Even as President-elect Donald Trump promised on Sunday to act “very quickly” on pardons for many of the protesters involved in the events of Jan. 6, the Biden administration’s Justice Department is continuing to arrest and try people for actions that occurred almost four years ago while opposing motions to delay trials because of the need for “the prompt and efficient administration of justice.” If the defeat of Kamala Harris constituted at least a partial repudiation of the lawfare against Trump and his supporters, the message appears to be lost on top brass at the DOJ. Prosecutors are pushing ahead with what they consider the department’s crowning achievement: the so-called “Capitol Siege” investigation into the events of Jan. 6, 2021. In what Attorney General Merrick Garland describes as the biggest criminal investigation in Department of Justice history, more than 1,560 people have been charged for federal crimes never before used against political protesters, including under a post-Enron obstruction statute overturned by the Supreme Court in June. At least 1,000 of these defendants have been convicted—either at trial or by accepting plea offers—with some 650 defendants ordered to serve time in a federal prison. Sentences range from a few days in jail to up to 22 years in prison as the DOJ seeks “terror enhancements” to tack on additional time. Activity in the J6 investigation accelerated the month before the election. At least 16 individuals were arrested; home security camera footage obtained by RealClearInvestigations shows the heavily armed predawn FBI raid of a subject in California on Oct. 17. Shortly after the election, DOJ officials instructed attorneys working on J6 cases to carry on regardless of the pending change in leadership. “[Federal] prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section received guidance this week about how to proceed in pending Jan. 6 cases … including a directive to oppose any Jan. 6 defendant’s requests for delays,” Ryan J. Reilly of NBC News reported on Nov. 9. “Prosecutors are instructed to argue that there is a societal interest in the quick administration of justice and these cases should be handled in the normal order.” At the same time, the Biden Justice Department is continuing to apprehend protesters. On Dec. 4, for example, the DOJ announced the arrest of a 44-year-old Alabama man, Robert James Bonham, charging him with a range of crimes, including “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder.”  If Trump shuts down the department’s “Capitol Siege” section, as he is expected to do, Bonham will never go to trial. But this does not appear to concern Matthew Graves, U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Biden in November 2021, Graves has presided over the sprawling J6 investigation and now continues to advance related cases.  His office has opposed the J6 defendants’ requests to halt proceedings until after Trump is sworn in next month. Judges began receiving a slew of defense motions starting the day after the election asking to postpone trials and hearings, but Graves said there is “public interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice” as a reason to continue business as usual. Federal judges in Washington agree with the DOJ’s approach. According to an analysis by RealClearInvestigations, 44 pardon-related motions including requests to delay trials and sentencings have been filed since Nov. 6. Of those, judges, with the exception of Judge Rudolph Contreras, have denied each one. Several more are pending awaiting the court’s decision. Judge Dabney Friedrich denied a motion to delay a J6 jury trial scheduled to begin the week after the election. Mitchell Bosch, a man from New York charged with several offenses, was set to go on trial on Nov. 13, but his public defenders filed a motion the day after the election  arguing their client “cannot receive a fair trial in the District of Columbia six days from today due to the heightened public emotion and highly publicized media attention surrounding yesterday’s presidential election, which resulted in the re-election of Donald Trump.”  The attorneys noted that “92.4% of the D.C. electorate voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, with only 6.7% voting for President-elect Donald Trump.” The attorneys further insisted disgruntled D.C. voters could retaliate with a conviction. “If jurors believe that the [p]resident-elect is a threat to democracy, that he does not take the events of January 6, 2021, seriously, and that he will pardon those involved that day, there is a real and significant possibility that, in their aversion to those views, they will punish Mr. Bosch or use this case to send a message that they disagree with the [p]resident-elect.” But Friedrich, whose husband, Matthew, worked on the Enron task force with current Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, was unpersuaded. “Despite the recent election, the Court continues to conclude that the Court’s voir dire procedures will be adequate to screen out potential jurors who cannot be fair and impartial.” And after a single day of deliberations, the jury returned guilty verdicts, two felonies, and four misdemeanors, on Nov. 18. (The DOJ has a 100% conviction rate in J6 jury trials; no J6 defendant has been fully acquitted of all charges since trials began in March 2022. Judges also continue to deny all change-of-venue motions.) Three J6 jury trials are set to begin this week. For the trial of one of those defendants, a man charged with civil disorder and four misdemeanors, Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently entered an order allowing prosecutors to describe Jan. 6 to jurors as an “attack on the Capitol,” “attack on Congress,” and a “riot.”  But political bias in the aftermath of Trump’s election is not the only factor judges refuse to consider as they move J6 cases along. Trump’s pledge to pardon most, if not all, J6ers also receives a cold reception in the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse located a few blocks from the Capitol. The day after the election, an attorney representing Christopher Carnell, who was convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors following a bench trial in February 2024, asked the judge in his case to delay a scheduled hearing based on the possibility of a pardon. “Throughout his campaign, President-elect Trump made multiple clemency promises to the January 6 defendants, particularly to those who were nonviolent participants,” attorney Marina Medvin wrote on Nov. 6. “Mr. Carnell, who was an 18-year-old nonviolent entrant into the Capitol on January 6, is expecting to be relieved of the criminal prosecution that he is currently facing when the new administration takes office.”  But Beryl Howell, the former chief judge of the court, immediately rejected her request and set a sentencing hearing for Carnell this week. Her colleagues on the D.C. federal bench, citing either a public interest in continuing court proceedings or making separation of powers arguments, followed her lead with recent rulings: Judge Reggie Walton: “[The] potential future exercise of the discretionary pardon power, an Executive Branch authority, is irrelevant to the Court’s obligation to carry out the legal responsibilities of the Judicial Branch.” – Nov. 7 order denying motion to postpone sentencing. Judge Amit Mehta: “Defendant’s speculation that he may receive a pardon is not good cause to stay this matter.” – Nov. 11 order denying motion to continue trial. Judge Paul Friedman: “Whatever the [p]resident-[e]lect may or may not do with respect to some of those charged for their conduct at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 is irrelevant to the Court’s independent and legal responsibilities under Article III of the Constitution.” – Nov. 12 order denying motion to continue trial. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: “The principal bases for [the defendant’s] requested continuance are that President-elect Donald J. Trump has ‘repeatedly stated that he would pardon’ those involved in the January 6 riot and that ‘a new Attorney General may dismiss’ the case against him. The Court joins others in this District in rejecting Defendants’ invitation to speculate about future clemency or charging decisions. ” – Nov. 21 order denying motion to continue trial. Chief Judge James Boasberg: “Speculation as to what the incoming [a]dministration may do is not a basis for a continuance.” – Dec. 2 order denying motion to postpone sentencing. Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, is the most outspoken judge when it comes to any downplaying of what happened on Jan. 6. In an April 2024 Wall Street Journal profile, the 80-year-old jurist was described as “a leading voice pushing back against attempts by Republican politicians to play down the Jan. 6 attack.” Lamberth said he decided to speak out, an unusual move for a federal judge presiding over cases for which he is obligated to remain impartial, because “justifications for the Capitol attack” represent an affront to “the integrity of the judicial system.” Lamberth is sparing no harsh words in rejecting pleas for relief before Inauguration Day. Accusing J6ers of “[subjecting] our Capitol and our country to the horrific scene of their anti-democratic rage,” Lamberth refused to postpone the sentencing of Philip Sean Grillo, who was convicted of civil disorder and the common four misdemeanors. Any presidential pardon, Lamberth continued, would not undo the work of the courts and D.C. juries. “To continue Mr. Grillo’s sentencing now simply because he may receive a presidential pardon would discredit the time and thought these citizens expended on the trial and would subvert our criminal justice process and the separation of powers.” On Dec. 6, Lamberth not only sentenced Grillo to 12 months in federal prison but took the unusual move of remanding him into immediate custody; judges usually allow a defendant to report two to three months following sentencing. Lamberth’s decision appeared to make sure Grillo spent some time in jail before a presidential pardon spared him. In a 13-page sentencing document explaining his reasons for imposing such a harsh move, Lamberth again criticized what he believes are attempts to “minimize the events of January 6.” Lamberth then erroneously claimed five police officers died as a result of the protest. “One can only wonder what further horrors might have transpired if our elected officials had not gotten out in time. No matter what ultimately becomes of the Capitol Riots cases already concluded and still pending, the true story of what happened on January 6, 2021 will never change.” He again took issue with Trump’s plans to pardon J6ers and emphasized his independent role as a jurist. “The fundamental American principle of separation of powers would be empty of meaning if the courts allowed themselves to become paralyzed based on conjecture about the coordinate branches’ future actions. I will do my job, as I am bound by oath to do, and the [p]resident will do his; it is as simple as that.” And at least one D.C. judge is taking direct aim at Trump for even considering pardons. Trump-appointee Carl Nichols, who presided over Steve Bannon’s contempt case and sentenced the longtime Trump adviser to four months in a federal penitentiary, went so far as to say in a recent court hearing that it would be “beyond frustrating and disappointing” for the incoming president to issue “blanket pardons … or anything close.” But it’s not just existing cases that are being fast-tracked before the transfer of power. Graves has announced the arrest of at least 10 Jan. 6 protesters since Election Day; last week, Graves charged at least three individuals for their participation in the Capitol protest.  There is no indication the DOJ will halt the pursuit of J6ers even as the pardon of Hunter Biden raises concerns over the practice of presidential pardons. Shortly after Joe Biden pardoned his son, Trump posted a message on Truth Social referring to the J6ers in what some consider a sign he is considering a similarly broad pardon. “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” Trump wrote. In apparent response, the New York Times editorial board criticized the Hunter Biden pardon not on its merits but because it makes it easier for “Trump [to] pardon the perpetrators of the violent Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.” Originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire The post Nearly 4 Years Later, No Letup in Jan. 6 Prosecutions—Possible Pardons or Not appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Late last month, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin visited the island nation of Fiji, a first for a U.S. secretary of defense. Though overdue, the discussions marked an important turning point for cooperation in a critical region for American national security interests. Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka described the effort as guarding, protecting, and promoting peace in the Indo-Pacific. Austin’s Nov. 22 visit to Fiji produced positive results. The U.S. and Fiji agreed to initiate negotiations on a Status of Forces Agreement and reached an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement to enhance logistical coordination. The U.S. pledged $4.9 million in security assistance to bolster Fiji’s military modernization efforts. The Status of Forces Agreement will expand bilateral military cooperation between the U.S. and Fiji, establishing a framework by which U.S. personnel may operate in the country. The agreement holds strong, positive implications for defense coordination between the U.S. and the island nation, with the intent to strengthen joint training initiatives and enable deployment of American troops to Fiji. Modernization efforts will bolster maritime capacity, enhancing Fiji’s ability to secure its maritime boundaries, protect marine resources, and provide better disaster relief and rescue strategies. Strengthening cooperation with Fiji is a great step, as it is one of only three Pacific Island nations with a standing military (the others being Papua New Guinea and Tonga). The United States shares sovereignty, economic, and security interests with the Pacific islands and should work to continue expanding regional cooperation through the Indo-Pacific. Increased cooperation and modernization efforts will prove helpful in maintaining a peaceful region for Americans and Pacific Islanders alike. Austin labeled the Indo-Pacific as the United States’ “priority theater,” citing cooperation with Fiji and other island nations as “vital to a free and open Indo-Pacific.” Indeed, the Pacific islands, largely overlooked in American diplomacy for decades, hold key geostrategic significance for countering Beijing’s security threats to the region and protecting freedom of transportation there. These are worthy goals for the economic and security interests of American citizens. China has postured with increasing belligerence throughout the Indo-Pacific, harassing the Philippine navy, escalating activities near the Taiwan Strait, and expanding investments far beyond the waters of the Pacific. China’s actions are deliberate threats to the sovereignty of Indo-Pacific countries, as China consistently demonstrates its willingness to ignore international law and enflame tensions throughout the region. Considering the Pacific border of the United States, which extends to the Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, such Chinese aggression directly affects the safety of American citizens. https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/10/30/arctic-menace-chinese-russian-operations-coast-alaska/ In the wake of China’s actions, Fiji has increasingly worked to reduce dependence on the communist regime, support relations with Taiwan, and partner with the United States, Australia, and New Zealand in security matters. Fiji’s strategies for foreign engagement have long been subjected to the difficult act of balancing geopolitical rivals, particularly as a small nation reliant on foreign investment and international organizations. With a recent policy articulation emphasizing human rights, liberal democracy, respect for sovereignty, and condemnation of coercion, Fiji opened the door to increased U.S. partnership. This is a welcome development in the ongoing competition in the Indo-Pacific. The post US Looks at Military Cooperation With Fiji appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Is It Any Wonder That No Sane Person Takes Fact Checks Seriously?

Floods are getting worse, and some places are wetter, but the overall trend is towards dryer land.

A new study offers new insights into how ancient humans used this cave site thousands of years ago.

It finally happened. The New York Times’s ego-maniacal and perpetually wrong economics columnist is finally divorcing himself from his propaganda-mill column after nearly 25 years. The Times Opinion Editor Kathleen Kingsbury drafted the company eulogy for Krugman’s career there, and the over the top praise for his faulty economic crystal ball was nothing short of comical. “The authoritative voice. The lively writing. The direct style. The clear hand guiding readers through a thicket of policy, data and trade-offs,” read Kingsbury’s slobbering statement. “Paul is an important figure in the recent history of Times Opinion. Time and again, he took on the big fights, grappled with policy deeply and seriously, held the powerful to account and spoke hard truths.”  Cue the canned laughter.  This is the same Krugman who spent the past four years selling the snake oil of Bidenomics to the public as some sort of economic panacea while habitually hoodwinking Americans on the devastating inflationary crisis those undergirding policies helped create. “[S]poke hard truths?” Good grief. Did Kingsbury have to write this tongue-in-cheek? But consumers of news shouldn’t expect anything less from the “economist” who’s essentially made his multimillion-dollar career off of deceiving the public and being on the opposite end of  reality, even if it meant clearly looking ridiculous. As Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro noted in an X post commemorating the Krugman legacy, “No man has ever been wronger for longer than Paul Krugman.”  To that end, MRC Business would like to pay tribute to Krugman’s media career by documenting a non-exhaustive list of some of the disgruntled columnist’s dumbest economic hot takes over the years. Enjoy!  1. By 2005, the Internet’s Effect on the Economy Will Be No Greater than the Fax Machine (1998) Krugman’s wildly-off prediction about the impact of the internet on the U.S. economy in 1998 is arguably his most infamous display of abject incompetence to this day. In 1998, Krugman audaciously wrote for Red Herring magazine that “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe's law’"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other!” Here’s the kicker: “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.” The preceding sentence alone was enough to mutate Krugman’s forecasting abilities into a running joke for the foreseeable future. [Emphasis added.] Even leftist fact-checker Snopes conceded that “[t]he quote is so infamous, in fact, that it has turned into a meme often wielded against him by people hoping to discredit other pronouncements Krugman has made.” As Snopes concluded, “Internet growth has done nothing but boom since the late 1990s.” In addition, “the economic effects of the Internet — which has come to play a central role in virtually every aspect of life in every developed country — have been nothing short of transformative,” Snopes continued. 2. Krugman Called for Space Alien Invasion to Lead to Defense Spending Buildup to Stimulate the Economy (2011) Krugman’s attempts at a rhetorical exercise about space aliens saving the American economy is undercut by the fact that he argues that the notion should be taken seriously. During an August 2011 segment on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, Krugman actually advocated that space aliens attack earth, requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would in effect stimulate the economy. No, he was not kidding.  “If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” Krugman bleated. He then tried to liken his idea to an episode from Twilight Zone: “[T]here was a ‘Twilight Zone’ episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.” Uh, okay space cadet Krugman. This logic is just “to infinity and beyond”- level stuff.  3. The Stock Market Will ‘Never’ Recover Under Trump (2016)  Who can forget the classic gem Krugman eked out following then-candidate Donald Trump’s astounding 2016 victory? When markets began to go into freefall after Trump was emerging as the electoral victor in 2016, Krugman initially stated in The New York Times live election blog that “[i]t really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?” Krugman further suggested that “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” This was off-the-rails even by Krugman’s standards apparently, as he was forced to rescind his prediction just a day later in a tweet, but still double-down on his Armageddon messaging: “Having some second thoughts about my global recession call. As with Brexit, the short-run case isn't that clear. Still a disaster.”  Krugman’s initial forecast, however, would age like a smelly cheese. Just a year after Krugman’s initial take from his crystal ball, economist Mark Perry reported for American Enterprise Institute that the stock market had the “best one year return since 1944” at the time. It’s like Krugman was trying to channel his inner inverse predictor Jim Cramer. 4. Krugman Claimed ‘Impeaching Trump Is Good for the Economy’ Need a way to shoe-horn some wild economics hot take into a constitutional crisis? Paul Krugman’s your guy! During the first heavily politicized impeachment of President Trump, Krugman got straight to the point in a September 2019 column. “Impeaching Trump Is Good for the Economy,” read Krugman’s insane headline. He suggested impeachment “will slow down the administration’s war on competence” and " have a chilling effect on the Trumpian project of government degradation." He continued down that cesspool of logic, “So paralysis is good. The more time Trump appointees spend worrying about potential prosecution rather than planning loyalty purges, the better off all of us, from ordinary citizens to giant corporations, will be.” Uh, what? 5. Krugman’s Inaugural Advice to Joe Biden: ‘Don’t Worry About Inflation’ (2021)  Prior to President Joe Biden officially taking office, it turned out that Krugman was on the wrong side of the inflation debate before the inflation crisis was even a thing. Krugman whipped up his own “rules” for Bidenomics just six days before Biden’s inauguration in 2021. One of the rules Krugman carelessly spit out really needs no explanation in retrospect: “Rule #3: Don’t worry about inflation.” Oof! Where to begin with this? It wouldn’t be long after this textbook case of bad advice would be greeted by America’s war with a 40-year high inflation disaster. After about four years of Bidenomics, consumer prices have skyrocketed 20 percent on average and Americans are left struggling to pay their bills and save money.  A September 2024 Bankrate study found, “The past 16 months of ‘real’ wage growth — as economists have called it — haven’t been enough to offset the 25 months where prices were rising disproportionately faster than Americans’ paychecks.”  Even while the nation was grappling with the wrath of high prices, Krugman continued to insist for months that it was just a transitory phenomenon, which — as is typical with any of Krugman’s statements — turned out to be flat-out false. Krugman would act dumbfounded in January 2022 when his prima facie dismissals of the inflation threat went horrifically awry. “[L]ife comes at you fast, as I say, I mean, I don't know what the opposite of instant gratification is, but I've had instant antigratification in the sense that that I made an inflation call and it went [sic] wrong pretty fast, and I think we all have to try to understand what the hell has been going on,” he said.  Newsflash: He still doesn’t know “what the hell has been going on” with inflation. 6. Krugman Called the GOP ‘Economic Terrorists’ (2023) Have legitimate concerns about the national debt? Well, you may just be one of those GOP “economic terrorists,” according to Krugman. Krugman’s Jan. 19, 2023 column railed at GOP congressional members seeking spending concessions from President Joe Biden on the debt ceiling issue. “Don’t Try to Appease Economic Terrorists,” the headline read. Yes, Krugman actually used the word “terrorists.” He sugar-coated the issue, falsely claiming that raising the debt ceiling “simply allows the government to honor its promises, which include everything from paying interest on its debt to sending checks to Social Security recipients.” He lectured that “[n]o, raising the debt limit doesn’t give the president free rein to spend whatever he wants.” Apparently Krugman didn’t get a hint that this was just dumb semantics. Raising the debt ceiling ad infinitum gives the government a pass to borrow as much as it wants to service the current debt, thereby sinking the U.S. economy further into debt by racking up the bills.  The national debt, as of Dec. 9, 2024, is over a whopping $36.2 trillion. Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni pointed out in a Dec. 6 post on X that “To date, the Biden admin has run up federal debt by $8.4 trillion while running down Treasury cash by $840 billion - that's a total of nearly $9.3 trillion in the red!”  But “terrorists,” in Krugman’s view, include legislators that dare to make a big stink about this asinine level of government spending. Talk about a stretch! 7. Krugman to Hurting Americans: You're Not Struggling in This Economy, You Just ‘Hate’ Biden (2024) Krugman isn’t shy about wearing his elitism on his sleeve, especially when it comes to gaslighting Americans by making it seem like their economic turmoil under Biden wasn’t real and was simply a byproduct of deep-rooted hatred for the so-called “best president of my adult life.”  Krugman was pressed to explain why polls continue to show the Biden economy numbers in the toilet by MSNBC legal analyst Jill Wine-Banks during the Jan. 9, 2024 edition of iGen Politics. Instead of acknowledging the real plight facing citizens forced to adapt to a much more expensive economic environment, Krugman settled for nutty condescension, “A lot of it is simply — a lot of people who say the economy is lousy — what they’re really saying is, ‘I hate the idea that a Democrat is president.’” Ah, so Americans were just making up the fact that they have to dole out an extra $11,000 a year on average just to maintain a standard of living they had in 2021, eh economist worth $5 million? MRC Business will surely miss Krugman, since his god-forsaken column never failed to give our writers plenty to work with, and definitely gave our readers a bellyful of laughs in the process. Hasta la vista! Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 1 (800) 698-4637 and congratulate it for finally distancing itself from Krugman’s economic nonsense.  

Team Trump released a video Monday obtained exclusively by Blaze News highlighting President-elect Donald Trump's nominees, who the Trump team says will "Make America Wealthy Again."Trump's nominees include Kevin Hassett for director of the National Economic Council, Howard Lutnick for secretary of commerce, and Scott Bessent for secretary of the treasury. Team Trump told Blaze News that the nominees will work in the administration to prioritize American workers and industry jobs as well as "permanently establish" Trump's tax cuts and eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security. 'We have the potential for the Golden Age here, because if we unleash US energy independence, energy dominance, I think we have the potential here to do a massive amount of deregulation.'"The American people gave President Trump a mandate to Make America Wealthy Again by restoring our economy to be even better than his first term," Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for the Trump-Vance transition team, told Blaze News. "From Howard Lutnick and Scott Bessent's experience as transformative leaders on Wall Street to Kevin Hassett's proven policy record from President Trump's first term, these nominees are ready to invest in the American people," Leavitt continued. "Together, they form a team of economic experts dedicated to fighting for working families and Making America Wealthy Again." Lutnick has been a "transformative leader" on Wall Street for the last 40 years. Lutnick began his career in 1983 at Cantor Fitzgerald, quickly ascending to president and CEO by the impressive age of 29. A pivotal moment in Lutnick's career was in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that claimed the lives of hundreds of his employees, including his brother and his best friend. As a tribute, Lutnick committed himself to rebuilding the firm to support the families of those whose lives were lost and to "provide a source of hope and strength for survivors." Bessent, the founder and CEO of Key Group, has overseen businesses across several key industries like agriculture, hospitality, publishing, and real estate. He has also played a key role in some of the largest and most profitable trades, making him a "well-equipped" candidate to oversee the treasury. "We have the potential for the Golden Age here, because if we unleash U.S. energy independence, energy dominance, I think we have the potential here to do a massive amount of deregulation," Bessent said in the video. Hassett has also been at the forefront of many economic and policy debates ranging from taxes and trade to substance abuse and deregulation. Hassett also holds extensive economic credentials, including serving as the 29th chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, holding a doctorate in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, and currently serving as managing director at the Milken Institute.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa has held meetings with several of President-elect Donald Trump's nominees over the last few weeks, some of whom have had better reception than others. On Monday, Ernst met with Tulsi Gabbard, who is nominated for director of national intelligence, and Kash Patel, who is nominated for director of the FBI. Ernst gave positive remarks about both candidates, calling Gabbard a "strong and proven leader" as well as praising Patel's experience, saying he "will create much-needed transparency" and that he shares her "passion for shaking up federal agencies." While Ernst has had kind words for some nominees, she refrained from making similar comments last week about Pete Hegseth, whom Trump nominated to lead the Department of Defense. One source told Blaze News that Ernst has served as a 'useful proxy' for former leader Mitch McConnell and other old guard Senate Republicans, effectively going against the grain of the incoming administration.After the first meeting between Ernst and Hegseth, the senator held back from endorsing the nominee but rather reiterated that they had a "frank and thorough conversation." U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of defense Pete Hegseth leaves a meeting with U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) at the U.S. Capitol on December 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesSpeculation swirled about Ernst's possible disapproval of Hegseth. The surface-level assumption was that Ernst, who has spent her career fighting against sexual assault in the military, was unable to reconcile her advocacy with the allegations surrounding Hegseth. However, sources close to the Senate revealed to Blaze News that there may be a deeper underlying motive. Multiple sources close to the Senate confirmed to Blaze News that Ernst was actively lobbying against Hegseth's nomination. One source told Blaze News that Ernst has served as a "useful proxy" for former leader Mitch McConnell and other old guard Senate Republicans, effectively going against the grain of the incoming administration.Her hesitation to endorse Hegseth sparked an immense pressure campaign from Trump's allies. As a result, Ernst eventually committed to meeting with Hegseth again and insisted that "he deserves the opportunity to lay out his vision for our warfighters at a fair hearing."Ernst is expected to meet with Hegseth again on Monday. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An elementary teacher in Texas is currently on leave after she allegedly revoked bathroom privileges for her entire first-grade class, and some students ended up wetting themselves and going home with soiled clothing.On Wednesday, students in Ashley Barrera's first-grade class allegedly began misbehaving in the hallway at Bartlett Elementary School in Conroe, a city of 103,000 residents about 40 miles north of Houston. In reprisal, Ms. Barrera reportedly took away their bathroom privileges in apparent defiance of the district's Student Code of Conduct.'There was a puddle of urine under the chair that nobody came to help with, and nobody came to clean her up for the remainder of the day.'A report from KPRC, which can be viewed here, indicated that students may have been denied access to the bathroom for up to three hours between lunch and afternoon dismissal. During that time, multiple students "ended up peeing on themselves," according to a message Barrera reportedly sent to parents later that day.In the alleged message, Barrera apologized for the incident but also seemed to suggest that the students were somehow in the wrong."I had talk [sic] with the students about how important it is to use our thing appropriately, but please have a talk with them about that as well," she apparently wrote without explaining what "our thing" is.Far from taking her side, parents are outraged that students were denied access to the restroom and were then allegedly forced to sit in wet, dirty, smelly clothing."If I sent my child to this school smelling like that, they would call CPS and have me investigated and try to have my child taken away from me. So how is it OK for my child to go to school clean, prepared, and come home smelling like that?" said Joseph McCauley, a father of one of the children who had an accident, according to KTRK.Amber Johnson, whose daughter is likewise in the class, offered even more disturbing details. "These kids are traumatized and humiliated," she claimed. "They were made fun of. They were crying, begging, pleading, and asking multiple times to go to the restroom, and they were refused."Yet another student told his mother, Ashley Chancey, about his desk partner's humiliation after she wet herself in her seat."He said there was urine all over the little girl. There was a puddle of urine under the chair that nobody came to help with, and nobody came to clean her up for the remainder of the day," Chancey recalled, according to the Daily Mail.The boy further indicated that the poor girl was "absolutely mortified" after "the class erupted in laughter," Chancey explained.Exactly how many students had accidents that day is unclear. A letter from Principal Charita Smith made reference to "both students who, upsettingly, had accidents," an indication that there had been only two. But Amber Johnson claimed she had heard that as many as six students had soiled themselves."THESE KIDS WERE MADE TO SIT IN THEIR P*SS CLOTHES ALL DAY LONG," she wrote on Facebook. She further alleged that parents were not informed about the incident until "2 minutes before DISMISSAL."Johnson described Barrera's alleged punishment as "inhumane" and claimed it could cause health problems such as urinary-tract infections."This is sick," she posted to Facebook.KPRC received reports of similar issues in Barrera's classroom lately. The outlet also heard that another teacher was in the room during the incident, but district administrators told KPRC they could not verify that information.Barrera has been placed on leave, it was confirmed to the outlet.According to Lonestar Live, Principal Smith sent the following letter home to parents:This afternoon, we were made aware of a situation in a first-grade classroom in which restroom privileges were revoked. I have spoken with the parents of both students who, upsettingly, had accidents. The class will have a current staff member to serve as the substitute teacher for the remainder of the week while we complete our investigation into the matter. This incident is not indicative of the safe and loving environment we foster at Bartlett Elementary. I thank you for your support and continued partnership. Charita Smith, Bartlett Elementary Principal.Blaze News reached out to Principal Smith but did not receive a response.H/T: Corey DeAngelisLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

BOOM! Trump's YUGE Win Makes Obama's Legacy Into Nothing More Than a Tiny Footnote and It's GLORIOUS