GOVERNOR CALLS ON FACEBOOK TO REMOVE DECEPTIVE ADS ON HIV-PREVENTION DRUG TRUVADA

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) said he thinks progressive influencer Hasan Piker should be banned from the United States after the United Kingdom blocked his visit with fellow commentator and his uncle, Cenk Uygur, TMZ reported on Wednesday.

The MAGA lawmaker was walking on Capitol Hill when a TMZ reporter asked Fine to comment on Piker's entry to the country being revoked over the weekend. The two were scheduled to speak at the SXSW London Festival but were turned away "because of their criticism of Israel," The BBC reported.

"Well I don't think he should be allowed into America, so I think that's a good start," Fine said.

The TMZ reporter responded and asked Fine, "What about freedom of speech?"

"People have freedom of speech but I think when you're a terrorist you should be held responsible for that," Fine said. "And I think he's clearly a supporter of terror. He's a walking billboard for the problem of birth tourism. He was brought here by his Turkish family, they had him, then they took him home, made him hate America, then sent him in to torment us. The guy's a horrible human being and I wouldn't let him into my country if it was up to me, so I don't blame them."

Piker, who is an American citizen, has condemned Islamophobia and been an outspoken critic of MAGA and the Trump administration. He has a large social media following, primarily through streaming on Twitch and weighing in on political topics. He frequently discusses social issues and engages in debates with commentators across the political spectrum.

The reporter pushed back again and suggested that "banning him from a country is [a] pretty crazy step for someone who is expressing his opinion."

"And by the way, they're allowed to do that," Fine said.

When the reporter pressed the Republican again on freedom of speech, he repeated his talking point.

"He promotes Muslim terror, so I think they're making the right decision," said Fine, making the unsubstantiated claim. "I'm surprised they did it but I think they did the right thing."

Several of President Donald Trump's recent judicial nominees have displayed a "disqualifying" pattern of behavior that has alarmed a legal expert.

In hearing after hearing, Democrats have asked Trump's judicial nominees: Who won the 2020 general election? Yet several nominees have refused to explicitly say that former President Joe Biden won the election, and have instead deflected, according to Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor.

Weissmann said on a new episode of the "Court of History" podcast on Wednesday that the nominees' refusal to say Biden won the election should be "disqualifying" at least.

"There is no credible evidence," Weissmann said. "There's right-wing conspiracy talk, but there is no credible evidence of any material fraud in the 2020 election. And that to me would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to say."

Trump has routinely claimed that the election was rigged against him, even though his lawyers failed to prove that in more than 60 court cases, and some of whom have been disbarred for their involvement in Trump's efforts to overturn the results.

Weissmann noted that the nominees who refuse to acknowledge that there was no material evidence of fraud in the 2020 general election pose a significant danger to the American judiciary going forward.

"This is so dangerous that you have people who have lifetime appointments, if they are confirmed, who are going to be operating if they're consistent with how they're behaving in their confirmation hearing, as they will be on the bench. That is corrupting one of the few checks and balances that are still functioning in this country right now."