Donald Trump’s embattled nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, appeared angry and defensive Thursday afternoon in the halls of Congress as he lashed out at reporters, saying he does not answer to them, he only answers to Donald Trump, the U.S. Senators who may vote on his confirmation, and his “lord and savior.” Moments later, he added his wife, who was standing behind him, and his family to the list.

The video (below) of his remarks, which has gone viral with well over a quarter-million views in just two hours, has drawn outrage.

Saying he’s “proud” of what he fought for and is “not gonna back down from them one bit,” Hegseth, a Fox News weekend co-host, snapped at reporters. “I will answer all of these senators’ questions, but this will not be a process tried in the media.”

“I don’t answer to anyone in this group,” he told the press.

“None of you, not to that camera at all,” he said, as he began pointing. “I answer to President Trump, who received 76 million votes on behalf — and a mandate for change. I answer to the 50 — the 100 — senators who are part of this process and those in the committee, and I answer to my lord and savior. And my wife and my family.”

READ MORE: ‘Sympathy for Dictators’: Ex-NatSec Officials Warn on Gabbard, Want Closed Door Hearings

Hegseth has been dogged by numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, sexual infidelity, possible intoxication on the job, “aggressive drunkenness,” sexist behavior, financial mismanagement, and tattoos which suggest an affinity for Christian nationalism.

“And as long as Donald Trump wants me in this fight, I’m gonna be standing right here in this fight, fighting to bring our Pentagon back to what it needs to be,” Hegseth vowed.

Fred Wellman is an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and is now a political consultant and the host of the podcast “On Democracy.”

“You pointed right at me Pete,” Wellman said in response to Hegseth’s angry remarks. “You answer to us…the American people. We don’t get to ask you questions but the media does. This pompous ass needs to get the f**k out of this game now.”

Political commentator, MSNBC contributor, and New York Times bestselling author Brian Tyler Cohen noted: “Not here to serve Americans, but rather to serve Trump. The perfect encapsulation of MAGA.”

The Bulwark’s Marc Caputo noted, “this is the type of defiant prime-time performance Trump loves.”

Texas Democratic Strategist Olivia Julianna observed, “Actually the entire point of being a public servant is serving the public…”

READ MORE: Pete Hegseth’s Mom Urges ‘Female Senators’ to Ignore Media Reports, Confirm Him as SecDef

The Bulwark’s Joe Perticone appeared to mock Hegseth: “‘I don’t answer to anyone in this group. None of you. Not to that camera at all.’ he says while gesturing to his most recent employer’s camera.”

Carey Lohrenz, whose bio says she is “the first female F-14 Tomcat Fighter Pilot in the U.S. Navy,” and a best-selling author, remarked, simply, “Such hubris.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump May Balk at Hegseth Over Drinking History, Not Sexual Misconduct Allegations: Report

Dozens of the nation’s former national security officials say they are “alarmed” about President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the top official overseeing the entire U.S. Intelligence Community. They are calling for closed-door sessions during the confirmation process so senators can “consider all information available to the U.S. government” regarding the former member of Congress.

The ex-officials cite what they say is Gabbard’s lack of experience and her “sympathy for dictators,” which “raises questions about her judgment and fitness.”

“As the Director of National Intelligence, Ms. Gabbard would be entrusted with oversight of 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the identification and protection of human sources working in the most dangerous settings around the world to defend our national security, and the protection of our most sensitive sources and methods of gathering intelligence,” the officials write.

READ MORE: Trump May Balk at Hegseth Over Drinking History, Not Sexual Misconduct Allegations: Report

“In light of this extraordinary responsibility,” they say in the letter published by Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio (below), “Senators must carefully scrutinize her qualifications as an intelligence professional and her record, including her uncoordinated trip to Syria in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad. Several of Ms. Gabbard’s past actions call into question her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus.”

The national security experts, nearly 100, warn of Gabbard’s “sympathy for dictators like Vladimir Putin and Assad” and say it “raises questions about her judgment and fitness.”

In their letter, they suggest America’s intelligence partners may be unwilling to continue to share valuable information and assets if Gabbard is confirmed. They also suggest she is not qualified.

“Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, would be the least experienced Director of National Intelligence since the position was created. Prior directors had executive branch experience working on intelligence matters or served on a congressional intelligence committee. Most have also had significant management experience. The Senate must carefully evaluate whether Ms. Gabbard is equipped to effectively oversee an organizational structure as unique and large as the National Intelligence Program and also the effect of her holding this position on the willingness of our closest allies to share intelligence with the U.S.”

The officials also “ask that the Senate fully exercise its constitutional advice and consent role with respect to this and other nominees, including through appropriate vetting, hearings, and regular order. In particular, Senate committees should consider in closed sessions all information available to the U.S. government when considering Ms. Gabbard’s qualifications to manage our country’s intelligence agencies, and more importantly, the protection of our intelligence sources and methods.”

READ MORE: ‘Perfect RT Talking Head’: Kremlin Propaganda Outlet Influenced Gabbard’s Views, Ex-Aides Say

In 2017, during his first few months in office and just after firing then-FBI Director Jim Comey, Trump threatened America’s relationship with its intelligence partners around the world by handing highly classified information to Russian officials during a closed-door Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. No other Americans were in the room, but a Russian photographer was, and Russian media published his photos.

The letter from the former national security officials is dated Thursday. It is addressed to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, and his incoming Republican successor, Senator John Thune.

Some of the more well-known officials whose names appear on the letter include Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Secretary of State; Anthony Lake, a former National Security Advisor and Executive Director of UNICEF, Tom Malinowski, a former Member of Congress and Assistant Secretary of State; Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and Israel; Rose Gottemoeller, a former Deputy Secretary General of NATO; and John Tien, a former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

“The DNI has access to every single secret that the United States has, every single bit of information that we know,” It’s the keys to the intelligence community kingdom,” said U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), The Hill reported last month. A former CIA officer, Congresswoman Spanberger sits on the House Intelligence Committee. She said she was “appalled” by the selection of Gabbard for DNI.

READ MORE: Hawley Throws Hegseth Under the Bus: ‘Not 100% Clear Who Trump Really Wants Right Now’

Donald Trump has chosen at least four people to join his administration who have allegations of sexual misconduct in their background, as does Trump himself. But one, Pete Hegseth, his choice to be Secretary of Defense, may have an issue that’s too much for the President-elect: an alleged history of heavy use of alcohol. Hegseth has promised to not drink if confirmed, and says he does not have a problem with alcohol.

“I’ve never had a drinking problem,” Hegseth said Wednesday, according to Newsweek. “No one’s ever approached me and said, ‘You should really look at getting help for drinking.’ Never, never sought counseling, never sought help, but I respect and appreciate people who do. But you know, what do guys do when they come back from war oftentimes? Have some beers. How do you deal with the demons you see on the battlefield? Sometimes it’s with a bottle.”

“This is the biggest deployment of my life, and there won’t be a drop of alcohol on my lips while I’m doing it,” he vowed, Newsweek added.

While he has denied having a problem, he has been open about some of his experience with alcohol.

“By Pete Hegseth’s account, his heavy drinking began after a brush with death when an RPG ricocheted off his vehicle but didn’t explode while he was serving in Iraq with an Army infantry unit,” The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening. “When he returned home to a Manhattan apartment after the deployment ended in 2006, disconnected from the people he served with while his wife at the time worked long hours, he turned to alcohol, he said.”

READ MORE: ‘Perfect RT Talking Head’: Kremlin Propaganda Outlet Influenced Gabbard’s Views, Ex-Aides Say

The Post quoted Hegseth’s remarks from his August 2021 appearance on “The Will Cain Show” podcast.

“I’d look around at 10 o’clock and be like, ‘What am I going to do today? How about I drink some beers? How about I go have some lunch and have some beers? How about I meet my one or two buddies and have some beers?’”

“And one beers leads to many, leads to self-medication, leads to ‘I’ve earned this.’ Like, ‘Don’t tell me I can’t.’”

At a Republican conference in 2017, “Hegseth was so ‘visibly intoxicated’ that it enabled a woman to be the ‘aggressor’ in having sexual relations with him, according to a statement from Tim Parlatore, his attorney — an encounter that the woman later described as a rape to police. Hegseth disputes that claim, saying the encounter was consensual, and prosecutors declined to file charges,” according to The Post.

The Post also details Hegseth’s “reputation as a heavy drinker,” citing “six former Fox News employees.”

“Several years ago, during a St. Patrick’s Day segment on ‘Fox & Friends Weekend,’ support staff at the cable news network set up a display of beers for a holiday segment on the show. After the segment aired, Hegseth walked by the display table and drank each beer, according to two former colleagues who witnessed the incident and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive episode. The incident struck the colleagues as jarring for two reasons: One, the displayed drinks had been sitting out for hours and were stale and warm; two, the show wraps up at 10 a.m., an early hour for alcohol consumption.”

READ MORE: Hawley Throws Hegseth Under the Bus: ‘Not 100% Clear Who Trump Really Wants Right Now’

The Post explains that Trump himself “has been troubled by the allegations about Hegseth’s excessive drinking,” noting that although he “has stood by numerous aides and appointees accused of sexual assault or indiscretion … he has long disdained the abuse of alcohol by those around him dating back to the death of his brother, Fred Trump Jr., who suffered from alcoholism and died of related diseases at the age of 42.”

On CNN Thursday morning, a panel discussed The Post’s report, and noted that Republican Senators are also uncomfortable with Hegseth’s reported drinking. CNN’s Stephen Collinson said Hegseth should “keep this going” into next year if he wants to be confirmed, and force the GOP Senators to openly defy Trump.

GOP strategist Erin Perrine on CNN described Hegseth as a “test case,” for Trump to see if a nominee can “fight the battle of political opinion in the court of public opinion on media.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley appeared to muddy the waters for Donald Trump’s embattled Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, telling reporters that the Fox News co-host facing numerous allegations including possible sexual misconduct and alcohol abuse, has canceled his scheduled interview with the Missouri GOP lawmaker. Senator Hawley also repeatedly suggested he isn’t sure at this point what the President-elect’s intentions with Hegseth are anymore.

Speaking about Hegseth, Hawley told reporters Wednesday, “I don’t know where things stand at the moment,” “I was supposed to sit down with him tomorrow, but they canceled that meeting,” “it’s not 100% clear who [Trump] really wants as Secretary of Defense right now,” and, “I don’t know what the case is at this point.”

Hegseth spent the day on Capitol Hill while his mother sat down with Fox News to defend her son, and disavow the 2018 letter she wrote to him, saying: “On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself.”

READ MORE: Hegseth: Trump Told Me ‘I’m Behind You All the Way’ But Reports Suggest Otherwise

Hawley began by telling reporters, “I’ve been saying since he’s been nominated, let’s give him a shot. But listen, I don’t, I don’t know. I was supposed to sit down with him tomorrow, but they canceled that meeting,” Hawley told reporters Wednesday afternoon. “So I don’t, I don’t know where things stand at the moment.”

Asked if he thinks Hegseth will withdraw, Hawley continued to obfuscate.

“I don’t know. I — but listen, I just, the president, I give the president a lot of deference here. I’ve said I’ll support — folks, my presumption is, I’ll support whoever he wants, and thinks whoever is gonna be great for his cabinet.”

“I’m not, it’s not 100% clear who he really wants as Secretary of Defense right now.”

Asked if Hegseth’s nomination has become too much of a distraction, Hawley again did not rush to support the embattled nominee.

“Well, that’s for the president to decide,” Hawley continued, appearing to try to defer to Trump. “I’ve been saying this for days. I mean, I’m a broken record on this. My view is that if the president wants him to be secretary of defense, then people ought to give him a shot. And my presumption is that I would support him at the very least, let him have his confirmation hearing, let him take the oath, let him answer all of these questions.”

READ MORE: Pete Hegseth’s Mom Urges ‘Female Senators’ to Ignore Media Reports, Confirm Him as SecDef

“I’m sure there’ll be more. He’ll answer all and many, many more under oath, if he wants to, and if the president wants to, wants him to. But I don’t, I don’t know what the case is at this point, so.”

PBS NewsHour’s Lisa Desjardins also reported on a cryptic conversation Wednesday afternoon.

Referring to Hegseth’s meeting with Hawley being canceled, she wrote:

“A transition-related source told me Hegseth has to ‘be somewhere else’ now, a schedule change.

Florida? she asked.

The source only said that the schedule change ‘came from a higher power’.”

Watch the video below or at this link. (Video starts at the 2:22 mark.)

- YouTube www.youtube.com

READ MORE: How Democrats and Republicans Look at Hunter Biden’s Pardon and One for J6ers

As justices on the U.S. Supreme Court were hearing arguments in the Biden administration’s challenge to a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming treatment for transgender minors, far-right influencer, anti-LGBTQ commentator and activist, and Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh was outside the Court attacking what he calls “trans ideology” — and calling for it to be “entirely erased from the earth.”

Walsh did not explain what he meant by “trans ideology,” but the LGBTQ organization GLAAD has an explainer on so-called “gender ideology.”

“Employed by prominent anti-LGBTQ accounts and similar to the trope ‘transgenderism,’ ‘gender ideology’ is a malicious rhetorical construct that falsely asserts that LGBTQ — notably trans — people are an ideological movement rather than an intrinsic identity,” GLAAD writes.

On Wednesday, Walsh declared, “Children have a right to be protected from all of those people over there who want to harm them and damage them and destroy them, and they will be.”

READ MORE: This Michigan Lawmaker Wants to ‘Make Gay Marriage Illegal Again’

He appeared to be referring to the transgender allies and activists outside the Supreme Court.

“They are gonna lose,” he proclaimed. “They are losing right now. We are not going to let them harm our children. This case is just the beginning of the fight. It is not the end. We are not gonna rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the earth. That’s what we’re fighting for, and we will not stop until we achieve it. So to the trans activists over there who are claiming, this is all about the rights of children, I say again: yes, you’re right, it is. They have a right to be protected, from you.”

Walsh also said outside the Court, “There’s no such thing as a ‘trans kid.’ That doesn’t exist. Those kids are not trans. They are confused, and their confusion has been exploited by quacks and abusers. They are abuse victims. They are not trans kids.”

Walsh has called for parents who are supportive of their transgender children to be “thrown in prison.”

Citing the ADL, GLAAD also notes, “’proponents of the phrase often use it to oppose school curricula that feature and/or celebrate LGBTQ+ history or experiences, falsely claiming that such materials promote the sexualization of minors and/or coerce children into identifying as members of the LGBTQ+ community.’ The Southern Poverty Law Center adds: ‘Anti-LGBTQ+ groups often employ the term to claim any kind of positive affirmation of trans young people is a nefarious method of creating or recruiting new trans kids.’ On Twitter/X, for example, far-right outlet The Daily Wire widely promoted a speech by anti-trans commentator Matt Walsh, who said in April 2023, ‘I truly see the fight against gender ideology as the last stand for Western civilization.’ Other extremist accounts have used the phrase as a dog whistle to spread animus against trans people. That same month, Gays Against Groomers posted across Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X: ‘Gender ideology must be completely abolished and destroyed.'”

“It seems to me that it’s something where we are extraordinary [sic] bereft of expertise,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, CNN reported.

“Why isn’t it best to leave it to the democratic process?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

But liberal Justice Elena Kagan disagreed.

“It’s a dodge to say that this is not based on sex,” Kagan said. “The medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex.”

The Associated Press also reported the Supreme Court “seemed likely to uphold Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Hegseth: Trump Told Me ‘I’m Behind You All the Way’ But Reports Suggest Otherwise

Penelope Hegseth, the mother of Donald Trump’s current and embattled nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, appeared on the cable network where her son Pete works, to urge the U.S. Senate, and especially “female Senators,” to disregard media reports—which include allegations of sexual misconduct, excessive alcohol abuse, financial mismanagement of two veterans’ organizations, and tattoos suggesting a link to Christian nationalism. She insisted her son is a changed man and should be confirmed.

In a sit-down one-on-one interview with Fox News co-host Steve Doocy, who called her “Penny,” Penelope Hegseth on Wednesday said the letter she sent her son, which The New York Times published late last week, does not reflect the man he is today, or the mother she is. But when asked if she would testify on her son’s behalf before the U.S. Senate, she refused to commit.

According to The Times, Penelope Hegseth told her son in a 2018 email, “On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself.”

READ MORE: ‘Standards Have Evolved’: Senator ‘Leaning Yes’ on Hegseth Despite Misconduct Allegations

“I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth,” she wrote, according to The Times.

The paper also reported Hegeth in her letter stated that she still loved her son. She reportedly apologized for the letter hours later.

On “Fox & Friends,” Penelope Hegseth began by saying, “let me make two statements first and one is to President Trump. And I want to say thank you for your belief in my son. We all believe in him. We really believe that he is not that man he was seven years ago. I’m not that mother.”

“So the other thing I want to say is, I am here to tell the truth, to tell the truth to the American people and tell the truth to the senators on the Hill, especially our female senators. I really hope that you will not listen to the media and that you will listen to Pete.”

The media reports about Pete Hegseth—the weekend “Fox & Friends” co-host President-elect Donald Trump has picked to run the most lethal and well-funded military in all of history—that Penelope Hegseth is asking the U.S. Senate to “not listen to” are numerous, and highly-damaging.

Mother Jones on Monday published “ A Running List of the Allegations Against Pete Hegseth.”

It does not yet include the latest NBC News report that says, “Ten current and former Fox employees say Trump’s pick for defense secretary drank in ways that concerned his co-workers.”

But it does characterize the current allegations against Hegseth under the headings: “Mismanagement, a Drinking Problem, and Sexually Inappropriate Behavior,” “Rape Allegation,” and, “His Mother Called Him ‘an Abuser of Women’.”

Penelope Hegseth made clear her goal in appearing on Fox News was as much to help get her son confirmed as it was to “discredit the media and how they operate.”

READ MORE: Trump Lining Up Billionaire Defense Investor and Megadonor to Be Number Two at Pentagon

“I came to take on New York City, to take on the New York Times,” she also said.

She explained that when she was called recently by reporters about the letter she wrote her son Pete in 2018, “I let a few phone calls go, but then they call you and say, they threaten you. That’s the first thing they do. They say, ‘unless you make a statement, we will publish it as is.’ And I think that’s a despicable way to treat anyone.”

When asked what her “message” is to The New York Times, she replied, “I would say I don’t think the way you operate is, it feels almost criminal when reporters call you and threaten you. I don’t think a lot of people know that’s the way they operate. And they are in it for the commission, for the money, and they don’t care who they hurt — families, children. I just I don’t believe that that is the right way to do things.”

Doocy asked, “Do you think that’s just the way they try to get the story?”

“Oh, of course,” she replied. “It’s their job, but I can take the opposite view.”

Critics have blasted Penelope Hegseth’s interview, and Pete Hegseth for not withdrawing his nomination to become U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Journalist Gretchen Carlson, the now former longtime Fox News host whose sexual harassment lawsuit helped bring down Fox News chief Roger Ailes, blasted Penelope Hegseth:

“OMG — watching Hegseth’s mom interview on Fox & Friends — twice calling out to GOP female Senators to believe him — saying Pete has changed over 7 years. She is the one who wrote the email annihilating him for his treatment of women & is now saying it’s not true.”

As did others.

“Hegseth can do the ‘never back down’ shtick all he wants but when the nomination reaches the ‘have his mommy say nice things on TV’ phase and she’s not willing to commit to testifying as a character witness, feels like it’s in a pretty bad place,” observed Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). He added, “if someone was foolish enough to nominate me for something senate confirmed … [I] am extremely confident that my mommy would not hesitate to testify in my defense.”

CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Penelope Hegseth’s main message was that Pete is a changed man. That’s the narrative his allies have been pushing in private, as well. But a changed-man narrative is premised on ugliness in the man’s past.”

Watch the videos below or at this link.

Despite facing allegations of sexual assault, “aggressive drunkenness,” financial mismanagement of veterans’ organizations, and a report his colleagues “smelled alcohol on him before he went on air,” at Fox News “as recently as last month,” U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) stated Tuesday that the standards for confirming presidential cabinet nominees have “evolved.” As a result, he indicated he is inclined to support Pete Hegseth’s nomination as Donald Trump’s next U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Saying that “of course” the multiple allegations against Hegseth are “concerning,” Senator Cramer told CNN’s Manu Raju (video below) on Tuesday, “I look forward to visiting with Pete, and I’m interested in who Pete Hegseth is today, and who he is going forward.”

Raju added that later, Senator Cramer “told me … that he is leaning yes, in supporting Pete Hegseth’s nomination, and I asked him if the standards have now changed in the United States Senate? Remember the last time the Senate voted down a defense secretary nominee or any cabinet nominee was in 1989. That was John Hightower over allegations of womanizing and also excessive drinking, including drunkenness.”

“And Cramer told me, ‘yes, the standards have evolved.’ And he says, ‘grace abounds,’ and he wants to see if Hegseth is in fact is a different person going forward.”

READ MORE: Trump Lining Up Billionaire Defense Investor and Megadonor to Be Number Two at Pentagon

Tuesday evening NBC News reported that “Ten current and former Fox employees say Trump’s pick for defense secretary drank in ways that concerned his co-workers.”

“Two of those people said that on more than a dozen occasions during Hegseth’s time as a co-host of ‘Fox & Friends Weekend,’ which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. Those same two people, plus another, said that during his time there he appeared on television after they’d heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready or on set.”

“One of the sources said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as last month and heard him complain about being hungover this fall,” NBC News added.

On Sunday, The New Yorker published a bombshell report revealing in part that a “previously undisclosed whistle-blower report on Hegseth’s tenure as the president of Concerned Veterans for America, from 2013 until 2016, describes him as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity—to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization’s events.”

READ MORE: How Democrats and Republicans Look at Hunter Biden’s Pardon and One for J6ers

“The detailed seven-page report—which was compiled by multiple former C.V.A. employees and sent to the organization’s senior management in February, 2015—states that, at one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club, where he had brought his team. The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time, and other members of his management team sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers, whom they divided into two groups—the ‘party girls’ and the ‘not party girls.’ In addition, the report asserts that, under Hegseth’s leadership, the organization became a hostile workplace that ignored serious accusations of impropriety, including an allegation made by a female employee that another employee on Hegseth’s staff had attempted to sexually assault her at the Louisiana strip club. In a separate letter of complaint, which was sent to the organization in late 2015, a different former employee described Hegseth being at a bar in the early-morning hours of May 29, 2015, while on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, drunkenly chanting ‘Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!'”

That New Yorker report also alleges that a “trail of documents, corroborated by the accounts of former colleagues, indicates that Hegseth was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.”

Mother Jones on Monday published “A Running List of the Allegations Against Pete Hegseth.”

The article, which has not been updated yet to include the latest NBC News allegations, characterizes them under the headings: “Mismanagement, a Drinking Problem, and Sexually Inappropriate Behavior,” “Rape Allegation,” and, “His Mother Called Him ‘an Abuser of Women’.”

CNN’s Manu Raju also talked with U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-MA), who said, “As I’ve repeatedly said to you, I believe that we need an FBI background check to evaluate the allegations. We need to have the normal committee process of questionnaires, and questionnaires about this background and we also need to have a public hearing.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: SCOTUS Ethics Code Debate Split Liberal and Conservative Justices Amid ‘Legitimacy Crisis’

In 2005, President George W. Bush’s nominee, John Roberts, became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Five years later, just over one quarter of the country (27%) disapproved of him. By last year, that disapproval number had risen to nearly half the nation: 46%.

Since 2021, Gallup reports, the Supreme Court’s disapproval rating has consistently remained in the mid to upper 50s—a roughly ten-point increase compared to the previous decade. The majority of Americans have an apparent growing dissatisfaction with a court that wields ultimate authority while becoming increasingly secretive and activist on some of the nation’s most consequential issues.

While the Supreme Court’s job is not to make decisions based on popularity contests, it relies on the other two branches of the federal government to enforce its rulings. And when the Supreme Court’s credibility falls into question, some warn, our institutions may be at risk.

In October, Bloomberg Opinion’s Noah Feldman warned the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy crisis is getting worse.”

READ MORE: ‘Two Things Could Be True’: White House Reveals Why Hunter Pardon Might Not Have Happened

“Democrats’ faith in the court began to fail after the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, then went into freefall over the last couple of years,” Feldman wrote. “They worry the justices aren’t sufficiently ethical. They deplore the eagerness of the court’s conservative majority to overturn 50 years of precedent on issues like abortion and affirmative action. They are appalled at the court’s defiance of originalism — the idea that Constitutional law should rest on the document’s original meaning — to grant criminal immunity to former President Donald Trump for official acts while president.”

Nearly two years ago the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a progressive coalition of nearly 140 organizations “advocating for a fair and independent justice system,” published a piece warning that the Supreme Court was “destroying its own legitimacy.”

“The Court’s wounds are entirely self-inflicted,” William W. Taylor, III, wrote at the AFJ. “It has a far-right agenda and the scholarship informing its decisions is often questionable. Worse, new details have come to light of relationships some justices have had with wealthy ideological soulmates, including those with interest in cases before the Court. The Court’s credibility and the public’s acceptance of its decisions depends upon trust that it is not subject to outside influence. While lobbying may be common and acceptable in the legislative and executive branches, it is not — nor ought not to be — conceivable in our courts.”

The New York Times on Tuesday took a deep dive into the behind-the-scenes conversations at the end of the summer of 2023 among the Supreme Court justices as they weighed whether or not to establish a code of ethics, amid a nation angered by numerous reports of what many see as blatant corruption.

“Last year, pressure on the court and the chief justice intensified. Journalists revealed that Justice Thomas had accepted far more largess from Harlan Crow, a conservative donor, than he had disclosed, including decades of travel on private jets and a superyacht, and boarding school tuition for his grandnephew. The public uproar also reflected another concern: Virginia Thomas, his wife, had been involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election,” The Times reports.

“Faced with ethics controversies and a plunge in public trust, they were debating rules for their own conduct, according to people familiar with the process,” The Times adds, revealing that “behind the scenes, the court had divided over whether the justices’ new rules could — or should — ever be enforced.”

In the end, the justices all signed onto a new code of ethics for the nation’s highest court, but one that “had no means of enforcement.”

It was quickly criticized.

READ MORE: Why the Hunter Biden Pardon Is ‘Justified’ According to Legal Experts

Liberals on the court have since gone public with their apparent frustration that although there is finally a code of ethics, there is no way to enforce it.

“All three liberals — Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson — supported enforcement, The Times reports.

“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one — this set of rules — does not,” Justice Elena Kagan said in July.

“I haven’t seen a good reason why the ethics code that the Supreme Court adopted shouldn’t be enforceable,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “Other justices have posited certain ways in which it could be made enforceable but we have not yet determined or decided to do that.”

By contrast, at least some of the majority right-wing justices appear opposed to any code, certainly one that would have methods of enforcement.

“In the private exchanges, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose decision not to disclose decades of gifts and luxury vacations from wealthy benefactors had sparked the ethics controversy, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote off the court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” The Times revealed. “Justice Gorsuch was especially vocal in opposing any enforcement mechanism beyond voluntary compliance, arguing that additional measures could undermine the court. The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it.”

The Times also reveals that the justices “seemed to codify their own preferences” when they drafted, or signed off on the code of ethics.

Those preferences appear largely financial.

The justices “gave themselves no firm restrictions on gifts, travel or real estate deals. Nothing in the new rules appears aimed directly at the trips and gifts Justice Thomas accepted. The code says only that justices should uphold the dignity of the office and comply with existing gift guidelines, in separate federal rules, which make allowances for ‘personal hospitality.’ Justice Thomas has maintained that his nondisclosure of gifts and free travel did not violate those rules,” according to The Times. Other legal experts disagree, with some saying he broke the law.

Since signing the new code of ethics, “questions about the justices’ behavior have continued. The Times revealed that two provocative flags associated with the Jan. 6 riot had flown at the homes of Justice Alito and his wife. The second was displayed at his New Jersey beach house just as the justices were considering the new ethics rules. That summer, he also accepted concert tickets from a far-right German princess. He later disclosed those, but in keeping with the new rules, said nothing about his free stay at her 500-room Bavarian palace.”

Last month, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), among the Senate’s top proponents of Supreme Court reform, wrote: “As long as the Court maintains a secretive billionaire gifts program for justices and unique immunity from ethics scrutiny for itself, and as long as its decisions predictably align with those billionaire interests, its reputation will continue to crash.”

Republican state lawmaker Josh Schriver, who calls himself “Michigan’s most conservative state representative” and a “White rapper,” said Monday he wants to “Make gay marriage illegal again.”

Rep. Schriver insists ripping apart the families of millions of Americans and stripping them of their civil and constitutional rights is “not remotely controversial, nor extreme.” Nearly seven out of ten Americans (69%) say same-sex marriage should be legal—which it has been nationwide in the United States for nearly a decade.

He followed that up just hours later by declaring, “20 years ago, Barack Obama was more conservative on marriage than many Republicans today. America only ‘accepted’ gay marriage after it was thrusted into her by a perverted Supreme Court ruling. America 2124 doesn’t have to be as dysfunctional as America 2024. ORDER! ORDER!”

READ MORE: ‘Two Things Could Be True’: White House Reveals Why Hunter Pardon Might Not Have Happened

(In 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the same constitutional rights and responsibilities to marriage as different-sex couples, the majority of the country was already in support of marriage equality.)

In addition to calling for a ban on same-sex marriage, Schriver has suggested the “endgame” for Republicans should be banning transgender medical care for everyone, as The Advocate reported in January. He also says not allowing conscience exemptions for DMV employees to discriminate against transgender Michiganders “is going to lead to (more) Christian persecution.”

Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel on Monday responded to Rep. Schriver, asking: “Please explain how dissolving my marriage, or that of the hundreds of thousands of other same-sex couples living in America, provides a benefit to your constituents or anyone else. You’re not interested in helping Michiganders. You want only to hurt those you hate. Shame on you.”

The Daily Beast in February called Schriver a “far-right lawmaker, who is also a Christian rapper.” It reported that Schriver says “God called me” to his seat as a state lawmaker.

Controversy broke out after Schriver had “shared a racist conspiracy theory online.” He “wasted no time doubling down on his rhetoric—even after losing his state House committee and staff as a result.”

“’I’m a White rapper and most conservative voting Representative in Michigan,’ Rep. Schriver, who rhymes about his voting record and Jesus, wrote … on X. ‘I guess it was only a matter of time before I was falsely labeled a ‘raaacist!’ ‘”

READ MORE: ‘Any and All’: Trump’s Former Surgeon General Warns Republicans Will Own Disease Outbreaks

“I’m a Christian…not a racist,” he also proclaimed.

“There is an anti-White agenda,” Schriver has also said, according to The Daily Beast. He said there is also a “racist plan to replace Whites with non-Whites through illegal immigration to irreversibly warp America’s demographics, voting citizens, and national identity to keep power in the hands of a godless regime.”

Schriver’s voting record was also covered by The Daily Beast, which reported the far-right Republican has “voted against legislation banning child marriage; prohibiting sexual contact under the pretext of medical treatment; designating Juneteenth as a state holiday; and making race-based discrimination based on someone’s hair texture or style illegal.”

Last year, Schriver called President Abraham Lincoln one of the “architects of the U.S. Constitution.”

READ MORE: Why the Hunter Biden Pardon Is ‘Justified’ According to Legal Experts

The Biden White House, under fire from the right and some on the left for the President’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, after having declared he would not do so, revealed on Monday the circumstances that led to the announcement Sunday evening.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Monday as President Joe Biden travels to Angola, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre suggested if Vice President Kamala Harris had won the November election, President Biden would not have pardoned Hunter Biden—before declaring she did not want to get into hypotheticals. She also said that Biden’s son “was singled out,” and “they tried to break his son in order to break him.”

“In a good faith way, if you are looking at the facts of Hunter’s cases,” Jean-Pierre said (video below), “you can’t reach any other conclusion, right?”

“What we have seen, not just us, there’s other people who have commented on the president’s actions,” she added, “and can see that Hunter was singled out, and, because his last name was Biden, because he was the president’s son. That’s what we saw. And so the president believed, enough is enough, and the president took action, and he also believes, that they tried to break his son in order to break him.”

RELATED: Why the Hunter Biden Pardon Is ‘Justified’ According to Legal Experts

“Do you think this would have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election?” ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett asked, according to a transcript posted by CNN’s DJ Judd.

“I’m not gonna, I’m not gonna get into, into the election. It is a no-l can answer that, it’s a no, and what I can say—” Jean-Pirerre replied.

“It’s a no? This would not have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election? A pardon would not have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election?” Haslett pressed.

“I can speak to where we are today,” Jean-Pierre explained, “and so I can’t speak to hypotheticals here. Where we are today, the President made this decision over the weekend. He thought about it, he wrestled with it, and for him, he made this decision because he believed his son was being politically–”

“We’re wondering what changed his mind, and obviously the election– in the statement, he refers to, ‘Enough is enough, he thinks that there could be further- it sounds like he thinks there could be further prosecution of Hunter under a Trump administration,” Haslett continued.

READ MORE: ‘Any and All’: Trump’s Former Surgeon General Warns Republicans Will Own Disease Outbreaks

“He didn’t believe that they would let up, right?” Jean-Pierre replied, apparently referring to prosecutors nominated by the incoming Trump administration, who have said they would go after Hunter Biden and many others seen as enemies of Donald Trump. “He didn’t think that they would, they would continue to go after his son. That’s what he believed. And look, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, to the original part of your question. The President wrestled with this decision. He made this decision this weekend, and he decided to move forward with pardoning his son.”

“Two things can be true,” Jean-Pierre added, according to The Washington Post’s Matt Viser. “The President does believe in the justice system and the Department of Justice. And he also believes that his son was singled out politically.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

President Joe Biden’s announcement that he is issuing a full pardon for his son Hunter Biden sent shockwaves throughout the media on Sunday, with many on the right expressing outrage and many on the left—although not all—defending his decision. Some legal experts, explaining why the charges should never have been brought, say Biden is right to issue the pardon even after having said he would not.

While many are looking at this through a political lens, not a legal one, President Biden explained both the political and legal aspects in his announcement.

“I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

Biden began by saying in his statement that, from “the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.”

The President did not explain just how far away he kept himself from the prosecution of his son.

READ MORE: ‘Any and All’: Trump’s Former Surgeon General Warns Republicans Will Own Disease Outbreaks

“Biden bent over backwards to keep his hands off this prosecution, at considerable cost to his family,” noted professor of law and former federal prosecutor Kim Wehle, writing at The Bulwark. “He did not remove or change the mandate of the Trump-appointed prosecutor handling the case, even as that prosecutor’s investigation was granted special counsel status last year.”

President Biden did allege that, without a full pardon, his opponents would continue to target Hunter Biden.

“The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.”

“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

Eric Holder, who served as the U.S. Attorney General during most of President Barack Obama’s two terms, weighed in on the Hunter Biden pardon.

“Here’s the reality. No [U.S. Attorney] would have charged this case given the underlying facts. After a 5 year investigation the facts as discovered only made that clear. Had his name been Joe Smith the resolution would have been – fundamentally and more fairly – a declination. Pardon warranted,” he wrote, saying that the prosecutors should have declined to file charges.

“Ask yourself a vastly more important question,” Holder continued, mentioning Trump’s nominee to head the FBI. “Do you really think Kash Patel is qualified to lead the world’s preeminent law enforcement investigative organization? Obvious answer: hell no.”

Other legal experts, including those who have made those very decisions of whether or not to charge someone, agree.

MSNBC legal analyst Kristy Greenberg served at the vaunted SDNY, the Southern District of New York Office of the U.S. Attorney.

“As SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief, I was responsible for approving charges and non-prosecution requests. I wouldn’t have approved Hunter Biden’s tax or gun cases. If Hunter’s last name wasn’t Biden, I don’t believe he would have been charged. His pardon is justified,” she wrote.

Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor for two decades, says she agrees with Greenberg.

“When I was Chief of the San Jose Branch of the US Attorney’s Office, I, too, was responsible for approving charging and declination decisions. I would not have approved any of the charges brought against Hunter Biden,” de la Vega wrote.

Civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler responded to Greenberg, writing: “There’s even more than this going on. [Special Counsel] David Weiss WASN’T going to charge either of these (he hadn’t even investigated gun crime before Statutes of limitation expired). But he did bc of political pressure from House and Trump (and threats to his family). So the charges are problem.”

“Folks don’t seem to understand why Biden pardoned Hunter from 2014 to present,” Wheeler also wrote. “That’s because David Weiss had repeatedly decided he couldn’t charge Burisma allegations from 2014 and 2015, but Kash Patel and others were insistent he should be charged for something w/Burisma.”

“Effectively, a prosecutor twice decided that 2014-2015 — the heart of Trump’s claims about Hunter Biden — couldn’t be charged, but with Patel coming in at FBI, Hunter had to expect that prosecutorial decision would be revisited,” she added.

Juliette Kayyem, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School/John F. Kennedy School of Government, writes, “True: Biden said he wouldn’t pardon Hunter. Also true: Whatever Biden said may have been legitimately superseded by intervening events, such as Patel’s nomination to the FBI.”

RELATED: ‘Will Cost Lives’: Ex-FDA Chief Warns Trump Picks Could Lead to ‘Grim’ Disease Resurgence

And she scolded the press: “If all reporters are tweeting is that Biden changed his mind, perhaps do some reporting as to why.”

A CNN national security analyst, Kayyem predicted on-air on Sunday (video below) that Trump’s FBI pick, Kash Patel, is “going to go after Trump’s political enemies, likely the Biden family, the Cheneys, people who had been in the involved with the January 6th. Committee, just simply to sort of scorch the earth against him.”

“I’m not saying they’ll end up in jail, but he’ll start investigations simply to sort of whitewash Trump’s involvement with incitement, illegalities, Russia, whatever it is,” she explained. “So that’s that’s we know that’s going to happen and that’s why Biden has to consider whether he’s going to pardon his son at this stage. But what we do know is Trump’s not messing around.”

On Sunday, Law & Crime reported that, “Hunter Biden’s legal team released a report over the weekend that included a ‘stark warning’ that the first son may face retribution at the hands of incoming President-elect Donald Trump. With the election of the 45th and soon-to-be 47th president, the ‘threat against Hunter is real,’ his lawyers claim. The report was released on Saturday ahead of President Joe Biden issuing a full federal pardon for his son on Sunday night.”

“’Here, in one place, is the complete and reprehensible history of the political persecution of Hunter Biden,’ one of Biden’s lawyers, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement,” Law & Crime reported, pointing to a “52-page report, obtained by the Washington Post and Washington Examiner, [that] laid out the criminal prosecutions that led to convictions for Hunter Biden.”

“This is a seven-year saga propelled by an unrelenting political desire to use a son to hurt his father,” Lowell also said.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during Donald Trump’s first administration, has issued a stark warning: the president-elect’s current trajectory could lead to a “grim and avoidable resurgence of once vanquished childhood infectious diseases,” and it will cost American lives.

Dr. Gottlieb, who left the Trump administration before the COVID-19 pandemic, told CNBC on Friday he doesn’t believe Trump understands what Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the president-elect’s nominee to head the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS), will actually do if confirmed, and there will be no “guardrails” to protect the American public from his actions.

“I think if RFK follows through on his intentions and I believe he will, and I believe he can, it will cost lives in this country,” Gottlieb warned. He also warned that this could easily start “on day one.”

“You’re gonna see, remember, you’re gonna see measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates go down. And like I said, if we lose another five percent [vaccinated], which could happen in the next year or two, we will see large measles outbreaks,” Gottlieb predicted, referring to the MMR vaccination the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends, one of more than a dozen on the CDC’s schedule.

READ MORE: Putin Praises ‘Real Man’ Donald Trump but Warns ‘Even Now He’s Not Safe’: Reports

“I don’t think they fully understand how Kennedy is going to translate his actions into policy,” Gottlieb explained, referring to both the incoming Trump administration and Congress. “I think some in Congress right now who are deeply skeptical think that they can manage this through things like appropriations riders, that’s not gonna be successful, because like I said, RFK can go in there with a stroke of a pen, disband ACIP, reconstitute it with like-minded people, issue a whole new bunch of recommendations.”

Gottlieb appeared to be referring to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a CDC entity that “comprises medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in the civilian population of the United States.”

“He can frustrate the ability to take the money from the Vaccine for Children’s fund [VFC], which would impede a state’s abilities to vaccinate children as a lot of things that they could do day one, very easily, administratively.”

“And I don’t think there’s a thing Congress can do, and that, that is dependent upon Congress getting bills through on appropriations bills that would actually tie the hands of CDC and Kennedy.”

Gottlieb also explained that, “For every 1000 cases of measles that occur in children, there will be one death. And we are not good in this country at diagnosing and treating measles.”

“If you look at the outbreak in Ohio, 30% of the kids were hospitalized, you look at the outbreak in Minnesota, 20% were hospitalized, because we don’t diagnose it quickly, because doctors lost the ability to diagnose it because doctors aren’t accustomed to seeing it, and we don’t know how to manage it in the healthcare system.”

Gottlieb also spent time attempting to distance Trump from RFK Jr.’s anticipated actions.

READ MORE: ‘Don’t Play Games You Can’t Win’: Gas Analyst Warns Trump Will ‘Lose Miserably’ on Tariffs

“I don’t think that these these policies, uh, efforts, reflect [Trump’s] views,” he said. “I don’t think the president wants to see a resurgence of measles, wants to see a resurgence of whooping cough in his country. God forbid we have cases of polio in this country. He does not want to see that. I think he understood the importance of the child immunization schedule.”

“I’m not so sure that people really understand how Kennedy’s intentions are gonna translate into policy and how serious he is.”

In addition to RFK Jr., Gottlieb also warned about Trump’s nominee to head the CDC, Dr. Dave Weldon, who “is very committed to this, too.”

NBC News reports Dr. Weldon “pushed a false claim that thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, is linked to autism, and advocated for limits on abortion.”

“Remember,” Gottlieb told CNBC, Weldon, “is someone who’s a very committed anti-vaxxer. I don’t say that in a pejorative way. I think he would own that label very proudly. He was a congressman when I was at FDA in the early 2000s. He sponsored multiple bills to withdraw the current MMR vaccine. He sponsored bills to do away with the liability protection that allows companies to bring these vaccines onto the market.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

A popular petroleum analyst is warning Donald Trump his plan to impose a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada will backfire.

Patrick De Haan, known as the “Gas Buddy Guy,” has “analyzed and tracked oil markets and fuel prices for nearly two decades,” and “is often quoted during gas price gyrations and fuel disruptions by almost all U.S. and international media outlets,” according to his bio.

De Haan pointed to a news report from The Guardian on Tuesday that says Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is “under pressure to stand up to Trump on tariffs.” It also notes that members of the Canadian parliament are calling on Trudeau “to ready a ‘war room’ for the coming battle over tariffs with the United States.”

That article quoted the leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, Jagmeet Singh, telling the Prime Minister, “The only thing a bully responds to is strength.”

“So where is our plan to fight back?” Singh asked. “Where is the war room?”

READ MORE: ‘Confused the United States With Russia’: Tuberville’s ‘Genuinely Odd’ Claim Mocked

De Haan observed, “there’s a risk Trump is making a miscalculation and now politicians in Canada are gearing up, thinking of how to retaliate on potential tariffs. This is not a good road to be going down.”

Xavier Delgado of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a top think tank, added: “Retaliatory tariffs would hit US states hard (36 have Canada as their top export market). They would also be a major burden on Canadian consumers who are already sour about the economy.”

And in response to a suggestion that Canada and Mexico “threaten to embargo selling oil to US,” De Haan wrote: “Trump will lose this game miserably if Canada decides to take action. checkmate. don’t play games you can’t win- the US is more reliant on Canadian crude than Trump realizes.”

De Haan says that a “25% tariff on Canadian oil would have huge impacts to #gasprices in the Great Lakes, Midwest & Rockies, which are major markets where refiners process Canadian oil. You can’t simply process different oil overnight. It would take investments/years. More US supply wouldn’t help.”

He also posted a map highlighting areas of the U.S. and the impacts of Trump’s tariffs on gas prices. It shows the President-elect’s declared 25% tariffs would have a “major impact” on several “blue wall” states that went to Trump instead of Harris in the presidential election, including Michigan and Wisconsin.

READ MORE: ‘Who?’: Trump Blasted for Megadonor Navy Secretary Nominee With No Military Experience

Boris Epshteyn, a veteran Trump aide, was investigated by attorneys for Donald Trump over allegations he was attempting to benefit financially from his close access to the President-elect, according to CNN, which cited multiple sources for its reporting.

CNN’s Sarah Murray reports (video below) the investigation “is an indication of how seriously some around Trump took these allegations that Boris Epshteyn was trying to charge people, essentially, for access to Trump and those in his orbit.”

The investigation was internal, not criminal, and came amid allegations that Epshteyn, an attorney who served on Trump’s first two campaigns and in the Trump White House, had attempted to charge, in one instance, a potential candidate as much as $100,000 a month for “services.”

The allegations, according to CNN, included “multiple instances of Epshteyn allegedly requesting payment in exchange for promoting candidates for administration positions or offering to connect individuals with people in the upcoming administration relevant to their industries, sources said.”

READ MORE: ‘Where Did All the Money Go?’: Trump DNI Pick Tulsi Gabbard Has Multiple PACs, Report Says

Epshteyn, CNN adds, also lobbied Trump to name former U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz as his Attorney General nominee. Trump did, but Gaetz ultimately withdrew after it became clear the instigation into his alleged actions, including possible sex trafficking of a minor and sex with a minor, would likely make it difficult for even Republican Senators to vote to confirm him.

One of the allegations against Epshteyn included a claim that he had sought financial compensation from Scott Bessent, Trump’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, “to promote his name with Trump and others at Mar-a-Lago.” Bessent reportedly did not pay Epshteyn.

“The back-and-forth between Epshteyn and Bessent resulted in a heated confrontation last week in the lobby of Mar-a-Lago, where Epshteyn raised his voice at Bessent, according to two sources briefed on the matter,” CNN reported. “In at least one other instance, Epshteyn asked for payment in exchange for introductions and influence with the incoming Trump administration, according to two sources.”

CNN adds that “one person who spoke to the legal team that investigated Epshteyn” said, “The way I see it is it’s very much a pay-for-play.”

“This person described a separate incident in which Epshteyn allegedly tried to request payment for questionable consulting services, offering to connect the person with incoming administration officials relevant to their industry or lobbying firms that will be the most well-connected to the new administration,” according to CNN. “The investigator assured the person that their interaction with Epshteyn wasn’t an isolated incident.

READ MORE: ‘Much Like the 11th Century’: Trump Defense Pick Called for American ‘Crusade’

One person who spoke to Trump investigators said Epshteyn had “gone to everybody for it,” while another “brushed off the notion that this was pay-for-play.”

“This is how Washington works,” they said.

According to CNN, the investigators made an “initial recommendation that Epshteyn should be removed from Trump’s proximity and that he should not be employed or paid by Trump entities, according to two sources.” But, as of Monday afternoon, “it does not appear the transition team will heed that recommendation.”

Epshteyn, 43, is an American born in Russia. A Republican, he has a law degree from Georgetown Law, where he met Eric Trump. Politico reported the “two remained friends, with Epshteyn attending Trump’s 2014 Mar-a-Lago wedding. When Trump’s father launched his 2016 campaign, Epshteyn took on the role of emissary to traditional media.”

He also worked on rapid response issues for the Palin portion of the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign.

READ MORE: ‘Declaration of War on Expertise’: Experts Explain Danger of Trump ‘MAGA Zealot’ Nominees

New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan has issued an indefinite delay in the sentencing of Donald Trump, who was found guilty in a criminal trial and convicted on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, in the so-called “hush money” case. In response, incoming Trump White House communications director Steven Cheung issued a statement whitewashing Trump’s record.

Trump’s attorneys have asked for the case to be dismissed, or for the judge to overturn the verdict, ABC News reports, adding: “If Judge Merchan tosses the conviction, he could order a new trial — which would be delayed for at least four years until Trump leaves office — or dismiss the indictment altogether.”

In that same order, Judge Merchan also allowed Trump’s legal team to submit a motion to dismiss, as Law.com reports.

Merchan did not schedule a new sentencing date.

READ MORE: ‘Prosecutors Will Be Prosecuted’: Pam Bondi Vowed DOJ ‘Deep State’ Will Be ‘Cleaned Out’

Professor of Law and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance observed: “Sad day for the rule of law.”

“Understand that the Judge hasn’t ruled yet & the DA maintains the conviction is proper. But the delay in sentencing is just another chink in the armor of justice,” she noted.

U.S. Senator-elect Adam Schiff (D-CA), posting the judge’s order, remarked, “If anyone ever wanted to see what “justice delayed is justice denied” looks like in legal form, this is it.”

Meanwhile, Trump communications director Steven Cheung made several controversial claims in a statement reported by The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell: “In a decisive win for President Trump, the hoax Manhattan Case is now fully stayed and sentencing is adjourned. President Trump won a landslide victory as the American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases. All of the sham lawfare attacks against President Trump are now destroyed and we are focused on Making America Great Again.”

The case was not a “hoax.” A grand jury indicted Trump and a New York jury convicted him on all counts.

Sentencing is not “adjourned,” but delayed.

Trump did not win in a “landslide victory,” nor does he have a “mandate,” political pundits and experts say.

READ MORE: Top Trump Advisor Threatens Republicans to Support Nominees or Face a Primary: Report

Earlier this week MSNBC’s Chris Hayes wrote, “The final 2024 election tally is almost in. It should end the MAGA mandate myth.”

Trump won less than 50% of the popular vote, meaning he did not win a majority. His popular vote margin, according to Cook Political Report’s vote tracker, is now at a slim 1.62 percentage points, or just less than 2.5 million votes. Some states are still counting, including California which has over 350,000 ballots left to count.

Four days ago, CNN’s Harry Enten reported Trump’s popular vote victory ranks him near the bottom: 44th out of 51.

The legal cases are not all destroyed. The Georgia case has not been dismissed. The New York case that Cheung mentions is not finished. Even the classified documents case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is being appealed, at least for now.

READ MORE: Byron Donalds ‘Not Surprised’ at Snub from Trump’s Nearly-All White Administration

President-elect Donald Trump’s latest pick to become Attorney General, former Florida AG Pam Bondi, is a MAGA supporter who vowed last year that if Trump were to return to the White House, the “deep state” would be eliminated from the U.S. Dept. of Justice and the “prosecutors will be prosecuted.”

Trump’s nomination of Bondi comes after his first pick, former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was forced to withdraw. Senators on both sides of the aisle made clear Gaetz’s chances for confirmation were slim given investigations into allegations of possible sex with a minor, possible payments for sex, and possible sex-trafficking. He has also been under investigation for possible illicit drug use and questions about possible campaign finance improprieties.

In 2023, Bondi told Fox News host Sean Hannity that “when Republicans take back the White House and we will be back you know what’s gonna happen, the Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones.”

READ MORE: Top Trump Advisor Threatens Republicans to Support Nominees or Face a Primary: Report

“The investigators will be investigated because the deep state last term for President Trump, they were hiding in the shadows,” she claimed. “But now they have a spotlight on them, and they can all be investigated and the house needs to be cleaned out because now we know who most of them are. There’s a record of it and we can clean house next term, and that’s what has to happen.”

On CNN’s “Out Front,” Erin Burnett Thursday evening reported that Bondi has made “it clear she is on the exact same page as Trump when it comes to his claim that the Justice Department has been politicized.”

And she noted that “Bondi has been a very successful fighter for Trump in the 2020 election. She was on the front lines pushing Trump’s election lies. She said, ‘we’ve won Pennsylvania and we want every vote to be counted in a fair way.’ Of course, he did not win Pennsylvania.”

“During Trump’s criminal trial in New York. She was one of his top defenders,” Burnett added.

Rolling Stone on Friday also notes that Bondi has “supported retaliation against Trump’s political rivals in the past. In 2016, — during Trump’s campaign — she called for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security clearance to be revoked, and egged on supporters who chanted ‘lock her up’ at the Republican National Convention.”

“’Lock her up, I love that,’ she told the crowd.”

READ MORE: Byron Donalds ‘Not Surprised’ at Snub from Trump’s Nearly-All White Administration

ABC News reports that “Bondi registered as a foreign agent for the government of Qatar as part of her lobbying work.”

Donald Trump was prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith in two separate cases. One for his alleged actions surrounding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and the insurrection, and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost. The second was for Trump’s alleged removal, retention, and refusal to return classified and top secret classified documents, including some of the nation’s nuclear and defense secrets.

In a state criminal trial, Trump was convicted for “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election,” according to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump also has been facing prosecution in Georgia for his alleged efforts in that state to overturn the 2020 election. That case is ongoing, according to WMAL.

Trump’s classified documents case, largely prosecuted under the Espionage Act, was dismissed by a federal judge appointed by Trump in 2020 who was confirmed just before he left office.

The Special Counsel is now winding down his work after Trump won the presidential election earlier this month, given sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, and Trump’s Attorney General would in all likelihood drop the case.

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Here to Fight’: First Trans Member of Congress Responds to Johnson’s Bathroom Ban