Trump

Trump wants to 'impound' money Congress appropriated — but this 50-year-old law could get in the way

Donald Trump is not the first Republican president-elect to complain that Congress spends too much money. But he has made a proposal that is unusual even for a Republican: withholding money or "impounding" money that Congress has already appropriated.

Bloomberg News reporter Steven T. Dennis examines Trump's ability — or inability — to do that in an article published on December 4.

"Trump wants to hold back some money — 'impound' it, in the jargon of Washington — to slash the budget," Dennis explains. "The only problem: There's a 50-year-old law that forbids that exact gambit."

READ MORE: Why this Dem senator is 'considering voting yes on DeSantis' to replace Hegseth

The 50-year-old law that Dennis is referring to is the Impoundment Control Act in 1974, which Congress, Dennis notes, passed to "reassert its power over spending."

"While it set up a fast-track process for the president to quickly seek the approval of Congress if he wanted to override its spending decisions," Dennis explains, "it also established a mechanism for the U.S. comptroller general, who advises Congress, to sue the president for unauthorized impoundments."

The U.S. Constitution, according to Dennis, "explicitly grants Congress control over how much the government can spend."

Back in 1788, Dennis adds, James Madison referenced Congress' "power over the purse."

READ MORE: Senate Republicans 'uncertain they can back' Hegseth: report

Read Bloomberg News' full article at this link (subscription required).


'Melania grift': Incoming first lady hawks her Christmas 'collectibles' in Fox interview

America’s incoming First Lady, Melania Trump, in a rare public appearance, sat down with the “Fox & Friends” crew Friday morning to discuss how she is getting ready to return to the White House, how her husband, President-elect Donald Trump, is handling his second transition, and to promote her apparently for-profit business ventures, including her book, Christmas ornaments, NFTs, and other “collectibles.”

Other First Ladies have had careers after serving the American public in the White House, notably Hillary Clinton and Jacqueline Kennedy, but should she continue with this venture or others, Melania Trump may become the first First Lady who has a for-profit business during her time in the White House.

On Fox News, Trump was asked about the public programs she will focus on as First Lady.

She spoke briefly about her signature “Be Best” program, which she launched in May, 2018. It was widely mocked when she introduced it, and reports found some of it was a repackaging of existing federal initiatives around cyberbullying, including those from the Obama administration.

Trump then quickly moved to talking about what she said were her “Web 2” and “Web 3” businesses.

READ MORE: ‘You Answer to Us’: Hegseth Slammed for Saying He Only Answers to Trump, Senators, and God

“Well, when I was in the White House for four years, I established my Be Best initiative and I also successfully brought it overseas and around the world. It was very successful and after I left the White House, I established my Web 3 and Web 2 platforms where I design, where I have collectibles like ornaments every season, this is the third season. And many other collectibles that are available now.”

She then appeared to suggest some of the proceeds from those businesses go to support students, but she did not offer any specifics, nor do her websites. The website where she sells her Christmas ornaments does not appear to say anything about donations to charity.

“So with those, I have students from a foster community that I sponsor and I’m very proud of and we have many of them now, so their life changes because they will have an education,” Trump said.

Juliet Jeske, who runs Decoding Fox News, writes: “The money from the overpriced ornaments doesn’t go to charity. I went through her entire website. The profits go back to her.”

On her website, the Christmas ornaments sell for $75 each. The “USA Star” ornament is listed at $90.

“So this are the ornaments that they are available this season, this is the third season that I design and they are very special,” Trump told the “Fox & Friends” co-hosts. “For example, Lady Liberty, it was inspiration from my necklace that I bought when I was modeling in Paris. And now we have an ornament and we have also a necklace that it’s available on MelaniaTrump.com. So I, also, this one it’s the necklace and inspiration, the flower and they’re very patriotic this year. As you could see, it’s all red white and blue and I was inspired by that.”

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

“They discontinue, they retire, and this is available right now. And it’s a great gift and great collectible, actually.”

Attorney Michael Kasdan, an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, remarked, “The Fox-Trump Home Shopping Network.”

Attorney Jeffrey Evan Gold, a CNN legal analyst, called it “Free advertising for Melania Grift.”

Last year, The New York Times reported, “In February 2022, Mrs. Trump started ‘Fostering the Future,’ a scholarship program for foster children aging out of the system. A person familiar with the program, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, would not offer details or disclose how many scholarships have been awarded, saying only that it was ‘more than two.’ No charity with the name Fostering the Future or Be Best is registered in Florida or New York.”

Hillary Clinton, who served as First Lady from 1993 to 2001, has authored nine books, including three during her eight years inside the White House. First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt and Barbara Bush also authored books while serving in the White House.

For her first book, the 1996 New York Times bestseller “It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” Hillary Clinton donated all royalties to charity and took no money except to cover expenses, according to The New York Times. Similarly, for the other two books she wrote during her time as First Lady, Clinton donated the proceeds to charities, including the National Park Foundation and the White House Historical Association.

Barely weeks after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, in 2017, Melania Trump’s “representatives issued statements saying that the first lady ‘has no intention’ of using her public position for personal gain,” The Washington Post reported. The paper noted those statements came one day “after Melania Trump filed a lawsuit accusing a British news company of hurting her ability to build a profitable brand.”

Before Election Day this year, CNN reported Melania Trump’s publisher had requested the news network pay $250,000 for an interview.

PEOPLE magazine reported on Friday that “Melania Trump is gearing up for another four years as first lady and all the duties that come with the title, including decorating the White House for Christmas.”

“The ex-model wife of President-elect Donald Trump, 54, previously made headlines surrounding the holidays for her bold choice of Christmas decor — and because of leaked audio recordings where she griped about the responsibility of decorating 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,” PEOPLE’s report notes.

“’I’m working … my a– off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a f— about the Christmas stuff and decorations?’ she was heard saying in a recording from 2018 that has recently resurfaced on social media. ‘But I need to do it, right?'”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

From Crowley to Duffy: Inside Trump’s Fox News administration

In a Wednesday, December 4 post on X, formerly Twitter, former Fox News pundit Monica Crowley announced that President-elect Donald Trump had nominated her for assistant secretary of state. Crowley, in her tweet, said she looks forward to working with Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) — Trump's pick for secretary of state — in 2025.

Because Rubio isn't one of Trump's more controversial nominees, he is likely to receive a bipartisan confirmation from the U.S. Senate next year.

Vanity Fair's Bess Levin, in a biting December 5 column, notes that Crowley is the 12th nominee for Trump's incoming administration who has a Fox News and/or Fox Business background — and she expects that number to keep growing.

READ MORE: MAGA media ramp up 'full-throated defense' of Trump’s embattled defense nominee

"When it comes to the people Donald Trump wants advising him in a second term," Levin argues, "the president-elect has a type. Accused of sexual misconduct? You're a shoo-in for a Cabinet gig. Did time in prison? Step right up. Related to him by marriage? When can you start? Another obvious plus, and one that apparently far outweighs actual experience, is having worked for Fox News or another Fox Corp. subsidiary."

Levin continues, "While Pete Hegseth is the most prominent network personality to have received a nod — in his case, for defense secretary — he's far from the only one Trump has poached from the conservative broadcaster. Others include Sean Duffy for transportation secretary and Janette Nesheiwat for surgeon general, plus multiple additional Fox News contributors."

The Vanity Fair columnist notes that Crowley has been nominated for "a job that deals in foreign diplomacy" but has, according to Media Matters' Matt Gertz, "pushed several bigoted conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama's heritage, including promoting a documentary about his purported 'real father.'"

"After serving as Treasury Department assistant secretary for public affairs during the first Trump Administration," Levin points out, "Crowley (according to Gertz) 'returned to punditry, claiming that the deep state has been trying to destroy Trump through COVID-19…. and assassination attempts.' She was also a contributor to Project 2025."

READ MORE: Why this Dem senator is 'considering voting yes on DeSantis' to replace Hegseth

Bess Levin's full Vanity Fair column is available at this link.

Trump’s 'blitz approach' with controversial nominees is 'overkill meant to overwhelm': analysis

"War Room" host Steve Bannon famously said that a major tactic of the MAGA movement is to "flood the zone with s---." Bannon stressed that the more MAGA Republicans make their opponents feels overwhelmed and disoriented, the more progress they will make.

In a biting column published on December 6, the New York Times' Frank Bruni argues that President-elect Donald Trump's willingness to make so many controversial nominations for his administration is a "tactic," a "blitz approach" and "overkill meant to overwhelm."

The opinion columnist stresses that the terrible nominees are drawing so much attention that Trump will have an easier time getting the nominees who are merely bad confirmed in the U.S. Senate. The goal, according to Bruni, is "desensitizing" Trump's opponents.

READ MORE: Why this Dem senator is 'considering voting yes on DeSantis' to replace Hegseth

"It's galling that he chose a son-in-law's father, Charles Kushner, who spent two years in prison for witness retaliation, tax evasion and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, to live in 60,000-square-foot splendor in Paris and swan around the Champs-Élysées as the next American ambassador to France," Bruni laments. "But is that any worse than Kash Patel storming around America's capital in the role of FBI director?.... But there’s little sign of serious resistance to Patel's confirmation from Republicans in the Senate. They have slimier fish to fry — for example, Pete Hegseth, Trump's designee for defense secretary."

Trump has reportedly considered withdrawing his Hegseth nomination and offering the position to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis instead. And at least two Democratic senators, Pennsylvania's John Fetterman and Arizona's John Kelly, told CNN they would consider voting for DeSantis for secretary of defense.

DeSantis has drawn more than his share of criticism from Democrats, but Fetterman and Kelly's comments indicate that even Democrats would view the Florida governor as an improvement over Hegseth.

Bruni argues that "Hegseth's troubles better the odds that the conspiracy theorist and carcass fetishist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. winds up the secretary of health and human services and that the al-Assad apologist and Putin fangirl Tulsi Gabbard gets to run national intelligence."

READ MORE: Trump may end America’s place as 'the world’s preeminent cultural and economic force': analysis

"There's only so much resistance that Republican senators can muster — only so many times that lap dogs this thoroughly muzzled can bark," Bruni writes. "Trump's picks for lofty posts speak to his veneration of scoundrels — to his belief that rules are for sissies and the strong take what they want however it must be taken."

READ MORE: MAGA media ramp up 'full-throated defense' of Trump’s embattled defense nominee

Frank Bruni's full New York Times column is available at this link (subscription required).


How right-wing media is like improv theater

If you’ve ever wondered how the right-wing media ecosystem operates and why it’s effective, try viewing it as a form of improvisational theater or improv.

In the wake of the 2024 U.S. elections, everyday people and political pundits alike have been trying to make sense of the results and the related observation that many Americans seem to be experiencing very different realities. These realities are shaped by very different media ecosystems.

Democrats tend to trust institutional media and network news more than Republicans. In contrast, Republicans have developed what they see as a more trustworthy and explicitly partisan alternative media ecosystem that has rapidly evolved and flourished in the internet era.

Cultivating robust alternative media has been a political strategy of the right for decades. Given the interactive nature of social media and ongoing investments by the right in digital media, the right-wing media ecosystem has become a highly participatory space filled with influencers, political elites and audiences.

These players engage in year-round conversations that inspire and adapt political messaging. The collaborations are not tightly scripted but improvised, facilitated by the interactivity of digital media.

For all these reasons, we, as researchers of information ecosystems and influencer culture, find it useful to think of right-wing media as a kind of improv theater. This metaphor helps us understand the social and digital structure, culture and persuasive power of right-wing influence, which is reshaping politics in the U.S. and around the world.

Elements of improv in right-wing media

Influencers are the performers in this real-life improv show that plays out on a stage of social media newsfeeds, podcasts, cable newsrooms and partisan online media outlets. The performers include political pundits and media personalities as well as a dynamic group of online opinion leaders who often ascend from the audience to the stage, in part by recognizing and exploiting the dynamics of digital media.

These influencers work together, performing a variety of roles based on a set of informal rules and performance conventions: sharing vague but emotionally resonant memes, “just asking questions” to each other, trolling a journalist, “evidencing” claims with data or photos – sometimes taken out of context – all the while engaging each other’s content.

Just as in improv, performers work daily to find a game from their audience, internet forums and each other. The “game” in improv is a concept or story with a novel element around which a performance revolves. Once a compelling game is found, performers “raise the stakes,” another improv concept where the plot intensifies and expands.

Performers follow a loose script, collaborating toward a shared goal. Digital media environments provide additional infrastructure — the platform features, networks and algorithms — that shapes the performances.

Signature elements of improv include building on audience input and reacting to the other performers.

Their performances, both individual and in interaction with each other, help influencers attract and curate an audience they are highly in tune with. As in improv shows, the political performers may use a technique called a callback: referencing a previous line, exchange or game that the audience is familiar with. Or performers might react to calls from an engaged audience that cheers, jeers and steers the actors as the show unfolds. The audience may also prompt an entire skit by bringing a story to the attention of influencers or politicians.

From this perspective, influence doesn’t just flow from influencers on stage and out to the audience, but also flows from the audience to the influencers. These dynamics make the right-wing media ecosystem extremely reactive. Feedback is instant, and the right “bits” get laughs and likes. Influencers — and political leaders — can quickly adapt their messaging to their audiences’ tastes, preferences and grievances, as well as to the events and trends of the day, unencumbered by the lag of traditional news media.

Actors and audiences in right-wing media also engage in transgressive, controversial or even offensive bits, as they test the boundaries of their shared tastes, expectations and — for the political performers — ideologies.

Like a lot of improv shows, these performances feel intimate and authentic. Audience members can talk to the performers after and sometimes during the show. They can also be invited “on stage” when an influencer elevates their content.

It may be just for a single scene, but there is also opportunity for lucky, savvy or persistent contributors to become part of the theater of influencers. This increases the motivation to participate, the excitement and the sense among audience members that they are truly part of the show.

‘They’re eating the pets’

One example of right-wing media as improv came in fall 2024 when then-candidate Donald Trump baselessly claimed from a debate stage that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating pets.

Prior to Trump referencing them, rumors of pet-eating had been circulating in local Springfield Facebook groups. These claims were amplified when a local neo-Nazi leader discussed the issue in a recorded town hall meeting, which circulated in apps like Telegram and Gab. Influencers who monitor these channels elevated the story, finding a new game with a novel element.

A Reddit post of a photo of a man holding a bird walking down the street was taken out of context by influencers and falsely used as “evidence” of immigrants eating pets. Memes, particularly those made by artificial intelligence, started spreading rapidly, catching the attention of politicians including Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, who shared them. This raised the stakes of the improv game by tying these smaller memes to a larger political narrative about needing to stop migration at the southern border.

The improv act reached its zenith when Trump and then vice presidential candidate JD Vance elevated the claims during the week of the September debate. They presented the claims with both seriousness and a bit of a tongue-in-cheek awareness that the point of the story was not necessarily about immigrants but about the attention the narrative garnered. Vance even acknowledged the whole thing could “turn out to be false.” Veracity was not the point of this improvisation.

Then-candidate Donald Trump elevated baseless claims of immigrants eating pets, a false story that bubbled up through the right-wing media ecosystem.

Growing body of research

The metaphor of right-wing media as improv emerged through research, conversation and collaboration facilitated by the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, where we work.

One of us, Kate Starbird, and colleagues studied the role of political influencers in election-denying rumors after the 2020 election, finding right-wing political campaigns to be participatory efforts that were largely improvised. In related work, media researcher Anna Beers described how a “theater of influencers” on the right could be identified through their interactions with a shared audience.

Doctoral student Stephen Prochaska and colleagues built on sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s work to characterize the production of election fraud narratives in 2020 as “deep storytelling” – telling stories with strong emotional resonance – between right-wing influencers and their online audiences.

In her study of right-wing influencers, one of us, Danielle Lee Tomson, described the performative collaboration between influencers as kayfabe, a performance convention in professional wrestling of wrestlers agreeing on a story arc before a seemingly real wrestling match.

These studies all draw on different theories and apply different methods, but they converge on the ideas of improvisation, style and participatory audiences as integral to the success of right-wing media ecosystems.

A persuasive performance

In political improv, factuality is less important than the compelling nature of the performance, the actors, the big story arc and the aesthetic. The storylines can be riveting, engaging and participatory, allowing audiences to play their own role in a grand epic of American activism.

When considered this way, the persuasive power of right-wing media to everyday Americans comes into fuller focus. When there is a 24/7 chorus of collaborative internet influencers engaging their audiences directly, institutional media begins to feel too far removed and disengaged to have a comparable effect.The Conversation

Danielle Lee Tomson, Research Manager, Center for an Informed Public, University of Washington and Kate Starbird, Professor of Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Would voters support Trump’s mass deportation plans? A new poll offers some surprises

President-elect Donald Trump made it clear on the campaign trail that the mass-deportation of immigrants illegally in the United States would be among his first priorities.

But just how Trump would remove the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. without legal authorization remains unclear. How would the process be carried out? Would families be separated? And which agencies would carry out the arrests and detentions?

The latest Meredith Poll underscores how concerned North Carolinians are about the ability to control illegal immigration.

Asked how concerned they were by the number of people entering the U.S. illegally, a plurality of Democrats indicated they are extremely concerned (27%) or very concerned (21.3%), with more than 71% of Republicans indicating that they are extremely concerned or very concerned (16.1%).

As far as how to best address illegal immigration, 82% said they supported using technology and increasing the number of border agents.

When it comes to completing the wall along the southern border, over 90 percent of Republican respondents agree with this solution, compared to less than 48 percent of Democrats. Less than 63 percent of unaffiliated voters said they would support the support wall’s completion.

The poll found strong support for arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants with a criminal record.

But if the only crime was entering the United States without proper documentation, that’s where North Carolinians have their differences.

While over 73 percent of Republican respondents favor arresting and deporting undocumented persons who have not committed a violent or property crime, only a little over 38 percent of Democratic respondents would support these arrests and deportations. Just over 45 percent of unaffiliated voters would support this as a solution.

Use of the military to enforce Trump’s immigration policies

Notably, 60 percent of the respondents in the Meredith poll support using military personnel to enforce immigration policy initiatives. Support for using sheriffs and local law enforcement personnel is even stronger with 65 percent of those polled supporting this option. A little more than one-third (34%) said they opposed the military being used for this purpose.

In terms of age groups, the poll finds less than half of Gen Z voters support the use of military personnel to enforce immigration policy (49.2%) whereas the oldest generation of respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of the use of the military (80.1%) and local law enforcement personnel (85.1%) for immigration enforcement.

The construction industry has voiced concerns about how mass deportation would harm the industry. (File Photo)

“The support for using military and local law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement speaks to the gravity of the issue in citizens’ minds,” said David McLennan, director of the Meredith Poll. “In North Carolina, Democrats have stood up against House Bill 10, which forces sheriffs and local law enforcement to assist ICE in detaining immigrants. Democratic voters we polled, however, see the utility in using military and law enforcement in this effort.”

According to the Brookings Institution, 60% of the undocumented have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade.

So, should those who are undocumented and leading otherwise lawful, productive lives be swept up in these deportations?

According to the Meredith poll, a majority of respondents indicated their support for allowing those brought into the country as children, the so-called DACA recipients to remain, as well as those immigrants who are now married to an American citizen.

But in this divided, purple state there are partisan differences on this issue too.

A majority of Republicans said they do not believe that being married to a U.S. citizen should protect an undocumented immigrant from deportation. Only a slight plurality of Republican respondents want DACA recipients to remain in the United States.

“The Trump administration’s plans to aggressively remove undocumented immigrants will face some headwinds, especially as if people are arrested and deported without having caused problems in the United States,” said McLennan in a press release. “If the Trump administration attempts to revoke DACA protections or start separating married couples, the immigration ‘mandate’ that Trump claims may diminish.”

This week NBC News reported that the incoming Trump administration was making plans to deport some migrants to countries other than their own when their home countries refuse to accept them back.

NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. NC Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Rob Schofield for questions: info@ncnewsline.com. Follow NC Newsline on Facebook and X.

'I resigned my position': Former DOJ official leaves LA Times over them 'appeasing Trump'

On his Substack platform on Thursday afternoon, former fU.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman announced he has resigned as a contributor to the L.A. Times editorial page in protest over the paper's owner for his unabashed support for Donald Trump.

The Times has been in turmoils since billionaire owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong refused to let the editorial board of the venerable paper publish an editorial endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris.

On Wednesday, Litman joined the exodus from the paper that included editorials editor Mariel Garza in protest over Soon-Shiong's increasing interference that has now grown to him trying "to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, into a posture more sympathetic to Donald Trump," as he wrote on Thursday.

Writing he has been associated with the paper for fifteen years, serving as the Senior Legal Columnist for the past three years, Litman announced he has parted ways.

"I have written my last op-ed for the Times. Yesterday, I resigned my position. I don’t want to continue to work for a paper that is appeasing Trump and facilitating his assault on democratic rule for craven reasons," he wrote before explaining his departure is the result of an "... existential stakes for our democracy that I believe Trump’s second term poses, and the evidence that Soon-Shiong is currying favor with the President-elect, they are repugnant and dangerous."

Regarding the spiking of the pro-Harris editorial, he wrote, "By far the most important problem with Soon-Shiong’s scrapping of the editorial was the apparent motivation. It is untenable to suggest that Soon-Shiong woke up with sudden misgivings over Harris’s criminal justice record or with newfound affection for Trump’s immigration proposals. The plain inference, and the one that readers and national observers have adopted, is that he wanted to hedge his bets in case Trump won—not even to protect the paper’s fortunes but rather his multi-billion-dollar holdings in other fields. It seems evident that he was currying favor with Trump and capitulating to the President-elect’s well-known pettiness and vengefulness."

He added, "Trump has made it clear that he will make trouble for media outlets that cross him. Rather than reacting with indignation at this challenge to his paper’s critical function in a democracy, Soon-Shiong threw the paper to the wolves. That was cowardly."

Litman, a regular presence on cable TV as a legal commenter, added, "I don’t pretend that my resignation is any kind of serious counter-blow to the damage of Soon-Shiong’s cozying up to Trump.... But the cost of alliance with an important national institution that has such an important role to play in pushing back against authoritarian rule, but declines to do so for spurious and selfish reasons, feels too great. And Soon-Shiong’s conscious pattern of détente with Trump has in fact recast the paper’s core identity to one of appeasement with an authoritarian madman. I am loath to affiliate with that identity in any way."

You can read more here.

Trump may balk at Hegseth over drinking history — not sexual misconduct allegations: report

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.

Trump pick to lead IRS signals 'open season for tax cheats'

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run the Internal Revenue Service, former Rep. Billy Long, didn't serve on the House committee tasked with writing tax policy during his six terms in office, and his lack of relevant experience is likely "exactly what Trump was looking for," according to one economic justice advocate.

Progressive lawmakers joined advocates on Wednesday in denouncing Trump's selection of Long, who since leaving office in 2023 has promoted a tax credit that's been riddled with fraud and who spent his time in the House pushing to abolish the very agency he's been chosen to run.

As a Republican congressman from Missouri, Long repeatedly sponsored legislation to dismantle the IRS, which under President Joe Biden has recovered at least $1 billion from wealthy people who previously evaded taxes.

He also co-sponsored legislation to repeal all estate taxes, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthiest households, but "said almost nothing on the floor regarding taxes, the IRS, and taxation during his 12 years in Congress," said John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News.

Long's limited experience with tax policy "ought to set off alarm bells," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pointed to "vastly improved taxpayer service" under the leadership of IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who Biden chose to replace Trump's nominee from his first term, Charles Rettig, after Rettig served his full term.

Werfel has "set up a tremendous direct-file system, and begun badly needed crackdowns on ultra-wealthy tax cheats who rip off law-abiding Americans," said Wyden. "If Trump fires Mr. Werfel, it won't be to improve on his work; it'll be to install somebody Trump can control as he meddles with the IRS."

The appointment is likely to commence an "open season for tax cheats," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative.

Since leaving office, Long has promoted the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC), a pandemic-era credit that was intended to incentivize employers to continue paying workers during the economic shutdown when the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States.

He has worked to help businesses claim the credit from the IRS, but fraudulent and improper claims have so permeated the program that the IRS stopped processing new claims temporarily. The U.S. House passed a bill to entirely halt ERTC claims, but it has been stalled in the Senate.

"These ERTC mills that have popped up over the last few years are essentially fraud on an industrial scale, conning small businesses and ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars," said Wyden. "I'm going to have a lot of questions about Mr. Long's role in this business, first and foremost why the American people ought to trust somebody involved with a fraud-ridden industry to run an agency that's tasked with rooting out fraud."

Wyden also pointed out that Long has not been named in a "typical nomination like you'd see after every presidential election." Werfel's term was set to go until November 2027, and the IRS typically operates as a nonpartisan agency.

"Replacing Commissioner Werfel with over three years remaining in his term is a terrible mistake," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "He has done an excellent job rebuilding the IRS, boosting customer service, and enhancing enforcement aimed at wealthy tax evaders. Removing him will clearly signal Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats to evade their fair share of the tax burden."

"Trump's nominee has clearly stated that he wants to abolish the IRS," added Beyer. "The change Trump proposes in IRS leadership would be a gift to tax cheats and a blow to anyone who believes it is important to rein in deficits."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) added that Trump's nomination of Long signals "the weaponization of the tax agency."

"If he's confirmed," she said, "taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."

'It’s a joke': Trump appointee Ramaswamy's economic plan blasted by expert

Reacting to Vivek Ramaswamy glibly claiming it will be "good for many of the [government employee] individuals when they make a transition from government service back to the private sector," MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and "Morning Joe" regular Steve Ratner thoroughly dismantled the Donald Trump advisor's economic plans for the country.

Newly installed into Trump's proposed Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), the tech entrepreneur, along with co-chair Elon Musk, have been making broad claims of eliminating trillions in government expenses without providing much in the way of messy details.

On Thursday morning, host Scarborough introduced the clip of Ramaswamy speaking and, after admitting he is in favor of government cutbacks, bluntly said of the Trump's appointees proposals, "This is a scam."

"Steve, let's cut straight to this," Scarborough said to his guest. "I know you're going to go through these charts, but his is something that you want to hear these two guys talking about: how they are going to cut $2 trillion from the budget."

"It's a joke," he pronounced before adding, "And it's a joke because this is something you and I have been obsessed about for very long time, the national debt, getting the deficit under control. Just looking at your first chart here, people need to understand, Social Security and Medicare make up about 50 percent of what the government spends. You add defense and veterans benefits, that's another 20 percent, you are up to 70 percent. You then add debt, and how much it costs to service that debt, that's another 10 percent."

"So Steve, before they even start talking about cutting these so-called federal employees that are bankrupting us, the United States government has already spent 80 percent of its budget on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, vets, defense and interest on the debt," he added.

"I love some of these other numbers," he joked. "Again, forgive me for killing Hamlet in the first act here: let's cut law enforcement, that's 1 percent of the budget., but let's cut sciences and medical research, we spend too much on that they may be saving 1 percent of the budget.

"Transportation, those barrel projects is going to bankrupt us, it's only 2% of the budget," he jokingly exclaimed. "Again, I will actually let you explain this far better than I am right now, but this is a scam unless they are going to slash Social Security and Medicare and Veterans Affairs. They are never going to get the $2 trillion so they need to just stop pretending."

Watch below or at the link here.

'Machiavellian move': Ron DeSantis allies said to worry Trump is trying 'to kneecap him'

Donald Trump is reportedly considering Ron DeSantis to replace Pete Hegseth, if Hegseth drops out of the running to lead the Department of Defense, but some DeSantis allies worry that Trump is actually looking to punish the governor.

DeSantis opposed Trump for the 2024 GOP primary, but immediately joined forces with Trump after being beaten. Still, some have said bad blood still exists between the two Republican politicians.

DeSantis' name has popped up in conversations as Hegseth, a Fox News personality, is reportedly having difficulty with securing enough Republican votes to win confirmation.

Politico did some in-depth reporting on exactly what such a switch would mean.

"POLITICO interviewed 16 Republican lobbyists, elected officials and political consultants tied to both Trump and DeSantis about the possibility of the swap, many of whom were granted anonymity to talk freely," according to the report. "Many DeSantis allies see the Defense secretary job as being attractive to DeSantis, giving him the keys to run the world’s most powerful bureaucracy — and just as important, will keep him in the spotlight ahead of any potential future presidential run."

Some close to DeSantis call the move a "win-win" scenario, but others warn of pitfalls.

The report says, "But some DeSantis allies also think that Trump could just be floating DeSantis’ name to see how senators back in Washington react."

"Such a move could be orchestrated to see whether the president-elect needs to choose a new nominee out of concern that Hegseth won’t get confirmed," it states.

Politico reports that one ally "who often talks to DeSantis’ inner circle" said DeSantis and his team also "had to decide whether to trust Trump knowing that he could join the administration and then get thrown out, perhaps even in a short amount of time."

"The person described the scenario as DeSantis taking a risk — that he might on the one hand gain political longevity, but also that it wasn’t guaranteed given the possibility of angering Trump the way some Cabinet members did during the first term," the outlet reported on Thursday.

Another individual close to Trump reportedly "said they had a hard time picturing DeSantis as a subordinate and said the governor should be skeptical about hopping aboard."

“It could all be a Machiavellian move to kneecap him and leave him with nothing,” the person said, according to the new reporting.

Read the article here.


'It’s war': Why Trump is ready to 'fight' for these 2 Cabinet picks

Since narrowly defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the United States' 2024 election, President-elect Donald Trump has made one controversial pick after another for his incoming administration.

Some of Trump's more conventional picks are likely to be confirmed with bipartisan support by the U.S. Senate in 2025, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) for secretary of state and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. But Trump's more controversial choices have been drawing vehement criticism from both Democrats and Never Trump conservatives.

Among them: Kash Patel for FBI director, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for national intelligence director, and anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

READ MORE: Alarm raised over Trump plot to install nominees without Senate approval

Hegseth is so embattled that Trump is reportedly considering nominating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for defense secretary instead.

But according to The Bulwark's Marc A. Caputo, Trump is ready to "fight" for RFK Jr. and Gabbard.

"The most imperiled confirmation battle involves Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host whose nomination for defense secretary has been weighed down by accusations of sexual assault and drunkenness, both of which he denies," Caputo explains in an article published on December 5. "Another pitched fight ahead involves longtime Trump loyalist Kash Patel, whose nomination to lead the FBI has triggered his own avalanche of controversy over his embrace of conspiracy theories and calls to incarcerate journalists. But the most critical fights for the president-elect, at least in regard to his immediate political legacy, center around Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy Jr., former Democrats tapped to head the nation's sprawling intelligence and health bureaucracies, respectively."

Trump's allies, Caputo reports, "view the stakes differently" with Gabbard and RFK Jr.

Veteran GOP operative Roger Stone told The Bulwark, "The appointments of RFK and Tulsi Gabbard represent a realignment in American politics that you saw in the election. He understands the historical significance of that realignment."

READ MORE: 'Nothing at all historic': Mehdi Hasan debunks false claim that Trump won by a 'landslide'

Trump's allies, according to Caputo, expect the president-elect to "expend more of his political capital on Gabbard and Kennedy than on any of the other nominees."

A Trump adviser, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told The Bulwark, "Frankly, Pete (Hegseth) might not make it. We'll see. I'm not sure if the boss is willing to fight for that because there are people in our own camp who aren't sure it’s worth it. But Kash should get confirmed. And if they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it's war."

Another Trump adviser, also quoted anonymously, told The Bulwark, "If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that's when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That's what MAGA is about.”

READ MORE: 'I've seen tougher guys at Starbucks': MAGA country star turns on Republican senator

Marc A. Caputo's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.


Hegseth: Trump told me 'I’m behind you all the way' — but reports suggest otherwise

Fox News co-host Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s embattled nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, was back on Capitol Hill Wednesday to try to convince senators to support his confirmation, vowing to not withdraw despite numerous media reports alleging sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse, financial mismanagement, a possible Christian nationalism affinity — and a possible replacement.

Hegseth, walking through the halls of Congress Wednesday morning, was asked by CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion (video below) if he has had any conversations with Trump about his rumored replacement, Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

“I spoke to the president-elect this morning,” Hegseth replied. “He said, ‘keep going, keep fighting. I’m behind you all the way.'”

“So you’re in this all the way?” Killion pressed.

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

“Why would I back down? I’ve always been a fighter. I’m here for the fighters. This is personal and passionate for me,” Hegseth insisted.

“So you not withdrawing your name from consideration, just to be clear?” Killion asked.

“I’m meeting all day with senators,” Hegseth, not directly answering her question, replied.

Hewseth’s mother spoke with her son’s colleagues in a Fox News interview Wednesday morning, urging “female Senators” to ignore the media reports and confirm Pete to lead the world’s most lethal military.

But despite the full-frontal blitz by Hegseth and his mother, and his claims that Trump is still behind him, the Trump transition team may not be.

The Wall Street Journal in an overnight exclusive reported Trump is considering Florida governor Ron DeSantis to replace Hegseth as even Republican senators and growing concerned over the “mounting allegations” about Hegseth.

CNN reports Hegseth’s nomination is “in trouble,” and the Trump transition team is apparently angered by Hegseth.

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

“He has not been forthright with the Transition team staff and the President-elect and Vice President-elect,” a senior Trump transition source said of Hegseeth, CNN reported Tuesday night. “He has hurt a lot of people as a result. He didn’t disclose anything.”

“There are significant concerns more accusations are going to come out from his time at Fox News, about his behavior there, where he had an affair with his now-wife who was his executive producer,” the source also said.

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Feels deeply personal': Women voters suffering 'high-functioning depression' since Trump victory

Before the United States' 2024 presidential election, liberal/progressive filmmaker Michael Moore predicted that female voters — angry over MAGA Republicans' attacks on reproductive rights — would show up in huge numbers and give Vice President Kamala Harris a decisive victory. But President-elect Donald Trump enjoyed a narrow win, defeating Harris by roughly 1.4 or 1.5 percent in the popular vote (according to Cook Political Report).

According to Statista, Harris received 54 percent of the female vote compared to 44 percent for Trump. But among white women, Trump received 52 percent of the vote, while Harris received 47 percent. And in the end, Harris was unable to cross the finish line — although it was a close election.

Forbes' Elizabeth Pearson, in an article published on December 2, reports that many women who voted for Harris are quite worried about Trump's return to the White House in 2025 and are experiencing a "high-functioning depression" because of it.

READ MORE: Chomsky at 96: The linguist, educator and philosopher's massive intellectual and moral influence

"Donald Trump's reelection has sent ripples through the professional world — particularly among women," Pearson explains. "For many, this outcome has been more than a political loss; it feels deeply personal. Many mental health experts have witnessed a startling trend among their clients: a wave of high-functioning depression. Women are still showing up at work, fulfilling their responsibilities, and appearing outwardly composed, but beneath the surface, they're struggling."

The "immediate online rhetoric from misogynistic men" that followed Trump's victory has, according to Pearson, "left many women feeling downright depressed and anxious."

"If you — or some women you know — have been feeling 'off' since November 6," Pearson reports, "you're not imagining it…. Studies have shown a link between political outcomes and mental health. According to the American Psychological Association, 68 percent of Americans reported the 2020 election as a significant source of stress, with women disproportionately affected."

Pearson adds, "Fast forward to 2024, and the stakes feel even higher, with many women interpreting Trump's return to office as a symbolic and tangible step backward for gender equity, reproductive rights, and workplace equality.

READ MORE: Data shows dire election postmortems could soon be in store for GOP: columnist

Read Forbes' full report at this link.

'Nothing at all historic': Mehdi Hasan debunks false claim that Trump won by a 'landslide'

After President-elect Donald Trump narrowly defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the United States' 2024 election, MAGA Republicans were quick to hail the victory as "historic" and claim that he had won by a "landslide."

But according to the Cook Political Report, Trump won the popular vote by roughly 1.4 or 1.5 percent — which is far from a "landslide" or a "blowout."

Some MAGA Republicans have even claimed that Trump enjoyed the biggest win of a GOP presidential candidate in more than 100 years, which ignores President Ronald Reagan's reelection victory of 1984. That year, Reagan defeated the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Walter Mondale, by 18 percent in the popular vote and won 525 electoral votes. In contrast, Trump, according to Cook, won 312 electoral votes compared to 226 for Harris.

READ MORE: 'Check please!' Political experts mock second Trump nomination withdrawal

Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 were blowouts; 2024, however, was a close election.

In a biting op-ed published by The Guardian on December 3, progressive journalist and former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan slams MAGA Republicans' 2024 "landslide" claims as a "post-election lie" that is easily debunked.

"Yes, Trump won the popular vote and the Electoral College," Hasan explains. "Yes, Republicans won the Senate and the House. But, contrary to both Republican talking points and breathless headlines and hot takes from leading media outlets ('resounding,' 'rout,' 'runaway win'), there was really nothing at all historic or huge about the margin of victory. Repeat after me: there was no 'landslide.'"

Hasan continues, "There was no 'blowout.' There was no 'sweeping' mandate given to Trump by the electorate. The numbers don't lie."

READ MORE: Data shows dire election postmortems could soon be in store for GOP: columnist

The former MSNBC host notes that Trump's "miniscule" victory in the popular vote was, according to the New York Times, "smaller than that of every winning president since 1888 other than two: John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Richard M. Nixon in 1968."

Hasan argues, "We actually know what a landslide in the popular vote looks like: the Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeated the Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 by an enormous margin of 22.6 percentage points!.... We actually know what a landslide win in the Electoral College looks like: the Republican Ronald Reagan won reelection with a whopping 525 Electoral College votes in 1984!.... Repeat after me: there was nothing unique or unprecedented about the election result last month."

Hasan continues, "Republicans may feel they won a huge victory over the Democrats. And Trump may feel his election win was historic. But, to borrow a line from the right, the facts don't care about their feelings."

READ MORE: Chomsky at 96: The linguist, educator and philosopher's massive intellectual and moral influence

Mehdi Hasan's full op-ed for The Guardian is available at this link.



'No easy answer': Report highlights problem that could 'mess with Trump’s first 100 days'

President-elect Donald Trump and his party may quickly find themselves engulfed in a battle to fund the federal government that NBC News reports could "mess with" the first 100 days of his second term.

What's more, writes NBC News, there appears to be "no easy answer" to resolve the situation.

At issue is the fact that Congress later this month is likely to pass a stopgap bill that will fund the federal government until March next year.

Should that happen, Republicans would have to usher through a funding package to avert a government shutdown with a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives less than two months after Trump's inauguration.

"The big downside is it would create a critical deadline early in the Trump presidency, potentially taking valuable time away from confirming his nominees through the Senate and from the big party-line bill that Republicans are looking at to extend his tax cuts and advance his immigration and border security agenda," writes NBC.

Republicans are also wary of trying to jam through too much into the continuing resolution given that such a package could anger hardliners in the House Freedom Caucus and imperil House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) bid to hang onto his job.

What's more, after Trump tapped several members of the GOP House to serve in his administration, the Republican majority could be as narrow as 217-215 for most of the first 100 days of his second term.

Data shows dire election postmortems could soon be in store for GOP: columnist

If recent political history is any indication, examinations into Republican electoral defeats up and down the ballot may not be far off, according to a political columnist.

In fact, they could be one presidential election cycle away.

Take for example the elections in 2008, 2016 and 2020, when voters gave the prevailing party governing trifectas, MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen wrote.

Of course, the GOP was handed the coveted political situation this year, but four years ago it was Democrats who were handed back control of Congress and the White House after Republicans wrestled it away in 2016, the same way Democrats turned the tables in 2008, Cohen noted.

“Quite simply, it might not be long before the election postmortems are being written about the GOP,” Cohen told readers in an opinion piece published Monday for MSNBC.

While Cohen is not doubting the scope of the “bad outcome” the 2024 elections produced for the Democratic Party, he says the data shows some bright spots for the party, including that “Democrats outperformed the presidential ticket in several key Senate races.”

“The Democrats’ defeat has led to a host of postmortems and ranting on what went wrong and what the party needs to do differently going forward,” he wrote. “But a deep dive inside the numbers suggests that while the election results were bad for Democrats, they aren’t quite as awful as they seem.”

He continued to establish his argument by reminding readers that Democrats were facing “an uphill battle” this year in the face of anti-incumbent sentiment worldwide and that President-elect Donald Trump’s victory was not the landslide win that MAGA world wanted to portray.

“His margin of victory, 1.6 points, was the fifth-smallest in the last 100 years,” Cohen noted.

The columnist concluded by writing that even as Democrats “lost four Senate seats and control of the chamber, considering the 6-point shift in national voting and Trump’s victory, they did better than expected.”

“Going forward, the ubiquity of the occasional Trump voter should concern Republicans,” according to Cohen, a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. “Can they hold the White House — and their advantages in the House and Senate — if Trump is not on the ticket (and constitutionally, he cannot run for president again)?”

Trump’s movement 'more fragile than it seems' — and is about to implode: analysis

The Atlantic's George Packer believes there are important lessons that Democrats need to take away from President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 election.

However, he also believes that Democrats need to avoid overestimating the strength of Trump's electoral coalition, which he believes could split relatively quickly.

"The Trump Reaction is more fragile than it now seems," he writes. "Trump’s behavior in the last weeks of the campaign did not augur a coherent second presidency. He will surround himself with ideologues, opportunists, and crackpots, and because he has no interest in governing, they will try to fill the vacuum and turn on one another."

Packer then zeroes in on the contradictions within the Trump coalition that will make it very hard for the president-elect to keep everything held together.

"The Trump administration, with a favorable Congress, will overreach on issues such as abortion and immigration, soon alienating important parts of its new coalition," he argues. "It will enact economic policies that favor the party’s old allies among the rich at the expense of its new supporters among the less well-off. It’s quite possible that, approaching 80, Trump will find himself once more among the least popular presidents in the country’s history."

He nonetheless says that Democrats need to perform a mental balancing act of both correcting the errors of the Biden-Harris administration while at the same time getting on war footing against an administration that will be unprecedently hostile to them.

"The opposition will have to act," he urges. "Much of this action will involve civil society and the private sector along with surviving government institutions—to prevent by legal means the mass internment and deportation of migrants from communities in which they’ve been peacefully living for years; to save women whose lives are threatened by laws that would punish them for trying to save themselves; to protect the public health from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s security from Tulsi Gabbard, and its coffers from Elon Musk."

'Shocked': Ex-FBI deputy director details 'possible effect' of Biden pardon on Senate Cabinet hearings

Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), on Monday detailed the potential fallout of President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, telling CNN he was “a little shocked” by the president’s move.

Biden on Sunday announced a “Full and Unconditional Pardon” for Hunter Biden, who was convicted in June of three felony charges related to a 2018 gun purchase. Hunter Biden also pleaded guilty in September to nine tax evasion charges, CBS News reports. Biden had previously stated he would not pardon his son.

Discussing the move on CNN, McCabe admitted he “was a little shocked” by what he assumes was a “torturous” decision for the president.

READ MORE: 'Two things could be true': White House reveals why Hunter Pardon might not have happened

“It puts really pits [Biden] against two things that we know mean very much to him: his respect for the system of justice and his role as an institutionalist preserving those sorts of institutions, and his love for and desire to protect his son,” McCabe said.

“So he had no easy choices here,” the former acting FBI director noted. “But nevertheless, choosing to issue this pardon for whatever reasons he did after so many times saying he would not, is a really bad look for him. And I think it's potentially a destructive thing for his party.”

McCabe argued the move “creates the appearance of hypocrisy” and “could go to supporting … people’s opinions that the system is somehow stacked in favor of Democrats against Republicans.”

“I think this looks like the nation's head Democrat using the system for his own benefit,” McCabe said.

READ MORE: 'Ideological warriors': 'Defiant' Trump 'deliberately testing' Senate with extreme nominees

Asked about the potential impact of Biden’s decision on President-elect Donald Trump’s effort to push a spate of controversial Cabinet picks through the U.S. Senate, McCabe warned the move could affect “how aggressively some senators” approach confirmation hearings.

“The act of the pardon is generating a fair amount of frustration and anger, particularly on the Republican side,” McCabe said. “That perception, that anger, that feeling that the other side is working the system to benefit themselves and their family members, could very well have an impact on how aggressively some senators — who harbor legitimate questions or concerns about [Trump FBI director nominee] Kash Patel — it could change the way that they approach those hearings.”

“I think that’ possible, I wouldn’t predict outcomes but I think it’s a possible effect,” McCabe said.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Why the Hunter Biden pardon is 'justified' — according to legal experts

'Whoa! Now we’re talking!' Expert warns Dr. Oz threatens Trump with 'ethical morass'

Donald Trump’s pick of TV doctor Mehmet Oz threatens to bring an “ethical morass” to an administration already packed with controversial picks, a report warned Monday.

Major financial links tie the heart surgeon’s media company to huge drug companies he would be in charge of monitoring as the incoming president’s head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the Washington Post reported.

One of those companies is the manufacturer of weight loss drug Ozempic, a product he’s openly praised as far back as 2019.

“Whoa! Now we’re talking!” Oz gushed as he spoke to comedian Billy Gardell on his show about the drug’s effect on his management of diabetes and attempt to shed pounds — a section that was sponsored by the drug’s maker, Novo Nordisk, which Oz called a “trusted partner.”

“If confirmed, Oz would take over two of the largest taxpayer-funded programs just as pharmaceutical companies are lobbying the government to cover the cost of weight-loss drugs,” the Post wrote.

And yet, on his website, Oz continues to promote the drug and even sells a product to treat sagging facial skin known as “Ozempic face,” the Post reported.

“Having ongoing financial ties to a health-care company would create a disincentive to do the job the American people need done by the person in his position,” Walter Shaub Jr., who headed the Office of Government Ethics for more than four years, told the Post.

“The situation could be an ethical morass, unless he is truly willing to alter his finances and business dealings.”

A spokesperson for Novo Nordisk told the Post it does not have a relationship with Oz.

Trump’s transition spokesman Brian Hughes said, “All nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies.”

But the Post detailed the financial stakes that are in play. Expanding Medicare coverage to weight loss drugs would come with a $35 billion cost in just 8 years, Congressional Budget Office figures show.

And Oz critics say promotions on “The Dr. Oz Show” threaten many more potential conflicts of interest.

“Through various media channels, he has not only pushed “miracle” treatments for fat loss that lack scientific evidence, but also promoted companies in which he has had a vested financial interest, including a “cellular nutrition company” and a biotech company creating bovine colostrum supplements — the powdered or pill version of the first milk a cow releases after giving birth,” the Post reported.

Oz’s spokesman told the Post, “As a world-renowned cardiothoracic surgeon who led the heart institute at New York Presbyterian Medical Center, Dr. Mehmet Oz is eminently qualified to help Make America Healthy Again. Dr. Oz’s knowledge and success in health care, innovation, and communications will be an invaluable asset to the American people in the Trump-Vance Administration, and he appreciates the opportunity President Trump has given him to lead CMS.”

'Ideological warriors': 'Defiant' Trump 'deliberately testing' Senate with extreme nominees

President-elect Donald Trump has been drawing vehement criticism from both Democrats and Never Trump conservatives over the more extreme picks for his incoming administration, including former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Trump's choice for national intelligence director), anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Trump's pick to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and Fox News star Pete Hegseth (the Christian nationalist Trump is proposing for defense secretary).

Now, Trump is drawing even more criticism for choosing far-right conspiracy theorist Kash Patel to replace Christopher Wray as FBI director.

But the New York Times' Peter Baker, in an article published on December 2, stresses that Trump has responded to this criticism of nominees with angry "defiance."

READ MORE: Why Kash Patel is Trump's 'scariest hire yet': report

"His first selection for attorney general collapsed in spectacular fashion," Baker explains. "His choice for defense secretary is awash in scandal. His picks for intelligence, health and other posts are being panned. But if anyone thought that President-elect Donald J. Trump might be chastened, he has quickly demonstrated otherwise. Even with so many appointees already under fire, Mr. Trump has doubled down on defiance as he assembles his next administration."

Baker adds, "Rather than turning to more credentialed and respected choices with easier paths to Senate confirmation, Mr. Trump, in rapid-fire fashion, keeps naming more ideological warriors, conspiracy theorists and now even family members to senior government positions."

The Times reporter notes that Trump's "persistence in advancing unconventional appointments underscores" his desire to "surround himself this time with loyalists he can trust to carry out his agenda, including 'retribution' against his perceived enemies."

Attorney Gregg Nunziata, who formerly served as nominations counsel for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, believes that Trump is going out of his way to provoke GOP senators.

READ MORE: 'Quickly rot from within': Expert reveals 3 traits the US shares with declining empires

Nunziata told the Times, "By insisting on highly provocative nominees, short on traditional qualifications but long on personal loyalty and zest for confrontation, he seems to be deliberately testing the Senate's capacity and willingness to play its constitutional role as a check on the president."

Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles M. Kupperman considers Patel an especially frustrating pick.

Kupperman told the Times, "Kash is totally unqualified for this position. He is the dictionary definition of a sycophant. Appointing Kash as FBI director is Trump's ultimate statement that his second term will be driven by retribution. And it is a gross insult to citizens."

READ MORE: 'Legal, physical and political protection' needed for officials who 'stand up to Trump': analysis

Read Peter Baker's full New York Times article at this link (subscription required).


@2024 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.