Popular, famous, and highly-influential Latino stars, and superstars including Bad Bunny, Luis Fonsi, Jennifer Lopez, and Ricky Martin, are lashing out at Donald Trump after his six-hour Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday served up racist, misogynistic, and antisemitic rhetoric. A New York Times headline described it as "Trump's racist rally."

The most-noted racist remarks came from a comedian, Tony Hinchcliffe, in an attack calling Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean,” and saying, "these Latinos, they love making babies, too, just know that. They do, they do. There’s no pulling out. They don’t do that. They come inside, just like they did to our country,” before talking about Black people carving watermelons.

The Trump campaign waited several hours before issuing a statement saying, “This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.” It was unclear why other racist remarks made throughout the event, including by Hinchcliffe, were not addressed by the campaign.

"Battleground Pennsylvania," NBC News reports, "where polling margins show a razor-thin race between Trump and Harris, is home to the third-largest Puerto Rican diaspora in the country. Last month, the former president invited Puerto Rican artist Anuel AA onstage at a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, to publicly throw his support behind the Republican ticket."

READ MORE: ‘What’s He Confessing to?’: Trump’s Mike Johnson ‘Secret’ Draws Electoral College Concerns

Variety reports, "Bad Bunny, Jennifer Lopez and Ricky Martin were among the notable industry figures who boosted Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris on Sunday after a speaker at Donald Trump‘s political rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden called Puerto Rico 'a floating island of garbage.'"

"Bad Bunny, one of the world’s biggest music superstar[s] with more than 45 million Instagram followers, boosted Harris’ campaign video targeting voters in Puerto Rico and noting what a contentious relationship that Trump had with the island during his tenure in the White House. Lopez posted Harris campaign material targeted at Puerto Rico as well as the same video pitch that Bad Bunny boosted."

"Singer-actor Ricky Martin, with 18.6 million Instagram followers, did the same thing on his Instagram Stories feed, adding the comment 'I remember' on the Harris video. He also included a clip of Hinchcliffe’s 'garbage' comment."

Variety continued, reporting, "Luis Fonsi, the Puerto Rican singer who had a worldwide smash in 2017 with 'Despacito,' also reposted the Harris video and added a comment."

“We are not OK with this constant hate. It’s been abundantly clear that these people have no respect for us and yet they want our vote,” Fonsi wrote. “I purposely wrote this in English cause yes we’re American too.”

Political strategist, CNN commentator, and co-host of ABC's "The View," Ana Navarro, has two million followers on the social media platform X and is a highly-influential Republican.

"Today, @KamalaHarris released policy proposals to help Puerto Rico. On the other hand at the Trump rally, this is going on," she wrote, pointing to a clip of Hinchcliffe calling Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage."

"But nah. They’re not piece of s--- racists who treat Puerto Ricans as second-class US citizens. It’s just our imagination. Puerto Ricans, pay attention!"

READ MORE: ‘Ten-Cent Dictator’: Trump Threatens Mass Arrests of Opponents in ‘Cease and Desist’ Post

She also noted posted a screenshot of Bad Bunny's post, in which he shared Vice President Harris's proposal for Puerto Rico with his 45 million followers.

And, pointing to Hinchcliffe's racist remarks about Latinos making babies, Navarro wrote:

"Latinos, defend our community’s dignity.

Show some self-respect.

A vote against racism is a vote for @KamalaHarris."

Monday morning on "The View," co-host Sunny Hostin, who is Puerto Rican, served up a monologue strongly criticizing Donald Trump.

"This Puerto Rican has something to say about the island that I love, where my family is from," Hostin began. "Puerto Rico is 'trash'? We are Americans, Donald Trump. Americans. We voluntarily serve disproportionately high in the military, while you have bone spurs."

"And we vote."

"Pennsylvania is home to almost half a million Puerto Ricans. North Carolina, 115,000. Georgia, 100,000. Arizona, 64,000. Wisconsin, 61,000. Michigan, 43,000. Nevada, 27,000. We vote Donald Trump."

"Trash?"

"And by the way, Jennifer Lopez, Ricky Martin, Bad Bunny, Luis Fonsi, and Mark Anthony have over 345 million followers on Instagram. I think you only have 26 million, since you care so much about size. And we don't like what was said about Puerto Rico. And we know how to take the trash out Donald Trump. Trash that has been collecting since 2016. And that's you, Donald Trump. And finally, my fellow Puerto Ricans, trash collection day is November 5th, 2024. Don't forget it."

Former Fox News political commentator Geraldo Rivera let loose Sunday night:

"'A floating island of garbage…?' Referring to Puerto Rico??? 'Poisoning the blood of our nation…?' We have 'murder in our genes….?' Fuck these racists. Latino men of good will, have pride in yourselves and your ancestors. A vote for Trump is a vote against self-respect."

Monday morning he added: "Latino men, for the love of your parents and children, for your pride and your honor tell this little gringo s--- to go f--- himself."

See the video and social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Malignant Narcissism’: Trump Is an ‘Existential Threat to Democracy’ Health Experts Warn

Donald Trump, in an apparent effort to distance himself and his campaign from his Arlington National Cemetery scandal, is throwing blame at Gold Star families and the Biden administration.

Asked if his campaign should have posted videos and photos from his event Monday at a ceremony with two Gold Star families, including at Section 60, one of the most hallowed areas in Arlington National Cemetery where photography is greatly restricted, Trump alleged he knew nothing about it.

"We have a lot of people, you know, we have people – Tiktok people, you know, we're leading the internet. That was the other thing. We're so far above [Vice President Harris] on the internet," Trump told NBC News' Dasha Burns (video below) Thursday.

Continuing to try to distance himself, Trump claimed, "I don't know what the rules and regulations are. I don't know who did it," he added, referring to posting videos, including one published to Trump's own TikTok account.

RELATED: Trump Campaign Targets Secretary of the Army in Its Latest Attack Over Arlington Scandal

"It could have been them. It could have been the [Gold Star] parents. It could have been somebody," Trump said.

When told it was his campaign's Tiktok that posted the video, Trump replied, "I really don't know anything about it. All I do is I stood there and I said, 'if you'd like to have a picture, we can have a picture.'"

But then Trump flipped, declaring the Biden administration was to blame for his campaign's photo-op fiasco.

"This was a setup by the people in the administration that, 'Oh, Trump is coming to Arlington, and that looks so bad for us."

But Trump's campaign not only knew what the rules and regulations were, they agreed to them, according to NPR.

"Because federal law prohibits Army employees from being involved with any political campaign, the staff at the cemetery did not deal directly with the Trump campaign about his visit there. A source familiar with the event said the cemetery staff worked with the staff of Republican Congressman Brian Mast of Florida, who joined Trump at Arlington," NPR reported Thursday.

RELATED: Trump’s Arlington Scandal Expands as Speaker Johnson’s Role Revealed: Reports

"Arlington Cemetery staff dealt directly with Mast’s chief of staff, James Langenderfer, briefing him extensively on the rules, which include no campaign events at the cemetery. They also reiterated that only an official Arlington National Cemetery photographer — and no campaign photographer — could be used at Section 60, the location of the recent American war dead. The source said Langenderfer told them the Trump campaign agreed to these rules."

And yet, as NPR also reported Thursday, that TikTok video "may be illegal."

"Former President Donald Trump shared a TikTok video yesterday including footage that likely violates federal law against using military cemeteries for campaigning purposes. The video was posted after NPR reported Trump campaign staffers had a physical altercation Monday with an Arlington National Cemetery staffer who was trying to enforce restrictions during a remembrance ceremony. Only cemetery staff are authorized to take photographs or film in the area."

Watch MSNBC's Katie Phang's reaction to Trump's remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘How Could You Prosecute the Hamburglar?’: New Kamala ‘Controversy’ Sparks ‘Confessions’

Donald Trump appears to be “laying the groundwork” to pull out of the September 10 debate with his Democratic presidential opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, after posting a late Sunday night rant attacking the network scheduled to host it. Behind the scenes, the Trump campaign reportedly is refusing a simple Harris campaign request: keep the mics on.

“So definitely looks like Trump is laying the groundwork to pull out of the ABC News debate,” noted Zeteo News media columnist Justin Baragona, after Trump asked, “why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?”

“I watched ABC FAKE NEWS this morning, both lightweight reporter Jonathan Carl’s(K?) ridiculous and biased interview of Tom Cotton (who was fantastic!), and their so-called Panel of Trump Haters, and I ask, why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?” Trump’s overnight tirade reads. “Will panelist Donna Brazil give the questions to the Marxist Candidate like she did for Crooked Hillary Clinton? Will Kamala’s best friend, who heads up ABC, do likewise. Where is Liddle’ George Slopadopolus hanging out now? Will he be involved. They’ve got a lot of questions to answer!!! Why did Harris turn down Fox, NBC, CBS, and even CNN? Stay tuned!!!”

The Harris campaign has stated they would stick to the dates and networks Trump agreed to with President Joe Biden. The ABC News debate is the only one agreed to that remains.

READ MORE: ‘Black Jobs’: Trump Clarifies What He Meant

Earlier this month The New York Times reported Dana Walden, a close friend of Harris, is an executive at ABC. But, “ABC News says that any perception of a conflict involving Ms. Walden is not reality. The company says that the executive, who oversees 18 businesses across the sprawling Disney empire, is only involved in the news division’s corporate matters (like budgets and staff size) and that she has no say in editorial decisions.”

Previously saying he would not do the ABC News debate, “days later, Trump confirmed during a rambling news conference he’d recommitted to the ABC News debate against Harris,” The Daily Beast reports.

“On August 3, Trump said the ABC News event—to which he’d originally agreed while believing Biden would be the Democratic nominee—had been ‘terminated in that Biden will no longer be a participant,'” The Beast explained. “Instead, he said he’d agreed to do a debate on Fox News on Sept. 4. He later indicated that he wouldn’t agree to any debates with Harris if she didn’t do the Fox News event, writing: ‘I’ll see her on September 4th or, I won’t see her at all.'”

Meanwhile, Politico Playbook reports Monday that behind the scenes, the Trump campaign is refusing to agree to the Harris campaign’s request the microphones stay on at all times, a change from CNN debate rules where microphones were on only for the candidate who was supposed to be speaking.

“It’s clear the veep’s team is hoping to get Trump to lose his cool on mic,” Playbook reports.

Harris is “more than happy to have exchanges with him if he tries to interrupt her,” a “person familiar with the negotiations tells Playbook.”

“And given how shook he seems by her, he’s very prone to having intemperate outbursts,” they said. “I think the campaign would want viewers to hear [that].”

The “Trump campaign sees this all as a bait-and-switch. They want the ABC debate governed by the CNN rules, according to two sources,” Politico adds.

“Our understanding,” Harris campaign senior adviser for communications Brian Fallon said in a statement, CNN reports, “is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own. We suspect Trump’s team has not even told their boss about this dispute because it would be too embarrassing to admit they don’t think he can handle himself against Vice President Harris without the benefit of a mute button.”

READ MORE: ‘Sold His Endorsement’: RFK Jr Suspends, Backs Trump – Running Mate Wants Vaccine Apology

Trump campaign senior adviser Jason Miller said in a statement: “The Harris camp, after having already agreed to the CNN rules, asked for a seated debate, with notes, and opening statements. We said no changes to the agreed upon rules.”

The Harris campaign says they did not make any of those requests.

Friday night CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins told HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” as Mediaite reported (video below), “I still think it’s an open question, whether or not it happens.”

“I think Trump is nervous about it,” Collins added. “I think Trump– I talk to a lot of sources in his world. I think he has really struggled with it. It’s not just a narrative or a talking point from Democrats. He really has struggled with with how to to combat her. And I think going into that debate, he does not really want to do it.”

“I think it’s difficult, if not impossible, for him to pull out because his campaign manager had cards printed that said ‘anywhere, time, any place’ for President Biden. And it would look weak. But I don’t think he’s looking forward to it at this point.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Says Trump Really Doesn’t Want To Debate Kamala Harris — Trump Sources Tell Her He’s ‘Struggling’ https://t.co/HCcn3uX2Ld via @mediaite pic.twitter.com/kBLOIztlNB
— Tommy moderna-vaX-Topher (@tommyxtopher) August 25, 2024

READ MORE: Stephen Miller and GOP AGs Sue to Protect Feds’ Right to Rip Apart Multi-Status Families

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says “now” House Republicans will “begin in earnest” to address the U.S. southern border, after he and Donald Trump were central to killing bipartisan Senate legislation that did just that, while he warned that the House is “not going to be forced into action” by the U.S. Senate.

For the better part of a year House Republicans have increasingly fixated on border issues, using them to attack President Joe Biden and Democrats. For months Senate Democrats and Republicans have been working together to craft bipartisan legislation that strongly addresses border issues, providing over $7 billion to help border patrol agents and the Dept. of Homeland Security handle the influx of immigrants crossing the border. Ultimately, Trump, Johnson, and Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quashed that bill.

“You yourself were part of killing the Senate compromise bill,” a reporter told Johnson Wednesday morning at his press conference. “You called it ‘dead on arrival.'”

“So my question to you is, while you say there need to be solutions, what are House Republicans doing to get to a solution on the border, and on Ukraine. Or are you going to actually do nothing? What is your proposal, what are you doing?” the reporter asked pointedly.

READ MORE: ‘Own It’: Kellyanne Conway Urges Republicans to Run on Their Anti-Abortion Positions

“We’re addressing each of those issues,” Johnson insisted.

“There are important issues on the table. We are not going to be forced into action by the Senate, who, in the latest product they sent us over does not have one word in the bill about America’s border. Not one word about security,” Johnson said, making clear he will not bring to the House floor the bipartisan bill the Senate passed about 36 hours ago that contains critical military aid funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan with humanitarian aid for Gaza.

“The reason that the other one was dead on arrival,” Johnson claimed, “is because it did not meet the moment, it would not have solved the problem. You can’t leave giant loopholes and codify some of the things that have gotten us into this situation.”

Assuring reporters that “there are lots of ideas on the table on how to address these issues,” Johnson said they “will address the issues, we’ll do our duty on that matter. And and all that begins in earnest right now.”

“We have to address this seriously,” Johnson concluded. “We have to actually solve the problems and not just take political posturing as has happened in some of these other corners.”

The Speaker and his leadership team then walked away, refusing to take a question of funding to keep the government open.

Critics quickly blasted Johnson.

RELATED: ICE May Be Forced to Release Thousands After Republicans Kill Border Bill

“The republicans killed the border security deal they demanded, are threatening to kill any aid to Ukraine, and preside over the least productive Congress in decades. Republicans don’t have plans and they really cant govern!” responded U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ).

Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) responded to Johnson’s remarks, writing on X:

“Mike Johnson: No Ukraine $ without border security
Johnson also: No Ukraine $ with border security

Mike Johnson: Congress doesn’t have to address border
Johnson also: Congress must address border

Mike Johnson: The Senate must act
Johnson also: I don’t care what the Senate does”

The Biden campaign quickly jumped on Johnson’s remarks: “Mike Johnson, who just sabotaged a bipartisan bill to secure the border because Trump told him to, says politicians have to stop ‘political posturing’ and ‘solve the problems.'”

Watch Johnson’s remarks below or at this link.

Kellyanne Conway, the Trump 2016 campaign manager and senior White House counselor, is urging Republicans in her party to embrace their often extreme anti-abortion positions and run on them in the November election. For some Republicans, those positions include total or near-total abortion bans, a nationwide abortion ban, and in some cases they include supporting homicide charges for women who obtain an abortion, even if an abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Pointing to New York Democrat Tom Suozzi’s major win in Tuesday’s special election to fill the House seat of expelled Republican former U.S. Congressman George Santos, Conway claimed Suozzi had gone against his party on the border, by running on fixing it.

“Suozzi, instead of lying, like every other Democrat seems to be doing these days,” said Conway, a pollster and political consultant, on Fox News Wednesday morning (video below). “What did he do? He said, I better go against my party on the border. And he did it. Paid advertising, mailers, press conferences, public appeals. So he has shown the Democrats how to run on the border.”

“I think Republicans should do the same thing with abortion,” Conway declared. “Instead of being ostriches and pretending with their head in the sand, they should be peacocks and say, ‘Look, this is what it means to be pro-life in 2024, this is what it means to be pro-choice in 2024.’ And instead of hiding, own it, and message it. I think he did a great job with that going against his party. Let’s see how many Democrats follow suit.”

READ MORE: ‘Freedom or Terror and Tyranny?’: Biden Takes Aim at Trump and Speaker Johnson

For many Republican politicians, their position on abortion includes overriding individual state laws and imposing a federal ban on the right to abortion, sometimes including bans on abortion due to rape or incest, and in some cases, even if the life or health of the mother is in danger.

The means in some states young girls have been forced to give birth to their rapist’s child, or leave the state. Even when there are exceptions for life or health, some laws they have passed are ambiguously worded and some doctors have refused to perform possibly-life-saving abortions.

Nikki Haley supports a nationwide abortion ban, saying she would, if elected president, support “anything” that Congress would pass. She has also said she would have signed a six-week ban as governor.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has “voiced support for revisiting Supreme Court decisions that struck down restrictions on the use of contraception, barred bans on gay sex and legalized same sex marriages,” CNN reported last year. “From endorsing hard labor prison sentences for abortion providers to supporting the criminalization of gay sex, his staunchly conservative rhetoric is rooted in an era of ‘biblical morality,’ that he says was washed away with the counterculture in the 1960s.”

Across the nation, Republicans have attempted to pass countless anti-abortion bills since conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Republicans in New Hampshire, for example, attempted a 15-day abortion ban earlier this year. The bill “would also tack on criminal penalties to any health care providers caught performing abortions, categorizing the offense as a class B felony,” The New Republic reported. The legislation was put on hold February 1.

Just last week Republicans in Missouri blocked “an effort to add rape and incest exceptions to Missouri’s near-total abortion ban.” One GOP state lawmaker supported her decision to add any exceptions, saying, “God does not make mistakes. And for some reason he allows that to happen. Bad things happen.”

RELATED: ‘A One Year Old Could Get an Abortion Under This’ Bill Says Flame-Throwing GOP Lawmaker

Last year, Republicans in Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arkansas “introduced legislation proposing homicide and other criminal charges for those seeking abortion care,” The Guardian reported.

Watch Conway’s remarks below or at this link.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY) attempted to promote several falsehoods but was rebuffed by Jim Sciutto, after the CNN host urged him to be respectful.

Rep. Williams, whose social media bio reads “People over Politics,” attempted to claim that President Biden could address the border issue with executive actions, including “Remain in Mexico.” Sciutto noted that the courts had stopped several of then-President Donald Trump’s executive actions on the border.

“Joe Biden shredded the Remain in Mexico policy his first week in office. He did it very, with great flamboyance and he could reinstate that today simply with a pen,” Williams told Sciutto when asked about the now-dead border bill.

“As you know,” Sciutto interjected, “many of the moves President Trump attempted were challenged in courts. You had a Democratic president here, who is willing to give more –”

Williams cut him off, saying, “Remain in Mexico was not struck down by the court. That’s simply not true.”

“I’m talking about executive privilege,” Sciutto responded, “and powers that the House is saying the President could exercise, but as you know, this is a president who’s actually making concessions that previous different Democratic presidents didn’t make. I just wonder why is it safer for your constituents to have no increased security at the border, as opposed to that negotiated by your Senate Republican colleagues?”

READ MORE: ‘Freedom or Terror and Tyranny?’: Biden Takes Aim at Trump and Speaker Johnson

“Well,” Williams said, “I’m glad to hear you say that Joe Biden has provided no security at the border along with Secretary Mayorkas. I think that’s a bold admission.”

“Not exactly what I said, I did not say that,” Sciutto declared.

“That is exactly what you said,” Williams insisted.

After talking over Sciutto, the CNN host urged Williams, “Let’s talk as people who respect each other, I respect your service. I’m asking you why no deal is better for your constituents for the rest of the year, as opposed to a deal that significantly tightened up restrictions of the border?”

But Williams continued to push falsehoods and GOP talking points.

“Well because five, you know, permitting in, in the law, in the code 5000 per day, on average, over a period of time, to enter the country,” William replied, wrongly explaining the deterrents the bill would have provided to border patrol agents.

“That’s not true. It’s not true,” Sciutto told him.

“It is true, it’s a disaster,” Wiliams insisted.

As Sciutto explained the parameters of that portion of the defunct legislation, Williams again interjected: “I’m sorry. Is that is that respecting each other? Is that what you’re getting at here is respecting each other?”

“I will challenge you when you say something that’s not true,” Sciutto offered.

“I’m a member of Congress, you’re cutting me off,” Williams protested. “It absolutely is true.”

“Only when you say something not true,” replied Sciutto.

“Oh, I see. And you’re the arbiter of truth. I realize that CNN has a great track record on that,” Williams snarked.

READ MORE: ‘Treason’: Top Constitutional Expert Warns on Trump’s Attack on NATO

“Senator James Lankford, a Republican Senator, said that the 5000 per day talking point was false. So I’ll quote him if you won’t take my word for it,” Sciutto concluded.

Last year, then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy joined hands with more than a dozen House Republicans, among them reportedly including Rep. Williams, as he lead them in prayer at the National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance. That event was co-sponsored by several far-right Christian organizations, at least five of which appear on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups.

Also last year, as Syracuse.com reported, Congressman Williams “unleashed a profanity-laced tirade … while threatening his former top staffer at a holiday party in Washington’s International Spy Museum.”

“Williams can be seen in a video angrily pointing his finger in the face of Michael Gordon, his former chief of staff and campaign manager,” the news outlet added.

Watch Williams and Sciutto below or at this link.

The U.S. Senate overnight passed critical bipartisan legislation providing military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and humanitarian aid to Gaza, in a strong 70-29 vote, including 22 Republicans despite Donald Trump’s opposition to the bill. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson quickly made clear the bill will never see the light of day on the House floor.

The bipartisan bill was crafted after Senate Republicans, also at Trump’s direction, killed the previous bipartisan bill, which included the military aid provisions, billions for the border, and had the support of both the Democratic Majority Leader and Republican Minority Leader, not to mention the U.S. Border Patrol union.

Johnson, even before the final vote on the military aid bill concluded, issued a statement rejecting the Senate legislation. Aware that Trump directed the military aid and border bill, he wrote, “in the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters.”

READ MORE: ‘Bizarre’: Trump Quotes Yogi Berra in Critical SCOTUS Motion

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), the Democratic lead on the Senate’s now-dead military aid and border legislation, blasted Speaker Johnson. He angrily wrote on X, “the speaker said he wouldn’t pass ukraine funding without a border deal and we got a deal and then he killed the deal because he said we didn’t need a deal and now he says he won’t pass our ukraine funding bill bc it doesn’t include a border deal.”

Murphy concluded, “honestly wtf.”

Former senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller, who was the architect of Trump’s “zero tolerance” child separation policy that stripped thousands of children from their parents and even from their own siblings, responded to Senator Murphy.

Miller, who has been called a conspiracy theorist, a white nationalist, and a white supremacist and appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s list of anti-immigrant extremists, told the Connecticut Democrat, “No. He didn’t say we needed a ‘deal’ (to give illegals citizenship no less). He said we needed to secure the border — ie stop Biden’s mass releases and instead mass deport illegals. This isn’t complicated.”

The now-dead Senate border bill does not provide citizenship.

On Saturday, Donald Trump vowed he would conduct “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” if elected president.

Miller, according to Vanity Fair, “is reportedly leading an effort with John McEntee to install loyalist attorneys all throughout the federal bureaucracy in the event of Trump’s win.”

READ MORE: ‘Treason’: Top Constitutional Expert Warns on Trump’s Attack on NATO

Attorneys for Donald Trump filed a motion late Monday afternoon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to put on hold a lower court’s ruling rejecting his claims of “presidential immunity.” But legal experts were quick to trash the filing that is critical to his defense, calling it “bizarre” and questioning why it quotes baseball icon Yogi Berra in the very first sentence.

Attorneys for Donald Trump filed a motion late Monday afternoon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to put on hold a lower court’s ruling rejecting his claims of “presidential immunity.” But legal experts were quick to trash the filing that is critical to his defense, calling it “bizarre” and questioning why it quotes baseball icon Yogi Berra in the very first sentence.

NBC News calls Trump’s decision to go to the U.S. Supreme Court “a last-ditch effort to prevent his prosecution in the federal election interference case from moving closer to trial.” In so doing, “Trump asked the justices to put on hold an appeals court ruling that rejected his broad claim of presidential immunity in relation to events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”

Professor of law Andrew Weissmann, the well-known MSNBC legal analyst and former DOJ official who also worked on the Mueller Report, appeared stunned just moments after reading the Trump motion on Monday.

Asked, “what strikes you?” Weissmann paused momentarily, then replied, “Two things.”

READ MORE: ‘Prick’: Fetterman Smacks Down Rand Paul

“The first is the incredibly inappropriate first sentence, citing Yogi Berra. You know, if you were going to be snarky, they might as well have cited Yogi Bear. I mean, this is, that is, that is just a bizarre way to start.”

“Remember,” Weissmann continued, “Donald Trump and his lawyers have said that their position is that the President of the United States can kill people. And as long as he hasn’t been impeached, successfully, that he was impeached and convicted for it, he cannot be prosecuted. So that for something this serious, that is a bizarre, really bizarre first sentence.”

“The second thing is that stressing this argument about, shifting I think a bit their theory, which is that all of the actions that are charged by Jack Smith are within the outer bounds of what a president can do. The problem with that is that a very, very well respected 11th Circuit Judge, the chief judge, Judge Prior has rejected that in connection with a decision that Judge Prior wrote in connection with Mark Meadows, so I don’t think leading with that kind of argument, after leading where the first sentence is Yogi Berra then going to an argument that you know that Judge Pryor has rejected? Both of those are not terribly, in my view, strong ways to start,” he concluded, granting that “this is just my initial impression.”

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin also blasted the arguments in the motion.

“So I looked at what his argument is about the ‘irreparable injury’ and I have to tell you that legally it’s not particularly strong,” Rubin began. “First, he says it’s axiomatic that if he’s immune, he doesn’t have to stand trial. But for many people, the act of standing trial is a hideous expense and extraordinarily disruptive to their lives. We’re talking about a guy who is using a leadership pack as his legal defense slush fund to the tune of dozens of millions of dollars and probably has not spent a personal dime in defending this case at all.”

READ MORE: Trump Lawyers Envisioned Jan. 6 Lasting Days or Weeks: Report

“In fact, when I look at this FEC filings, I see the names of dozens of law firms that I recognize, many of which have been involved in this exact case. Then he says it could radically disrupt his campaign for president if he’s forced to stand trial again. I wish some of our political colleagues were here on air with us right now because I bet you that folks like Garrett Haake and Vaughn Hilliard and Jake Traylor and others could tell you, President Trump isn’t actually on the campaign trail that much. He’s on the campaign trail during weekends, but he finds lots of ways to get his messages out. And the most effective way for him right now seems to be True Social, which doesn’t require him to be in any one particular place, and certainly doesn’t require him to be in any one particular state.”

Watch the MSNBC segment below or at this link.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is under fire from the left, and now, even from his own former Harvard constitutional law professor, after Special Counsel Robert Hur’s final report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents included what experts say were partisan remarks about the President that violated Dept. of Justice practice.

“Merrick Garland will be one of the greatest Attorneys General in American history, bar none. As my brilliant con law student, a principled prosecutor, and later a superb DC Circuit judge, he has displayed integrity, courage, fair-mindedness, and humanity,” wrote Laurence Tribe, on January 6, 2021, upon the announcement Biden would appoint Garland as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

Now a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, Tribe taught constitutional law at Harvard Law for decades. In addition to Garland, among his most famous students and research assistants are Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Jamie Raskin, and Adam Schiff.

Tribe appears to have since soured on his former student’s leadership of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

On Sunday, Tribe pointed to this passage from a Politico article: “The president believes the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents went beyond his remit. And part of the blame is being placed on the AG.”

READ MORE: ‘Treason’: Top Constitutional Expert Warns on Trump’s Attack on NATO

Tribe added, “As it should be. I’ve long respected my friend and former student Merrick Garland but he has bent too far backwards in order to avoid seeming pro-Biden.”

Tribe also cited an Associated Press report from Sunday: “Bob Bauer, as Biden’s personal lawyer, rightly ‘raised concerns over the inclusion of these details to both Hur and Garland.’ Garland should’ve granted Bauer’s appeal because Hur’s report violated DOJ ‘norms that work to avoid prejudicing the public against people who are not charged with a crime.'”

On Friday, professor of law, frequent MSNBC legal analyst, and former top DOJ official Andrew Weissmann wrote, “It was entirely foreseeable Rob Hur would pull a Comey in his report. Garland was [100%] right to have appointed a Special Counsel but wrong to pick Hur and to think only a Republican could fit the bill.”

Tribe responded: “It’s time we invented a verb for that kind of move. I propose we call it ‘garlanding’ or ‘pulling a garland.'”

On Sunday, Tribe reposted video of former Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, J. Michael Luttig repeatedly calling the Hur report “an abuse of power.” Tribe commented: “It was indeed. A gross abuse, and one the Attorney General should have intervened to correct.”

This is not the first time Tribe has criticized Garland. There are more than half-a-dozen times Tribe directly or indirectly leveled criticism at the Attorney General, largely surrounding what some see as an extremely lengthy delay in bringing criminal charges against Donald Trump.

For example, Tribe pulled this quote from this piece: “The languid pace at which AG Merrick Garland pursued January 6 cases must count as a but-for cause of the overlap between the litigation calendar and the political calendar.”

“He just needs to step on the accelerator,” Tribe wrote in August of 2022.

READ MORE: Ethics Investigators in Gaetz Underage Sex Allegations Probe Obtain Star Witness Cooperation

In November of 2022, Tribe wrote: “Good morning, Merrick Garland. You awake?”

Just days later: “Yes. Time’s up, DOJ. I know that Merrick Garland, who has devoted his life to the rule of law, will do the right thing. But that requires him to indict now. Even waiting till the Dec. 6 runoff would be wrong, and there’s no excuse for delaying things by naming a special counsel.”

One year ago in February: “If AG Garland isn’t interested in how the Barr/Durham Crime spree has perverted justice and degraded DOJ, then the Department’s IG should follow the smelly trail and expose its putrid source.”

In June of last year: “Great journalism has shown Garland and Monaco well-intentioned but profoundly unwise in slow-walking the investigation into Trump and those around him. Their fear of looking political backfired badly. Whether the harm was irreparable remains to be seen.”

The following month: “The J6 House Committee is the reason AG Garland was finally forced to appoint Special Counsel Jack Smith. Without the great work of that Committee, Merrick Garland might’ve hemmed and hawed forever.”

Donald Trump‘s remarks that he would not only violate the United States’ treaty with NATO by refusing to defend member countries if they were attacked by Russia and had not spent enough on defense, but that he would encourage President Vladimir Putin “to do whatever the hell” he wants in that situation, have sparked fears and warnings in the U.S. and in NATO countries. But one top constitutional scholar is issuing a different kind of warning: treason.

Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina, home to his top Republican rival and his own former UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, Trump on Saturday relayed this anecdote to supporters: “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ ‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'”

Laurence Tribe, the well-known constitutional scholar, is University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, co-founder of the American Constitution Society, and author of “American Constitutional Law.”

READ MORE: Judge Cannon’s ‘Mind Boggling’ Move Could Put Witnesses at Risk, Experts Warn

Tribe on Sunday wrote: “This is an announcement by Mr. Trump of intent to commit what Article III defines as ‘treason’ by giving ‘aid and comfort’ to an ‘enemy,’ which Russia would become under Article V of the NATO Treaty by attacking one of our NATO allies.”

He was responding to a scathing piece on Trump’s remarks in The Atlantic by Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, and specifically, via X, on this passage: “The leader of one of America’s two major political parties has just signaled to the Kremlin that if elected, he would not only refuse to defend Europe, but he would gladly support Vladimir Putin.”

In The Atlantic, Nichols added, “Here in the United States, we have become accustomed to treating Trump like an angry child, ignoring his outbursts the way parents ignore a toddler who shouts threats and claims to hate mommy and daddy during tantrums.”

“But other nations do not see an overaged juvenile; they see a man who once held the keys to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and could once again become the commander in chief of the American military. They are watching him because they believe—as they should—that he is telling them exactly what he’ll do if he returns to office.”

Trump’s remarks drew the ire of NATO itself.

READ MORE: Top Catholic Priest Has Some Advice for ‘Moses’ Mike Johnson

“’Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,’ NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement,” The Associated Press reported Sunday.

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

Top legal and political experts are taking a closer look at Special Counsel Robert Hur‘s final 388-page report on his extensive, 13-month investigation into President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents from his time as Vice President, with several arriving at similar conclusions: it was, they say, a political or partisan “hit job.”

Longtime former Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer, who worked on the successful 2008 campaign, transition, and in the Obama White House, published an essay, “Thoughts on the Partisan Attack on Biden’s Memory.”

“The Special Counsel report is going to make Biden’s age and competence centerstage for the foreseeable future,” Pfeiffer warns, again stating, “this report is a partisan hit job.”

“While the report concluded that Biden’s conduct was not worthy of being charged with a crime, the report is being treated as a disaster for the President,” he observes, noting, “The press went into full feeding frenzy mode.”

“Hur, who worked for Trump before being appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Biden, filled his report with attacks on Biden’s memory and mental faculties. In the report, Hur goes out of his way to paint a damning portrait of the President. He cites several examples of memory lapses and describes Biden as a ‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'”

READ MORE: Trump Declares ‘Every One’ of the Court Cases Against Him Are ‘Illegal’ After SCOTUS Hearing

Pfeiffer declares Hur’s report is “very bad and poses some real political peril for Biden.”

He also notes, “It’s hard to read the report and not think that, without the ability to charge Biden with a crime, Hur wanted to damage him politically,” but also says, “the Special Counsel made it very clear that there were real differences in how Biden and Trump dealt with classified information.”

Pfeiffer points to this passage from Hur’s report:

“It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.”

But Pfeiffer also additional pushback to Hur’s claims, in a section titled: “If Biden’s Memory Were This Bad, We Would Know.”

“If Biden was regularly misremembering obvious pieces of information or making other mistakes that suggested he was not up to the job, it would be in the press. Washington is not capable of keeping something like that secret.”

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder blasted Hur and his own former Dept. of Justice: “Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions. Had this report been been subject to a normal DOJ review these remarks would undoubtedly have been excised.”

READ MORE: ‘Stop Talking’: Christian Activist Calling Pride Flag ‘Indoctrination’ Rebuked by Lawmaker

Professor of law, MSNBC legal contributor, and former U.S, Attorney Joyce Vance advises: “Move on. Robert Hur crossed a line. He doesn’t need any more oxygen.”

Meanwhile, other top experts also weighed in.

Political pollster and MSNBC/NBC News political analyst Cornell Belcher writes, “It wasn’t just a mere typical political hit job, it was a deeply personally offensive hit job that invoked his dead son.”

Jim Messina, the Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff who went on to run the successful Obama-Biden 2012 re-election campaign says, “We’ve got to stop treating a single line in a gratuitously long, heavily editorialized special counsel’s report–in which no crime was found btw–by a partisan Republican investigator like it’s a bigger liability than Trump’s 91 criminal charges and being found liable for rape.”

He also writes: “Let’s be clear–the special counsel isn’t a dummy and we should be very careful not to take the bait after Comey pulled this in 2016. Hur, a lifelong Republican and creature of DC, didn’t have a case against Biden, but he knew exactly how his swipes could hurt Biden politically.”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, an attorney and former Republican U.S. Congressman, responding to Messina, notes that Hur “couldn’t indict Biden legally so he tried to indict Biden politically.”

And David Rothkopf, the popular foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and commentator, responding to Scarborough adds: “This. Exactly right. He had no evidence so he offered snide little lies instead. He turned a DoJ report into the Burn Book from Mean Girls.”

RELATED: ‘I Don’t Give a Darn’: Experts Blast ‘Political Swipe’ in Special Counsel’s Biden Report

Legal experts are blasting the “political” remarks included in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s final report that concludes his investigation into President Joe Biden’s handling of about 20 classified documents from his time as Vice President. As expected, the Special Counsel found no cause to file charges.

Hur was appointed to be Special Counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland, after being appointed by then-President Donald Trump as a U.S. Attorney.

Included in the report was personal commentary which some experts decried as political, and others said had no place being injected into Hur’s findings.

As The Washington Post described it, Hur’s “report said a jury would find Biden to be a sympathetic figure and ‘a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’ Prosecutors also suggested it might not have struck Biden as noteworthy that he was in possession of classified documents so soon after his term as vice president had ended.”

“Hur’s report said it would be ‘difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.'”

Fox News was quick to jump on those remarks and turn them into a meme.

Professor of law Andrew Weissmann, a frequent MSNBC legal analyst who spent decades at DOJ, including working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller slammedHur: “Of course, no crime was committed by Biden, but as anticipated, Hur takes the opportunity to make a gratuitous political swipe at Biden. Not Hur’s role; and frankly I don’t give a darn what his opinion is.”

Noted national security attorney Bradley Moss remarked, “If I were an elected official right now I might consider subpoenaing Robert Hur to testify about this report. Every time he ever says ‘I do not recall’ I would ask him if it is safe to say he is a well meaning but elderly old man with a poor memory.”

READ MORE: Trump Declares ‘Every One’ of the Court Cases Against Him Are ‘Illegal’ After SCOTUS Hearing

“What Robert Hur did in his report with these irrelevant and extraneous remarks is the same thing DOJ used as the basis to fire James Comey in 2017. Seven years later, they did it again. Seriously. Unreal,” Moss continued, and added: “Trump can’t remember who the Speaker of the House was three years ago on J6, and thought his wife was Carroll in a photo.”

Another national security attorney, Mark Zaid, had criticism for both Hur and Biden.

“Not impressed w/Special Counsel Report. So much unnecessary commentary that will be politically seized upon. Also very unimpressed w/Biden’s mishandling of #classifiedinformation. Sloppy. Correct final decision though as matter of practice, policy & law,” he wrote.

“Facts are not optically favorable for Biden but still completely distinct from Trump,” Zaid went on to say. “I see Biden’s type of mishandling classified info all the time from former senior Govt officials – GOP & DEM – especially writing memoirs. All Trump had to do was return docs timely. Period.”

The White House, which had the opportunity to request redactions, chose not to.

But President Biden’s attorneys sent Hur a letter, The Guardian reports, stating:

“We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate. The report uses highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events. Such comments have no place in a Department of Justice report, particularly one that in the first paragraph announces that no criminal charges are ‘warranted’ and that ‘the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt.’”

“Not only do you treat the President differently from other witnesses when discussing his limited recall of certain years-ago events, but you also do so on occasions in prejudicial and inflammatory terms. You refer to President Biden’s memory on at least nine occasions – a number that is itself gratuitous.”

READ MORE: Tuberville: Democrats Want Women to Be ‘Extinct’

Minutes after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded hearing oral arguments in a landmark case testing the 14th Amendment‘s ban on those who have engaged in insurrection, Donald Trump declared every single civil and criminal case he is facing is “illegal,” and demands they end.

Claiming all four criminal cases and even the one civil case against him amount to “the weaponization of politics, weaponized it like it’s never been weaponized,” Trump declared them “totally illegal, but they do it anyway.”

“And it has to stop,” he declared. “Every one of the court cases that I’m involved every single one civil, whether it’s the attorney general, so the district attorney to look at Fati, Georgia,” he said, apparently referring to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

“They had many meetings with the White House and with the DOJ, they went their eight hour meetings. It was all staged. That was a phony hoax and now you’re looking at it and it is a phony hoax. Hopefully that case will be dismissed in short order. And so it’s a disgrace that this country, but they work together with the Justice Department and the White House and not supposed to do that. Every one of these cases you see comes out of the White House that comes out of Biden it’s election interference,” Trump baselessly alleged.

News networks, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox all cut into their programming to carry Trump’s remarks live after the Supreme Court hearing, with MSNBC cutting away but only after Trump had made false claims about President Joe Biden. CNN took longer to cut away.

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Mocked After Fiery Denials of ‘Insurrection’

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appear prepared to hand Donald Trump a win, allowing him to not only stay on the Colorado primary ballot, but to make a landmark ruling that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not allow any state to remove a candidate from an election even if they have engaged in insurrection, according to several legal experts.

Legal experts also suggest the justices were not open to Colorado’s argument, and are likely to decide for the ex-president who is also facing 91 criminal felony charges, including some for his efforts in allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election he lost.

“This argument did not go well for the Trump challengers,” said former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal live on MSNBC.

“The SCOTUS oral argument- Colorado will lose, with the only issue being whether a single Justice will dissent. Tough and smart questions by the Justices including the 3 in the liberal wing,” writes Professor of law Andrew Weissmann, an MSNBC legal analyst who spent decades at DOJ.

“My bet,” says professor of law Steve Vladeck, “Between 7-2 and 9-0 for the very specific proposition that states can’t unilaterally disqualify candidates running for President on the ground that they engaged in insurrection. That’s just a prediction based on the oral argument—not what I think the Court *ought* to do.”

READ MORE: ‘Open Rebellion’: Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell and Ronna McDaniel Under MAGA Fire

Professor of law Rick Hasan, a noted election law expert, says it “would not be surprising to see a quick 9-0 or 8-1 ruling reversing Colorado and keeping Trump on the ballot, with Roberts writing on the federal interest, and perhaps some concurrences (Kavanaugh on Griffin, Alito and Gorsuch on ‘holdin’ office). Sotomayor is the question mark.”

“In my view this argument is as good as over,” wrote Mark Joseph Stern, before oral arguments concluded. “A majority will hold that individual states can’t enforce Sec. 3 against the president, at least without congressional approval.”

As some observed, it took the Justices an hour to even address the issue of insurrection, which is central to the case. Others expired grave concern that Justice Clarence Thomas, who they say clearly has a deep conflict of interest given his spouse’s actions, chose to not recuse himself.

“SCOTUS justices across the aisle — including Kagan, Thomas, and Barrett — have questioned states’ ability to disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, Section 3,” notes veteran legal reporter Adam Klasfeld. He also says, “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expresses skepticism about the definition of ‘officer’ in the disqualification clause: ‘Why didn’t they put president in the very enumerated list of Section Three?'”

“That ‘troubles’ her, she says.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that criminal prosecution of insurrection was required to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. He also asked about “the right of the people” to vote for the candidate of their choice, and appeared concerned about “disenfranchisement” of voters.

READ MORE: Top Catholic Priest Has Some Advice for ‘Moses’ Mike Johnson

The Associated Press observes it is “bad for the plaintiffs trying to disqualify Trump” that January 6 “isn’t coming up in this argument.”

The AP adds that “the questioning has almost all been about technical, procedural issues, which are many of the reasons that Trump and others say the high court just shouldn’t go there. The justices are plainly worried that they’ll open a Pandora’s Box if they uphold the Colorado ruling, allowing other states to disqualify people they dislike through whatever fact-finding procedures they see fit to use.”

The attorney arguing for Colorado, Jason Murray, “keeps trying to bring the discussion back to Trump’s conduct, but not even the Democratic-appointed justices seem to be biting.”

Politico is even more certain that the Supreme Court will side with Trump and deem him not ineligible to hold elected office.

“The Supreme Court appeared to sharply veer against the Colorado voters challenging former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for office,” Politico’s Kyle Cheney reports. “Justices on both the left and right raised pointed questions to Jason Murray…about the ‘extraordinary’ ramifications of letting individual states decide whether a candidate is an insurrectionist.”

He adds that the “justices seem hostile to [the] disqualification effort.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts said that would essentially empower individual states to exert unilateral control over federal elections, a position ‘at war’ with the notion that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was intended to empower the federal government to constrain wayward states.”

Justice Elena Kagan also appeared opposed, asking: “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?”

READ MORE: Doubts Swirl Around Speaker Johnson’s Abilities After ‘Embarrassing’ Losses: Report

A highly-respected Jesuit Catholic priest, bestselling author, and consultant to the Vatican is responding to Mike Johnson after the Speaker of the House likened himself to Moses, said God had charted his path to become Speaker, and in his prayers told him to prepare himself for being elevated to become second in line to the presidency.

Back in December, after being elected Speaker by every Republican member of Congress, Mike Johnson, a Christian nationalist, delivered the keynote address to a far-right Christian nationalist group.

“The Lord impressed upon my heart a few weeks before this happened, that something was going to occur,” Johnson told the group, referring to being elected Speaker. “And the Lord very specifically told me in my prayers to prepare, but to wait. ‘Prepare for what?’ I said to the Lord. You know, I had this sense that we were going to come to a Red Sea moment in our Republican conference and the country at large.”

Johnson continued, saying, “you know, the Lord speaks to your heart. And He had been speaking to me about this and the Lord told me very clearly to prepare and be ready.”

READ MORE: ‘Open Rebellion’: Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell and Ronna McDaniel Under MAGA Fire

“Now at the time I assumed the Lord is going to choose a new Moses. And oh, thank you the Lord. Lord, you’re gonna allow me to be Aaron to Moses,” Johnson told the attendees. He continued, explaining, “at the end, when it came to the end, the Lord said, ‘Now step forward.’ ‘Me? I’m supposed to be Aaron.’ Now the Lord said, ‘Step forward.’ Psalm 77 speaks of the Exodus in the 14th chapter of Exodus and it says, ‘Only God saw the path through the roiling sea, we could not see it, men could not see it.’ And I believe deep in my heart, is my core conviction, that God wants us to seek Him for the path through the roiling sea.”

Father James Martin, SJ, editor at large at America magazine, author of ‘Come Forth’ and ‘Learning to Pray,’ consultor to the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication and member of Vatican Synod, responded to video of Johnson’s remarks, and offered some advice.

“A good spiritual director will tell you that insights you feel are coming from God, which are usually subtle, must be carefully tested and weighed,” Martin wrote.

“One red flag for spiritual directors is, ‘Then God said this.’ Not everything that pops into your head during prayer is from God,” Martin added.

Watch a short clip of Speaker Johnson’s remarks from December below or at this link, or his full remarks here.

Amid numerous news reports stating Ronna McDaniel plans to resign, has offered to resigned, or is “expected to leave…amid pressure from Donald Trump,” the Republican National Committee Chairwoman has issued a statement to put the “rumors” to rest.

“I am still hard at work as RNC Chairwoman and building a machine that will elect Republicans up and down the ballot in November. I am currently on the road fundraising, we’re staffing up with staff on the ground in 15 states,” McDaniel writes, acknowledging the reports. The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey published her remarks.

“We have more lawsuits on the horizon, but we’re currently engaged in 77 election lawsuits across 23 states, many of which will have major ramifications across the country,” she continues. “Day in and day out, we continue to hold Joe Biden and Democrats’ feet to the fire for their continued assaults on our freedoms and failures, on everything from the border crisis, Bidenomics, and skyrocketing crime,” McDaniel adds, pushing GOP talking points.

“Myself and my staff are refusing to be distracted by the outside noise and we remain committed to our mission – rumors to the contrary are simply not true. Nothing has changed and there will not be any changes decided on until after South Carolina, when we may have our eventual nominee,” McDaniel also says, effectively confirming she is on her way out and it’s merely a matter of time.

It is extremely rare for the chair of a major national political party to exit just months before a presidential election.

She adds, “we’re not done yet, there’s a lot of work to be done in the next nine months to make Joe Biden a one term President, and we’re just getting started. As always, feel free to reach out to me, Mike, or any one on my team with any questions or needs you may have.”

“Mike,” is likely Mike Davis, the RNC Chief of Staff.

He is resigning, and is expected to be gone by the end of the month, according to Vanity Fair.

READ MORE: Stop Talking’: Christian Activist Calling Pride Flag ‘Indoctrination’ Rebuked by Lawmaker

A Christian activist known for his anti-LGBTQ views was rebuked by a Florida Democratic state senator during his public remarks supporting legislation endorsed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis that would ban Pride flags being displayed at government buildings. The bill claims they represent a “political viewpoint.”

The GOP-sponsored bill, SB 1120, says a “governmental entity may not erect or display a flag that represents a political viewpoint, including, but not limited to, a politically partisan, racial, sexual orientation and gender, or political ideology viewpoint. The governmental entity must remain neutral when representing political viewpoints in displaying or erecting a flag.”

Equality Florida says the “bill was clearly designed to slander an entire community with baseless & malicious lies.”

John Labriola of the Christian Family Coalition Florida, which calls itself a “human rights and social justice advocacy organization,” had strong words opposing LGBTQ pride flags and in support of the controversial bill that would ban them from public buildings.

READ MORE: ‘Open Rebellion’: Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell and Ronna McDaniel Under MAGA Fire

Labriola told lawmakers on the Florida State Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability Tuesday evening the bill would prevent “would-be activist teachers from pushing indoctrination.” (Full video here.) He claimed the legislation was needed because “just a couple of years ago, a father of a 12-year old in Palm Beach County…sued the school district because the teacher was putting up rainbow flags and pushing that indoctrination in the classroom.”

He then denounced “the idea that the flag, the rainbow flag is inclusive,” because “there is no color there for ‘heterosexual.'”

Labriola told lawmakers the pride flag is “deeply offensive” to people of faith, and “gaslighting.”

“We don’t want government pushing an ideology,” he added, before claiming there are “victims” of the LGBT movement. He named one alleged “victim of the indoctrination, a victim of the rainbow flag, and everything that that represents.”

“It is demonic. We are the Christian Family Coalition and we believe that this is demonic. Why Should Christians be forced to to subsidize something that is demonic, the idea that a child can change their gender that’s included in the in the rainbow flag, that’s an ideology that’s included in the rainbow flag. Heterosexuality isn’t as I said, but that is and so let’s talk about the victims of the LGBT movement.”

He also praised the bill, saying, “it takes the ideology and the indoctrination out of the school room and also empowers taxpayers to not have to subsidize the ideology that has harmed so many people, both parents and children.”

LGBTQ is not an “ideology.”

READ MORE: DeSantis and Florida GOP Targeting Kids With Cuts to Food, Healthcare, Work Protections

But then Committee Democratic Vice Chair Tina Polsky had a few questions for Labriola.

“Can you explain how, under this bill, a poster of a rainbow flag will be allowed? So if that’s the case, I want to make sure we’re all aware of the terrible dangers that await our students,” she said, apparently sarcastically. “How does a rainbow flag indoctrinate students?”

“A rainbow flag is intended to indoctrinate,” he replied, matter-of-factly. “A rainbow flag is intended to promote the concept to students that there’s such a thing as transgender, that you can change gender, that sexuality, you know should be celebrated if it goes against heterosexuality because it doesn’t, it doesn’t promote heterosexuality. It promotes homosexuality. It promotes bisexuality, it promotes everything except heterosexuality. So that’s indoctrination.”

He then claimed that the “label ‘queer’ has to do with sexual activity. And if the child is below 18, that is a form of grooming, that is a form of sexual grooming, and really pedophilia, when you say a ‘queer student.’ That should not be those two words should not be juxtaposed –” he added before Senator Polsky interrupted him.

“You should stop talking,” she told him, but was ignored.

“That is grooming and that is pedophilia whether you like it or not, you do not put that label on a child because you’re essentially saying that child can be sexually active.”

A child or adult who identifies as LGBTQ is not stating they are sexually active — being LGBTQ is not an act, it is an identity.

“I’m not sure what any of this has to do with flags,” Polsky added. “I’m done with this person.”

READ MORE: Tuberville: Democrats Want Women to Be ‘Extinct’

The bill, Florida Politics reports, is currently stalled.

Watch a short clip of Labriola’s remarks below or at this link.