Raw Story

CNN's Jim Acosta winced as a conservative commentator justified defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth needing his mother to defend his character amid allegations of his past drinking and mistreatment of women.

Penelope Hegseth appeared on "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday to recant a scathing email she sent to her son that was obtained and published by the New York Times, saying he no longer mistreated women as she had alleged in the 2018 message, and she reportedly called senators on his behalf to calm their concerns about his character.

"What do you make of the role that she has played this week?" Acosta said. "We saw her go out on Fox to defend her son and Axios reports she's been calling senators directly on his behalf. You know, I'm just wondering, I mean, [Ronald] Reagan used to talk about peace through strength. Are we seeing strength being projected out to the world when it comes to the Hegseth nomination if his mother is having to call senators?"

ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: Senate Dems consider whether Biden should ‘clear the slate’ and pardon Trump

Conservative pundit Shermichael Singleton mounted a defense, saying the nominee's mother was forced off the sidelines by what he described as questionable reporting.

"I think his mother is out there because some outlets have printed and reported on a previous email she sent several years ago, I think seven years ago, to be exact," Singleton said, "and she feels the need and I think she should, to come out and clarify what was going on between her, her son and their family at that particular time. I think she did an outstanding job on Fox News and, again, friends of mine that I have who actually work for Republican senators, and I've been talking to and texting with a lot of them to just understand where things appear to be moving from their perspective. These things are absolutely making a difference."

Acosta grimaced, saying that the nominee to lead the Department of Defense should not need his mother to vouch for him.

"I'm just, you know, if you're having to have your mother call senators to defend themselves, I know, but Shermichael, to have to have your mother call senators to to get you cleared for secretary of defense, right?" Acosta said. "I mean he goes out there with tattoos, showing off his biceps and everything."

Singleton didn't seen anything wrong with that, saying that nominees' families frequently speak up for them.

"I've gone through the confirmation process before, having worked for a former Cabinet secretary and you're going to have statements from the spouse, from siblings, from children, from grandchildren, from friends, from neighbors," Singleton said. "So I'm not opposed to having the mother of a secretary potential secretary who would know him very well, saying, this is who this person actually is. I'm just trying to see if there are allegations against this."

Acosta acknowledged his defense and turned to Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, asking what the situation might look like if the parties were reversed and a Democratic nominee needed his own mother to cover for him.

"Oh, I mean, they would be going out of their minds, but I think you hit the nail on the head," Cardona said. "When was the last time that we have spent segments talking about a Democratic nominee, right? I mean, this is where and, frankly, any other nominee from a Republican president, this goes to the heart of Trump's judgment. The fact of the matter is, he said he was going to bring in the best people, he's actually bringing in the crappiest people who have disgusting allegations, who have no experience in the job for one of the most important positions in the U.S. government."

"This does not bode well for Trump," Cardona added, "it does not bode well for the United States of America."

Watch below or click the link.

- YouTube youtu.be

A large earthquake off the coast of Northern California sent the state into emergency mode on Thursday morning Pacific time.

According to local KNTV news, emergency services are asking people to get at least a mile away from the shoreline.

Storm chaser Colin McCarthy posted a screen capture of an evacuation map showing that West Berkeley is being told to "EVACUATE NOW" east of 7th Street.

Authorities are saying that the tsunami is an immediate threat to life.

See the local report below.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

— (@)

The United States Geological Survey is showing a 7.0 earthquake off the cost of northern California that was severe enough for residents nearby to get a notification of a tsunami warning.

Yahoo News cited a National Weather Service social media post, which marked the quake at 7.3 on the Richter Scale.

At approximately 1:44 p.m. EST, the quake rumbled about 40 miles off the coast of Petrolia, CA, leading the state to issue tsunami warnings to those down the west coast.

However, it wasn't merely the 7.0 quake that was cause for concern. MSNBC reported that the quake happened along with several others, which are also indicated on the USGS quake map. They are all in the same area and range in severity form 3.3 to 4.2 on the Richter Scale.

ALSO READ: 'You are out of line!': Secret Service chief screams at GOP lawmaker for politicizing 9/11

Meanwhile, other quakes seem to be popping up on the land in northern California, such as a 2.5 quake 16 km from French Gulch, CA. A separate 2.5 also popped up on the map about 6 km northwest of Cobb, California.

“The National Weather Service has issued a TSUNAMI WARNING. A series of powerful waves and strong currents may impact coasts near you,” the alert read in the San Francisco Bay Area. “You are in danger. Get away from coastal waters. Move to high ground or inland now. Keep away from the coast until local officials say it is safe to return.”

One Bay Area resident said on X it was the first time he's ever gotten a tsunami warning.

Donald Trump has rewarded some of his biggest loyalists with top-level positions, but there's not enough government jobs to go around to his allies.

The former president has rewarded strategic persistence when choosing nominees for plum roles in his administration, but multiple advisers told Politico that he was turned off by rumors of presidential ambitions or past criticism of his behavior, and he was annoyed to learn if someone felt entitled to a role or tried to buy his favor – which may have cost Ric Grenell a shot at his dream job as secretary of state.

"An associate of Grenell had approached conservative social media influencers, according to two people with knowledge of the situation, offering paid contracts of as much as five figures to post favorably about Grenell," the website reported. "One such contract, obtained by Politico and not previously reported, outlined that the influencer would do so during 'peak posting times,' that 'content must appear genuine,' and it could not 'appear as an overt advertisement or promotional message.'"

ALSO READ: 'You are out of line!': Secret Service chief screams at GOP lawmaker for politicizing 9/11

The proposed social media campaign ever really took off, organizers said, but Grenell made clear in private conversations that he wanted to lead the State Department if Trump was re-elected, saying it was secretary of State “or bust," according to one source close to Trump – but the job eventually went to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

“People assume the president wants a big personality who is pushing the envelope," said a source familiar with the transition. "That’s not always the case. I think there were a lot of questions about whether Ric was diplomatic enough to be secretary of state,” said a person familiar with the transition."

"Ric was offered several positions that he turned down," that person added. "It’s not like he was shut out.”

Trump did reward some loyalists, like FBI director nominee Kash Patel and U.S. ambassador to NATO nominee Matthew Whitaker, with top jobs after they fought to remain in contention, but a person close to Grenell's situation said the president-elect didn't want to alienate his allies but didn't have enough high-ranking roles to go around.

“I think there is a need and a desire to keep these people close,” that person said. “They are loyalists who have been really successful at getting Trump elected. Where does Trump park these people?"

X CEO Elon Musk is scheduled to meet with congressional Republicans to pitch his drastic budget-cutting plans, and it's already causing concern for some on Capitol Hill.

An unnamed Republican Senate aide who spoke with Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman on Thursday predicted that Musk and fellow Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) leader Vivek Ramaswamy would create massive political headaches for Republicans in the coming weeks.

"Two people who know nothing about how the government works pretending they can cut a trillion dollars, both with decent pulpits to preach from, and the ear of an unpredictable president? Disaster," the aide said.

The aide then added that "the only good thing is that at some point they’ll overpromise and get bounced by Trump," before adding, "but until then... disaster."

ALSO READ: 'Sounding the alarm': Trump plan said to be getting 'surprise resistance' from Republicans

Sherman writes that the politics of DOGE are dicey for Republicans overall.

"Unlike previous spending-reduction initiatives, DOGE has no statutory authority or fast-track floor process, and Hill leaders have no idea how they’ll handle any of the proposed spending cuts offered by Musk and Ramaswamy," he reports.

Musk has openly hinted that he plans to target Social Security with his budget cutting plans, despite the fact that President-elect Donald Trump vowed repeatedly that the program was off limits.

Musk also wants to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned billions of dollars to consumers from financial institutions.

— (@)

Missouri’s trigger law banning nearly all abortions remains in place. But at 12:01 a.m. Friday, Amendment 3 will go into effect.

The constitutional amendment, which received 51.6% of the nearly 3 million votes cast, prohibits the legislature from regulating abortion prior to the point of fetal viability — generally seen as the point at which a fetus can likely survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures.

Planned Parenthood officials said they have providers and staff prepared to start seeing patients for walk-in medication abortion appointments at three clinics — in Kansas City, St. Louis and Columbia — beginning Friday, followed later by scheduled surgical abortions.

But whether that happens depends on the outcome of a lawsuit that had its first hearing before a Jackson County judge Wednesday morning.

“What we don’t have are the abilities to overcome state restrictions and hurdles that were intended to deny care,” Emily Wales, President and CEO with Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said Wednesday evening.

Less than 24 hours after voters narrowly approved Amendment 3, the ACLU of Missouri, Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers filed a lawsuit seeking to take down decades worth of overlapping restrictions and bans on abortion on the books in Missouri.

There was no disagreement between Planned Parenthood and the Missouri Attorney General’s office that Amendment 3 makes unconstitutional the trigger law that went into effect in June 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion.

The disagreement instead revolves around more than a dozen “targeted regulation of abortion providers” laws, also known as TRAP laws, that previously made abortions all but inaccessible in Missouri prior to the total ban taking effect.

Planned Parenthood is asking a Jackson County judge to grant a preliminary injunction which would immediately declare the current ban and the TRAP laws unconstitutional.

“Every single day that Missourians cannot access their constitutional rights, they’re being denied critical care,” Wales said.

Solicitor General Josh Divine, who argued Wednesday’s hearing on behalf of the state, characterized the lawsuit as “unusually aggressive,” saying it would be more appropriate for the plaintiffs to challenge each TRAP law individually rather than all together “on a very short fuse.”

He added that preliminary injunctions should only be granted in “drastic, extraordinary circumstances.” The lawsuit at hand, he contended, does not apply because Missourians are still able to access abortion in Illinois to the east and Kansas to the west.

“Nobody’s actually going to be materially affected by what this court does,” Divine added.

A decade ago, more than 5,000 abortions were performed in Missouri, according to data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.

By 2020, two years before the abortion ban went into effect, that number dropped to 167 as a result of the TRAP laws.

Anti-abortion lawmakers, activists call on Missouri court to rule against Planned Parenthood

Sam Lee, a longtime Missouri anti-abortion activist and lobbyist, said he’s been pleased by the attorney general’s defense of Missouri’s anti-abortion laws.

If the TRAP laws remain in effect, as Lee is hoping, “it may severely affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to do abortions, because they weren’t doing abortions when those laws were in effect some years ago.”

Judge Jerri Zhang, who is overseeing the case, did not immediately rule on the injunction when the hearing concluded late Wednesday evening.

She did, however, deny the state’s request to remove Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker as a defendant and move the case to Cole County. Earlier this year, a Cole County judge struck Amendment 3 from the ballot, a decision that was quickly overridden by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The attorney general’s office said they plan to appeal Zhang’s decisions, arguing that Peters Baker does not appropriately represent all statewide prosecutors because of her previous statements in support of abortion rights.

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office also posed a court challenge to the Planned Parenthood suit. This latest lawsuit, filed last week in Cole County, questions Planned Parenthood Great Plains’ ability to sue the state, claiming a 2010 settlement agreement prevents them from doing so.

Missouri’s TRAP laws

For decades, Missouri legislators have passed laws restricting abortion access and regulating the procedure.

“The voters have now changed all of that,” Eleanor Spottswood, an attorney with Planned Parenthood, argued before the court Wednesday.

Amendment 3 states, in part, that “the right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted unless the government demonstrates that such action is justifiable by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

The litigation challenges numerous current laws, including a mandatory 72-hour waiting period between an initial appointment and the abortion procedure; requirements that abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a hospital roughly 15 minutes away; and a requirement that the same physician who initially saw the patient also perform the abortion.

The lawsuit is also challenging the current law criminalizing physicians who perform abortions.

Spottswood argued that a failure to immediately strike down the TRAP laws would cause “irreparable harm” to Missourians because “patients and providers have to do twice the work to access abortion.”

Meanwhile, the attorney general’s office argued that striking down such laws would cause more harm.

Divine on multiple occasions cited an FDA label for mifepristone, one of two medications used to induce a medication abortion, that shows that according to two U.S. studies of about 1,00 women, up to 5% of women who took mifepristone ended up in the emergency room. It did not specify if the emergency room visits were necessary.

The same FDA label says that across three studies of more than 14,000 women who took mifepristone, fewer than 0.6% were admitted to the hospital as a result of the medication.

Divine also noted that no individual women seeking abortions were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, arguing that’s because women don’t actually want abortions once given more information. He said this is why the state’s requirements that those seeking abortions first be given the state’s informed consent booklet should remain.

“It’s against their moral beliefs,” Divine said. “But they’re being pressured, often by an abusive partner, by parents, things of that nature, so what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to create a situation where those women can in fact make the choice that they want to do, and we know most of the time that’s childbirth.”

About one in four women in the United States have an abortion before the age of 45, according to 2020 data. In 2021, around 94% of abortions occurred before 14 weeks gestation. Abortions later than 20 weeks account for fewer than 1% of all abortions in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Divine, in his final arguments Wednesday, characterized the state’s TRAP laws as incidental, much like speeding laws or road construction that could delay someone getting to an abortion. But he said the TRAP laws don’t fall under the strict scrutiny requirement and therefore don’t require an immediate ruling.

Solicitor General Josh Divine called Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit seeking to unravel Missouri’s abortion restrictions “unusually aggressive” while speaking to media Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, outside the Jackson County Courthouse (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).

Zhang asked if delaying an abortion through the required 72-hour waiting period would infringe on a patient’s autonomy, especially if the patient was a day or two shy of 10 weeks gestation, when procedures switch from medication to surgical abortions.

Divine responded that the attorney general’s office believes Amendment 3 gives Missourians the right to an abortion, but doesn’t give them the right to a certain abortion procedure.

He also noted that Amendment 3 doesn’t specifically mention the legalization of mifepristone, alluding to future attempts by the incoming GOP administration to enforce the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that bans mailing obscene material, including for the use of abortion.