individual’s access to all campaign accounts, notified the FEC and the Alexandria (Va.) Police Department, and hired a new compliance firm.'"

Additionally, "Federal authorities also alerted Warner’s office to the allegations in April, and Warner’s committee 'moved immediately to remove Ms. Buchanan’s access to the accounts in question,' Rachel Cohen, a Warner spokesperson, said in an email."

Cohen added, "The committee is currently conducting an audit, has implemented corrective measures, put in place a new compliance firm, and is working with the FEC on this issue."

READ MORE: DOJ announces criminal investigation into 'squad' member for alleged misuse of gov’t funds

In the release of the final report on the investigation into Hunter Biden Monday, Special Counsel Dave Weiss sharply criticized President Joe Biden's pardon of his son on gun and tax charges.

One former CIA lawyer then explained why he believes Weiss' defense is faulty.

Reuters DC reporter Brad Heath reported:

Special Counsel Weiss says he 'prosecuted the two cases against Mr. Biden because he broke the law.'

Weiss is critical of Biden's pardon of his son. 'Other presidents have pardoned family members, but in doing so, none have taken the occasion as an opportunity to malign the public servants at the Department of Justice based solely on false accusations.'

Weiss accuses Biden of 'injecting partisanship' into the probe of his son. 'Far from selective, these prosecutions were the embodiment of the equal application of justice-no matter who you are, or what your last name is, you are subject to the same laws as everyone else in the United States.'

READ MORE: How Democrats and Republicans look at Hunter Biden’s pardon and one for J6ers

Heath continued:

The special counsel says 'politicians who attack the decisions of career prosecutors as politically motivated when they disagree with the outcome of a case undermine the public's confidence in our criminal justice system.

Weiss - who is speaking for DOJ here - says the President's remarks about his son's case 'are incorrect based on the facts in this case, and, on a more fundamental level, they are wrong.'

And in a conclusion that is certain to frustrate almost everyone, the special counsel says that because President Biden pardoned his son, it would be 'inappropriate' to discuss whether his investigation turned up anything else that he thought should or should not have resulted in more charges.

Greer replied: "This is a pretty weak defense from Weiss. A judge denying a selective & vindictive prosecution claim means nothing. The bar is very high, and those motions are never granted. If he's right, it should be easy to point to other defendants who were treated similarly. Weiss' 27 page report says nothing."

READ MORE: Experts: Hunter Biden conviction 'makes it much harder' for Trump to make 'rigged' claims

Greer continued, "Of course, it would have been much better if Biden's pardon statement had explained why Hunter was treated so differently than other similarly-situated defendants in tax and gun license cases. That was pretty stupid too. Show your homework people."

Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA) on Monday night stood by Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) suggestion that Congress will assist California amid ongoing raging fires — with conditions.

Speaking with the Iowa lawmaker, CNN's Kaitlan Collins said, "I think what the concern that we've heard from Democrats who say is you're creating a really bad precedent here because aid typically doesn't have conditions on it. I mean, North Carolina didn't have conditions when we saw how devastating that was for people who live there who say this is a slippery slope."

Collins then pointed out, "You could be in a disaster prone state like Louisiana, where Mike Johnson is from, or like Florida or even Iowa, and something happens. And then how would you feel if Democrats are saying, well, actually, we don't like how your republican governor is handling that, so we're going to put conditions on."

READ MORE: 'Help people instead of score political points': Trump feud with Newsom hits boiling point

The GOP congressman replied, "And Kaitlin, I gently push back on that and say that there have been conditions placed on aid before, particularly when it comes to emergency aid. Look, we've got a $36 trillion national debt, and the inability for the insurance commissioners in California to be able to keep insurance companies in the state are a real management issue. It's a challenge. Equally important, if we're going to put billions of dollars into helping families recover, I want to make sure they're not going to face the exact same crisis two years from now, because California has failed to take action on things they should have been taking action on decades ago."

Collins then added, "Okay, but so, for example, if Mike Johnson moves ahead with this idea that's been floating around of tying the debt ceiling to to wildfire aid, could you argue that's anything but political?"

Nunn said, "Well, you know, we haven't even gotten to this point yet, so I won't even speculate on what the future of the debt ceiling is going to look like."

"But would you support that?" the CNN host asked again.

READ MORE: 'New level of shamelessness': Johnson slammed over response on California aid

"I think I want to support getting assistance on the ground right now. look again, colonel, in the air national guard and the military beforehand. There's needs that can be met right now. We should be focused on that. What we don't need is more of, tragically, like, what Governor Newsom has already done is to say, 'hHy, send me your aid, but make sure it goes through my ActBlue account so that i can collect your information and use it in my upcoming election.' That's the real politicalization that's going on right now in California.

Collins then asked, "Is it helpful when Trump attacks a sitting governor as these fires are still raging in California?"

"I think he's talking about already going out there and seeing this," Nunn replied. "What I want to see is that both sides depoliticize, and it starts with the governor. He's the commander on the ground. He needs to take responsibility for this.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Wildfire relief tied to debt ceiling? Trump, GOP spark outrage after Mar-a-Lago meeting

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) was blasted over his comments during an interview with the conservative news outlet, Newsmax, on Monday about California's need for government aid as fires continue to rage across LA, leaving residents homeless, and without basic necessities.

Newsmax host Chris Plante asked Tuberville, "Why should other states be bailing out California for choosing the wrong people to run their state?

The Alabama lawmaker replied, "We shouldn't be. They've got 40 million people in that state, and they've voted these imbeciles in office, and they continue to do it. If you go to California, you run into a lot of lot of Republicans — a lot of good people, and I hate it it for them. But they are just overwhelmed by these inner city, woke policies, with the people that vote for them."

READ MORE: 'New level of shamelessness': Johnson slammed over response on California aid

He added, "And I don't mind sending them some money, but unless they show that they're gonna change their ways, and get back to building dams, and restoring water and everything everybody else does in the country, and they refuse to do it, they don't deserve anything to be honest with you unless they show us they're gonna make some changes."

Former US attorney Joyce Vance replied, "In 2020, Alabama got $2.17 for every $1 paid in fedl taxes," and included a link to the report for proof.

She added, "In 2023 the fedl govt sent over $64 billion through direct payments, contracts, grants & other forms of financial assistance to Alabama, making putting it among the most federally dependent states in the nation."

Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan added: "California helps fund Tuberville's Alabama."

Crooked Media founder and former speechwriter for ex-President Barack Obama, Jon Favreau, commented: "We've already got multiple Republicans in Congress - including the Speaker of the House - on record saying that Republican-controlled Washington will only help Republican-controlled states."

READ MORE: 'Help people instead of score political points': Trump feud with Newsom hits boiling point

Ahmed Baba, a columnist for the Independent, added: "Trump is 100% going to withhold aid from blue states in an effort to force them to comply with parts of his agenda. And apparently a lot of Republican lawmakers will help him do it."

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) faced significant on Monday after offering comments about what the US government's aid to California amid the LA fire crisis would look like.

CNN's Manu Raju reported via social media: "Asked Speaker Johnson about placing conditions on aid to California, and he tells us: 'I think there should be conditions on that aid.' Said that’s his personal view before talking with the conference. Also says 'there’s some discussion' within the House GOP about tying the debt limit increase to the aid 'but we will see how it goes.' Aid to rebuild after natural disasters often is approved without any conditions and with significant bipartisan support. But there could be a big fight over the California aid in the coming weeks."

CNN political analyst Bakari Sellers replied: "This is terrible and awful leadership."

READ MORE: LA fires underscore how much California has to lose if Trump withholds disaster aid

Former DNC chair Jaime Harrison commented: "When you think these people couldn’t be more reprehensible. In no world should any politician from either party let alone the Speaker of the House (3rd most powerful role in our government) should ever think about putting conditions on aid and assistance to Americans from a natural disaster. Johnson saw the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to the people of Louisiana. There were no conditions placed on their assistance. The folks in CA have suffered enough and don’t need to be treated like political pawns!"

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) added: ".@SpeakerJohnson: Disaster aid should NEVER be conditioned or used as a bargaining chip—period. Using this tragedy for political points, then making it harder for people to get federal assistance? That’s shameful. Lives and people's entire livelihoods are at stake."

The Lincoln Project — formed by moderate conservatives and former Republican Party members — replied: "Doing a debt limit deal on the back of such overwhelming disaster aid is shameful."

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich added: "Using government aid for natural disasters as leverage to pave the way for more tax cuts for the rich is a new level of shamelessness I didn't think was possible — even for Mike Johnson."

READ MORE: Wildfire relief tied to debt ceiling? Trump, GOP spark outrage after Mar-a-Lago meeting

Majority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) replied: "When disaster strikes, you don't ask for a community's party affiliation: you simply ask how we can help. We are all Americans and we are all in this together."

A former Republican National Chair and former Democratic National Committee Chair on Monday sparred over former President Barack Obama's cordial exchange with President-elect Donald Trump during President Jimmy Carter's funeral last week, according to Mediaite.

Reince Preibus — who served as Republican National Committee Chair from 2011-2017 — claimed that the former and incoming president's conversation makes Obama's past criticism of Trump invalid.

"I would say a couple of things quickly," Preibus began. "Number one, Donald Trump, one on one with people, people that even don’t like him one on one. He’s a charming guy. He’s great with people…It’s good to see. But the third thing, it also shows what a sham some of the Democrat talking points. I mean, Donald Trump is supposed to be Hitler. He was a fascist. He was a threat to democracy…It’s a sham! It’s a sham!"

READ MORE: 'No clue yet': 'Bitter' Trump Rust Belt voters slammed for supporting former president again

Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile shot back, "He’s a convicted felon who’s about to take political office!"

Preibus replied, "This was their entire campaign! It was the whole thing."

Brazile argued, "This is not about the name calling that Donald Trump has done for the last 8 years."

Preibus shot back, "It was a lie!"

"The bottom line is he’s elected president," Brazile insisted. "As Mr. [John] Fetterman (D-PA) and others have said. He’s going to be our president."

READ MORE: 'Craves attention': Top Dem suggests motive behind Trump's 'dumb' new 'distraction'

Watch Mediaite's video below or at this link.

Three sources familiar with the president-elect's plans recently spoke with Rolling Stone senior political reporter Aswan Suesaeng about the MAGA administration's strategy to implement the operation.

Per Suesaeng's report, Trump "and several of his key lieutenants are aware that their desired, larger-scale crackdowns — which could involve a new network of militarized 'camps' — will take significant time to execute."

READ MORE: Some Texas business leaders worry how Trump’s pledged deportations will impact the economy

Therefore, "In the meantime, Trump and his incoming anti-immigration crew have plans to fill the gaps in part by leaning heavily into generating relentless propaganda and (as one Trump transition official puts it) 'media spectacle' that many of them hope will cause undocumented immigrants to flee the country and persuade migrants not to come to America," Suesaeng reports.

"People are really scared," immigration attorney Katie Kersh told the publication. Having run legal clinics for Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio last year, Kersh added, ""I think a lot of the Haitians are concerned that their rights will be violated. We are right now trying to make sure that people understand their rights, and allay their fears that they’ll be on a plane back to Haiti on Jan. 21, which is not how the law works."

Suesaeng reports, "According to the three sources, there have been recent internal discussions within Trump’s government-in-waiting, including with the president-elect himself, not only about launching high-profile, big-city raids at the very beginning of the second term — but about how to inject those raids into the media ecosystem and social-media bloodstream as aggressively as possible."

This, the politics reporter adds, would involve "tipping off friendly media, such as Fox News, to generate news footage of the actions; sending along the administration’s own camera crews; coordinating with, and pumping out video, photos, and announcements to top influencers on popular social media sites; having billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk wield his X platform (formerly Twitter) to whip up a MAGAfied propaganda loop highlighting these law-enforcement operations; and, of course, letting Trump boast garrulously on TV and online about these operations."

READ MORE: 'Not going to cooperate': Sheriffs defy calls to help with Trump’s mass deportations

Rolling Stone's full report is available at this link.

Former federal prosecutor Kristy Greenberg on Sunday explained how Judge Aileen Cannon has created "a mess" of Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6 case against Donald Trump.

Speaking with Greenberg on the latest episode of MSNBC's The Weekend, co-host Michael Steele noted that news of Smith resigning from his post on Friday "wasn't blasted out in a press release, but included in a court filing submitted by department officials to Judge Aileen Cannon, urging Cannon not to extend her restrictions that's temporarily blocking the release of Smith's final report on his investigations into Donald Trump."

Greenberg replied, "This is such a mess. You've got two volumes of this special counsel report — the January 6th volume, and the classified documents volume. With respect to the classified documents volume, Merrick Garland kind of took himself out of it. He said, we're not going to publicly release it. And the reason is because, well, there is still this ongoing appeal of Judge Cannon's dismissal of the classified documents case against these two co-defendants. And so there could be some prejudice to them, so we're just not going to publicly release it, we want to just release it to a few members of Congress. I mean, that's absurd."

READ MORE: Key Trump Cabinet nominee could be implicated in final Jack Smith report: legal expert

The legal analyst continued, "In a week from now, Trump's justice department is going to dismiss that appeal. And so why don't we just drop that appeal now and go ahead and release the classified documents report to the public? That's something that the public, I think, is entitled to see from the incoming president, who's going to be charged with once again protecting the nation's secrets."

"So, that piece was confounding to me," Greenberg emphasized, "that the DOJ made that decision. As to the January 6th report, Judge Cannon has no jurisdiction over this case, right? It's on appeal to the 11th Circuit with respect to those two co-defendants. She's got no skin in the game. And yet, these co-defendants know if they want something done for Donald Trump, you go to Judge Cannon. So that's what they did. She halted the report despite the fact that January 6th was not her case, halts the report for three days after the appellate court can look at it. Appellate court looks at it on Thursday and says, 'Yeah, you can go ahead and release this, no problem.' But they didn't kind of do the belt and suspenders of also vacating her order."

The former prosecutor added, "The co-defendants go back to Judge Cannon, and they say, 'Hey, why don't we have a hearing,' which we know she loves to do, and she knows she's got eight days until Donald Trump takes over and these reports would never see the light of day. So what is she doing? She's doing what she needs to do. She's like a real housewife who got the assignment. She's trying to create a storyline for herself for this week, to be able to create drama, to be able to make sure to punt this until he can come in and try and bury it."

"Hopefully, the 11th Circuit stops it," Greenberg concludes. "They've already said these reports should be released. Nothing about what's in the January 6th report has anything to do with Judge Cannon. And just yesterday, she ordered DOJ to say, 'Tell me more about why the January 6th report has nothing to do with these defendants.' About half an hour ago, DOJ said, 'has nothing to do with these defendants, and you don't have jurisdiction.' So, hopefully the 11th Circuit comes in and tells her to knock it off."

READ MORE: 'Suppression of the truth': Legal experts blast Judge Cannon for blocking Jack Smith report

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

As Los Angeles firefighters continue to do what they can to fight the raging brush fires across the city, President-elect Donald Trump is questioning their competence — while one Republican congressman is threatening to withhold aid until the problem is solved.

California Fire Foundation Chair Brian Rice on Sunday shut down both the president-elect's and Rep. Warren Davidson's (R-OH) assessments of the ongoing crisis.

Pointing to Trump's recent social media post — in which he asked, "Why can't they just put out the fires?" — MSNBC's The Weekend co-host Symone Sanders Townsend asked Rice to explain how his crew is "providing resources not just to communities, but to the firefighters who are fighting these fires themselves."

READ MORE: 'Lies and disinformation': Critics say Trump got 'nothing right' about LA wildfires

She added, "This is not like a fire breaking out on your stove in the kitchen."

Rice replied, "That's exactly right. It is a firefight. It is a fight against nature. And until somebody can have control over the wind, we're at the mercy of the weather right now."

The California Fire Foundation leader emphasized that he tries to ignore social media posts like Trump's, as they can become "frustrating" to read.

Rice then noted that he saw a print media news article recently quoted "a congressman from Ohio who probably has little to no experience with a wildfire, and certainly not a California wildfire," suggesting "that the federal government should stop aid until we control the fire problem."

READ MORE: 'Lack of empathy': Laura Ingraham’s brother slams her 'twisted propaganda' during LA wildfires

He added, "People need to understand fire has been a part of the nature of California in this country since since the beginning of time, when you add people, there's 40 million people in California, changes the fuel load. You can't manage every acre of forest land. And this is not a forest fire. This is a brush fire that transitions at the higher levels to more forested areas at the lower level, to urban areas and urban conflagration areas. When the wind is blowing and the fire gets ahead of steam, you are not going to stop it. California firefighters are the best in the world at fighting this type of a fire. And right now, everything is settled down."

"Everybody is focused on two things," Rice continued. "The most important — getting our community out of harm's way, and taking care of, and putting this damn fire out. And until the weather changes for us, people can stay and talk and do all they want, but we're at the mercy of the weather right now."

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Total devastation as LA suffers what could be 'costliest wildfire disaster in American history'

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

A recent campaign finance law could make New Jersey’s upcoming gubernatorial election "the least transparent in memory," Politico reports.

The Elections Transparency Act — which Politico notes allows super PACs to keep their donors secret until shortly before the primary" — is expected to be "the biggest test yet of the financial overhaul, and supporters of a few candidates have already sought to leverage it by forming independent expenditure committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts."

Campaign Legal Center senior leal counsel Aaron McKean told the news outlet that "voters should know who’s funding the ads they’re seeing well before the election, not just days before it or weeks after."

READ MORE: These 5 things will 'shape American politics in 2025': analysis

McKean emphasized, "The key reason that reporting like this is important is so that voters have information to make decisions when they’re evaluating their choices on the ballot, and failing to put in meaningful disclosure means voters don’t get that information. It’s not useful to a voter to find out 20 days after an election who was funding all those ads."

However, Politico notes that "it doesn’t have to be that way," as "There’s nothing stopping these groups from going above and beyond New Jersey’s lax reporting requirements and voluntarily disclosing where their money is coming from and how they’re spending it."

The state's 2025 gubernatorial election, according tot eh report, "is one of just two gubernatorial elections this year, making it a closely watched contest in Donald Trump’s first year returning to the White House."

READ MORE: Experts fear chaos from Republican bill aimed at increasing transparency

Politico's full report is available here.

Just one week ahead of Donald Trump's inauguration, a slew of the president-elect's nominees are expected to be confirmed this week on one key condition: their loyalty to MAGA.

"He deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the agenda he was elected to implement," Vice President-elect JD Vance tells CNN.

The news outlet reports MAGA allies — like Vance — "have pressured Senate Republicans to fall in line, with some threatening primary challenges to those who stand in the way of the incoming president."

READ MORE: 'Joke appointment': Experts alarmed over this Trump pick who has 'flown under the radar'

The incoming vice president, according to CNN, even "sought to remind the GOP who leads the party, arguing on social media that Trump’s 'coattails turned a 49-51 senate to a 53-47 senate.'"

The news outlet emphasizes that unlike the president-elect's first time in the White House, there's now a "heightened expectation that Trump’s picks will present not just their own expertise but a clear and unwavering loyalty to the president-elect’s agenda — a public display of fealty that was not always assured during his first term."

However, while many GOP lawmakers are certain "Trump is on track to have his Cabinet approved at a much faster clip than in 2017, when delays in turning over ethics agreements, FBI background checks and other concerns dragged the proceedings beyond the initial weeks of Trump’s new administration," CNN notes that "there is still the potential for holdups."

Some MAGA nominees still have yet to disclose "their finances or their plans for untangling their fortunes from their new assignments in government," the news outlet reports.

READ MORE: 'Enough is enough!' Trump's own fans blast President-elect's newest move

Still, Trump's Secretary of Veteran Affairs nominee, former Georgia Rep. Douglas Collins, and defense secretary pick. former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, face scheduled confirmation hearings on Tuesday.

"This time, people view the nominees as an extension of Donald Trump and his agenda," former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer, tells CNN. "They’re not there to defend their own views; they’re there to defend Trump’s policies."

CNN's fulll repor is available here.

The Supreme Court of the United States stunned legal and political experts on Thursday in its 5-4 decision to deny President-elect Donald Trump's request to halt his sentencing in the New York hush money case, set to occur on Friday, January 10.

During an interview with MSNBC's Joy Reid, former FBI counsel Andrew Weissmann shared his thoughts on the ruling, explaining why it's a win — with a caveat.

"A couple of thoughts on the 5-4 decision, where the key difference here is that the chief justice switched," Weissmann began. "We had a presidential immunity decision that seemed to suggest that we could see a stay coming in place. But Amy Coney Barrett dissented on the key part relevant to the issue that was before the court, and Chief Justice Roberts also switched. Those were the two justices who joined the so-called liberal justices to make up five."

READ MORE: Expert predicts Supreme Court’s refusal to save Trump 'a real warning sign'

He continued, "I think the main thrust in the take home here is that the court said that the rule of law is going to apply the same way to Donald Trump as it does for anyone else. That is a long time coming, Joy. I know I'm preaching to the choir here. But they are basically saying this is the normal course. You raise issues on appeal after sentencing, not before. That's what would happen to you, and to me, and to everyone else. And that's why you have the five justices saying that."

The former FBI counsel then explained the downside to the ruling.

"Now, the bad news is that it was a 5-4 decision," he said. "This should have been 9-0. So what we are going to be seeing in the next four years is an issue of whether this will continue being 5-4 — we are going to have this block of the four dissenters — and when we're going to see Justice Roberts and/or Justice Amy Coney Barrett switch back. I think that this kind of dynamic is one that I think we better sort of fasten our seatbelts for."

"But tonight," Weissmann concluded, "we are seeing the Supreme Court having done the right thing after they took so long to decide the presidential immunity decision, delayed the federal cases inordinately. But here, they are giving the green light for the president-elect of the United States of America to be sentenced tomorrow in state court for 34 felonies that he was convicted of by a jury of his peers."

READ MORE: 'Ransom letter': Trump has a plan for the far-right Supreme Court majority

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Thursday denied Donald Trump allies — ex-aide Walt Nauta, and former Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos de Oliveira — their request to block the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigation into Donald Trump's alleged 2020 election interference, CBS News reports.

The pair was charged alongside the president-elect "for their role in allegedly obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump's handling of sensitive government records," the news outlet notes.

Lawfare Media reporter Anna Bower wrote via the social media platform Bluesky that "the court leaves in place Judge [Aileen] Cannon's order enjoining release of the report, which would remain in effect for 3 more days."

READ MORE: 'My phone's blowing up': Steve Bannon melts down over release of Jack Smith's Trump report

Former US attorney and LA Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman explained what that means, writing, "Boom boom. 11th circuit denies emergency motion, for which Trump had filed brief in support, to block Smith report. But doesn't remove Cannon's lawless order giving another 3 days from 11th circuit holding, w/ no basis whatsoever. Just tells DOJ they can file a notice of appeal from that order."

Historian Michael P. Breen commented: Biden should just post the entire damn report on the official POTUS account and state that he is doing so as 'an official act' and be done with all this overtly corrupt FedSoc BS once & for all"

Georgetown university law Center professor Steve Vladeck said: "Another Trump-related emergency coming to a #SCOTUS near you, probably by Monday."

READ MORE: 'Terminate all efforts': Trump fighting to keep Jack Smith’s final report hidden from public

Journalists and political experts on Thursday quickly responded to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision, declining to halt Donald Trump's sentencing on Friday, January 10.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett voted alongside the high court's liberal justices.

Health policy expert Eric Feigl-Ding emphasized, "The Supreme Court will not save Trump—Donald J Trump will formally become a CONVICTED FELON as of Friday morning Jan 10, 2025.

READ MORE: 'Unprecedented intervention': SCOTUS responds to Trump 'hush money' sentencing delay bid

Religion News Service national reporter Jack Jenkins replied: "Looks like Justice Barrett broke ranks here, which is simultaneously surprising but arguably in keeping with some of the reporting on her misgivings in past cases."

Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn commented: "The Supreme Court of United States: Trump can have king-like powers as president and be above federal law. But he still can be assessed a fine in a state court."

Historian Garrett M. Graff added: "This is a symbolic victory, but it’s a real warning sign that there are four solid Supreme Court votes to allow Trump to do anything at all. America’s democracy hangs by the thin thread of Roberts and Coney Barrett’s feelings in any given case."

READ MORE: 'All eyes on SCOTUS' after Trump loses sentencing bid at top NY court

Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan on Thursday slammed conservative host Piers Morgan on his own show, according to Mediaite, during a conversation about President-elect Donald Trump's lawsuits against news organizations like CBS and ABC.

The MAGA leader sued ABC News last year after the network's George Stephanopoulos saidon air: "Judges and two separate juries have found [Trump] liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape."

The news outlet settled the case last month for $15 million.

READ MORE: Trump DOJ officials may have used media leaks to interfere with 2020 election: report

"Trump’s suing people because actually, people like George Stephanopoulos lied about him," the Uncensored host told Hasan. "They’d exaggerated what’d he been found guilty of. And guess what?"

"You and I both know ABC would’ve won in court," Hasan shot back.

Morgan replied, "ABC didn’t go to court. They gave him $15 million."

"Why do you think that is, Piers?" the founder of the new media organization, Zeteo, asked. "Because of a legal argument? Or because they’re sucking up to an authoritarian?"

READ MORE: The big reason why ABC News caved to Trump

Morgan replied, "Or because they knew they were gonna lose."

"No, bulls—t," Hasan shot back. "No legal expert agrees with you on that. Piers, legal experts don’t agree with you on that, actually. Most lawyers don’t agree with you on that. You’re wrong."

Morgan replied, "Mehdi, you’ll never agree with me about that."

"Do you support Donald Trump suing a pollster because he doesn’t like a poll result," Hasan hit back. "This is insane, piers. I thought you were a free speech [unintelligible], but now you’re rolling over for Trump as well."

"Donald Trump can sue who he likes," Morgan replied.

READ MORE: 'Chilling effect': ABC News employees condemn network‘s 'surrender' to Trump

Hasan asked again, "Do you support it, is my question. Do you support a president of the United States suing media organizations he doesn’t like?"

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

As Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) attempt to pass the massive bill that would include President-elect Donald Trump's main priorities, House and Senate leaders remain divided on whether to push the legislation through as one "big bill," or on a "two-bill track," according to Politico.

Instead of agreeing on one way to do it, Politico reports that the lawmakers will "race each other to see who could show quicker progress."

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX) told the news outlet, "I’d say, catch us if you can."

READ MORE :Daily Show host brutally mocks Republicans rushing to defend Trump’s 'dumb ideas'

Speaking with Politico, Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) shot back at Arrington, saying, "Yeah, he’s very slow. He’s very slow."

Graham wants to pass the bill in two parts, with a focus on pushing Trump's plans for immigration through first.

Per Politico, "Under the strategy discussed in a closed-door lunch on Thursday, Senate Republicans led by Graham would move forward with drafting their own, two-bill-oriented budget — even if it just ends up being a back-up plan in the event the House can’t act quickly."

Still, "There is dissent inside the Senate GOP ranks about trying to move on parallel tracks rather than working together with the House on a unified blueprint," the news outlet notes.

READ MORE: 'Trump no longer in control': GOP fearful that MAGA base will kill public support

"That is a recipe for failure," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) emphasized. "I’m for accomplishing our goal, and we’re not even working on it right now. We’re just spinning our wheels."

Politico's full report is here.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) — the youngest lawmaker I Congress as of last week — defended Donald Trump on Thursday when asked by CNN's Brianna Keilar about how the president-elect plans to use military force to take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Keilar asked the Texas congressman, "How would acquiring that land help everyday Americans better afford their day-to-day expenses?"

He replied, "Well, first of all, Brianna, thanks for having me. Really appreciate it. Listen, President Trump is bringing us into a golden age of America. This is the new manifest destiny. Acquiring — reacquiring the Panama Canal, acquiring Greenland, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, this is the light of America expanding."

READ MORE: 'It was all staged': Greenland lawmaker exposes Donald Trump Jr. visit

"We have a very clear strategic interest geopolitically both in Greenland and in the Panama Canal," Gill continued. "The Panama Canal, as you know, was created with the blood, toil, tears, and sweat of American citizens. We put an enormous amount of money into it. I don’t think we ever should have relinquished control of the Panama Canal."

The GOP lawmaker emphasized, "So President Trump is really just undoing some terrible decisions that have been made in past administrations. And that’s going to be a key theme of his presidency. The biggest job for Republicans coming in this election cycle, after this election cycle, is cleaning up the chaos and destruction that Democrats have unleashed on this country over the past four years. President Trump was a leader in border security. We had a secure border under President Trump."

Keilar then asked, "Can you answer my question? Can you answer my question?"

She emphasized, "I’m asking you a question about the economy, because that really — if he does have a mandate, that’s so much what it’s about. I will also note that, when it comes to the labor on the Panama Canal, so much of it was not American. We know that. But when it comes to helping Americans before…"

READ MORE: Daily Show host brutally mocks Republicans rushing to defend Trump’s 'dumb ideas'

Gill interrupted, claiming that "Democrats spent four years telling us that the economy was in the greatest shape of our lives, telling Americans to not believe the evidence of their eyes and ears, not believe their pocketbooks that they were looking at the end of every week, and trying to force Americans to believe that we were in a booming economy. And now, all of the sudden, Democrats are obsessed with bringing inflation down. And inflation not long ago they said didn’t exist. So, the economy was great under President Trump. It was horrible under President Biden. We’ve got a mess to clean up.

Keilar insisted that she understands Gill's "frustration" with the opposing party.

"I understand you have some frustration with Democrats," the CNN host added, "but looking forward here, as Republicans will be controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, how does something like acquiring the Panama Canal, Greenland, how is that going to help economically? I hear you saying there are geopolitical advantages. Maybe you can make more of a case there, but how is this going to help everyday Americans?

The Republican leader proceeded that it'll help Americans by securing the border, and that "the people of Panama, I think that the people of Greenland, I think that the people of Canada, for that matter, should be honored that President Trump wants to bring these territories under the American fold."

READ MORE: The real reason Trump is pushing for acquiring Greenland: analysis

Watch Mediate's video below or at this link.