Fox News Hilariously Messes Up Introducing Charlie Kirk

A live hot mic moment made it on air on Fox News Wednesday evening, when a disembodied voice let slip some unsavory language during the introduction of one of the network’s more controversial guests: Charlie Kirk.

The Turning Point USA founder was double-boxed on live air when a loud, unknown voice could be heard speaking over Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

“Joining me now, someone who knows a little bit about this, Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA founder,” said Ingraham, when a deep voice effectively cut her off with an unexpected cuss: “Oh shit.”

The gaffe quickly made the rounds on social media, with users taking their own spin on the audio issue.

“In fairness this is the sound I make when Charlie Kirk is on my TV,” posted journalist Aaron Rupar.

An anonymous source at Fox News chalked the incident up to a control room issue, claiming that the audio operator accidentally raised the levels on an upcoming guest who dished the expletive while adjusting his clip-on microphone.

“The audio operator accidentally slid the wrong fader which was allotted for a different guest,” the source told Mediaite. “That guest in turn was adjusting his IFB at the time and said ‘oh shit’ which was accidentally transmitted on the air.”

Kirk was under fire last week for partaking in a self-described tourism trip to Greenland with Donald Trump Jr. and Trump administration staffer Sergio Gor. The trio’s presence on the island—and myriad photo ops with local residents—was not taken well by some of Greenland’s politicians, who slammed Don Jr.’s visit as a stunt to make the territory appear open to U.S. governance in the wake of odd jokes and eyebrow-raising militaristic threats about buying Greenland by the president-elect.

Local criticism extended to a series of photos featuring Kirk and Greenlandic residents in MAGA hats that Danish media reported was staged. The MAGA cohort reportedly rounded up homeless people from the area—including one person from under a bridge—promising them a meal at the Hotel Hans Egede in exchange for their participation in the pro-Trump photo circuit.

President Joe Biden used his farewell address Wednesday evening to tell Americans to stay involved, stay informed, and beware of the ominous cloud of “oligarchy” that in his eyes is now forming.

“I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked,” Biden told America. 

“Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America, of extreme wealth, power, and influence, that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America, and we’ve seen it before, more than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then, and busted the trusts. They didn’t punish the wealthy, they just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had to.”

While Biden tactfully communicated a fundamental truth and core party principle that’s been often overlooked, many felt that Biden delivering the message in the last gasps of his presidency was emblematic of his time in office: far too little, far too late. 

“This is probably the most important speech Biden has made during his presidency—but who will hear or heed it now?” asked historian Simon Shama on X. “Against unelected billionaires and for the people ought to be the Democrats’ simple message going forward. Will they speak it?”

Others were much less favorable. 

“In 2020, there was one person worth over $100 billion. Today at the end of Biden’s term there are 16 of them,” Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project wrote, with a meme captioned, “We’re all trying to find the guy who did this,” insinuating that Biden was indeed the “guy.” 

“It kills me that this is the message Biden is delivering in his farewell address,” said Josh Miller-Lewis of A More Perfect Union. “Why wasn’t this delivered consistently for the last 4 years?”

“Biden’s Presidential Medal of Freedom awardees, with net worth, earlier this month: George Soros, $7 billion. David Rubenstein, $4 billion,” wrote ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis. 

The ultrarich have been deeply involved with modern presidential politics, even when it’s a Democrat in office. But Trump, with his billionaire Cabinet, corporate hobnobbing, and backroom hotel business deals, is openly flaunting the oligarchy. Maybe Biden is longing for the subtlety of the past. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson removed Representative Mike Turner as chair of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday—reportedly at the behest of Donald Trump.

Two senior sources told The Daily Beast that Trump had specifically instructed Johnson to remove Turner. “Trump personally got involved and believes that Turner is basically an intel community sycophant,” said one source familiar with Turner’s ouster.

Johnson pushed back when asked whether his marching orders came from the president-elect. “This is not a President Trump decision, this is a House decision, and this is no slight whatsoever to our outgoing chairman; he did a great job, but we just, the intelligence community and everything related to [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] is, it needs a fresh start, and that’s what this is about, nothing else,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday.

Johnson’s decision to oust Turner could be a sign of clearing the way for a more supplicant committee chair. It’s unclear exactly why Trump could be concerned about Turner, but among other things the Ohio Republican has raised the alarm about Russian propaganda “being uttered” on the House floor. He also was one Republican who certified Joe Biden’s win in 2020, marking him as an obvious operative of the so-called “deep state.”

Representative Jim Himes, a top Democrat on the committee, told reporters that he was “enormously concerned” about Turner’s removal, according to CNN’s Manu Raju. Turner’s removal “sends a shiver down my spine,” Hiimes said, adding that the Ohio Republican wasn’t quick to “bend the knee” to Trump.

Johnson is set to announce Turner’s replacement Thursday. Next in line of seniority is Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican from Arkansas, who chaired the CIA subcommittee last session, according to Punchbowl News.

Jill Biden is still hurt by Nancy Pelosi’s vote of no confidence in her husband’s reelection.

“I’ve been thinking a lot about relationships,” the first lady said in an interview with The Washington Post published Wednesday.

“It’s been on my mind a lot lately, and we were friends for 50 years,” she said of Pelosi. “It was disappointing.”

Pelosi’s comments on Morning Joe in July 2024, in the midst of questions about Biden’s mental health after a horrendous debate performance, were far from an endorsement.

“It’s up for the president to decide if he’s going to run. We’re all encouraging him to make that decision because time is running short,” she said at the time. “I want him to do whatever he decides to do.”

Pelosi told The New Yorker in August that the president hadn’t spoken to her since he dropped out of the race. When asked if their friendship could survive, Pelosi said, “I hope so. I pray so. I cry so.”

The ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel announced Wednesday won’t take effect until Sunday, January 19, just before Donald Trump’s inauguration the next day. That does not appear to be a coincidence.

Since being elected, Trump has warned on multiple occasions that an agreement should come before his inauguration, saying that there will be “hell to pay” or “all hell will break out.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his preference for Trump in the 2024 election, either, and Israel’s ceasefire with Lebanon was likely a gift from Netanyahu as well.

The timing of the ceasefire is a reminder of a similar situation faced by President Jimmy Carter in the final days of his presidency in 1980, as negotiations were underway to free American hostages in Iran. Ultimately, the hostages were deliberately released the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president, thanks to the efforts of the Reagan campaign.

With the release taking place this late, Trump gets a propaganda victory and is already claiming credit for the agreement, even though he’s not yet in office, and some Israeli officials are crediting the sudden progress in negotiations to him. But Trump can’t take total credit: Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has boasted about deliberately sabotaging ceasefire agreements over the past year.

According to one analyst, Wednesday’s deal is almost identical to a deal proposed on May 27 that Israel rejected, with six minor changes in the appendix. So what’s different now from eight months ago? Netanyahu has his preferred president, and Trump can take credit. The question is if Netanyahu is getting something in return—and what will happen to Gaza’s long-suffering civilians next.

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff delivered scorching criticism Wednesday of Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, over her closeness with the president-elect.

During her confirmation hearing, Schiff pressed Bondi on whether she “had the independence” to “tell hard truths” to Trump, despite their close relationship and the fact that she was chosen precisely for her loyalty.

“Let me start with an easy truth that you could speak to the president. Can you tell us, can you tell him, that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election?” Schiff asked.

“Senator, what I can tell you is I will never play politics. You’re trying to engage me in a ‘gotcha.’ I won’t do it.” Bondi replied. After the 2020 election, Bondi joined forces with Rudy Giuliani to sow doubt about the results on Trump’s behalf.

“I won’t play politics with any ongoing investigation, like you did, leaking your colleague Devin Nunes’s memo,” she replied, refusing to answer the actual question.

Schiff took a moment to explain why exactly Bondi’s loyalty was dangerous, and would come back to bite her.

“The president has a right to choose people he believes will be loyal to him. Our concern comes when that loyalty of the president conflicts with your duty, conflicts with the Constitution, conflicts with your oath,” Schiff said.

“And our questions have been designed to try to ascertain what you will do when that inevitable conflict arises. And you may say you believe that conflict will never come. But every day, week, month, and year of the first Trump administration demonstrated that conflict will come.

“Jeff Sessions may not have believed it would come to him—it came to him. Bill Barr may not have believed it would come to him—it came to him. It came to everyone. It will come to you. And what you do in that moment will define your attorney generalship, your public service. Everything you’ve done up to that moment will be judged by what you do in that moment,” Schiff said.

During her confirmation hearing, Bondi refused to answer simple questions about her views on birthright citizenship and whether she would pursue legal action against former special prosecutor Jack Smith; former Congresswoman Liz Cheney; and Bondi’s potential predecessor, Merrick Garland.

Israel and Hamas’s historic ceasefire agreement could have come a lot sooner, according to Israeli leadership.

The text of the ceasefire agreement, which was released Wednesday, shares copious similarities with the last ceasefire agreement brokered between Israel and Palestine in May, including mirrored proposals for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the “densely populated areas along the borders in all areas of the Gaza strip” and the release of 1,000 Gazan detainees who were not involved in the events of October 7.

Israel National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir practically boasted about successfully sabotaging ceasefire agreements over the last year, posting on X Tuesday that “through our political power, we succeeded in preventing this deal from moving forward time and time again.

“However, since then, additional elements have been added to the government, who now support the deal and no longer constitute a balancing act,” he continued, referring to Israel’s United Right Party, which grew from 64 to 68 Knesset members, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Still, Ben-Gvir torched the ceasefire as a “terrible deal,” imploring his opponents to join him in rejecting it yet again while advocating for Israel’s continued siege on Palestine.

“Along with this, I call on the Prime Minister to come to his senses and take steps that will lead to the defeat of Hamas and the release of our hostages without abandoning Israel’s security: completely stop the transfer of humanitarian aid and fuel, electricity, and water to Gaza, along with continuing the military crushing of Hamas until its complete defeat,” Ben-Gvir wrote.

But the defense minister’s plea was not received well by other Israeli politicians.

“For a year now, I’ve been saying that you have been preventing a hostage deal from materializing for political gain,” responded opposition leader Yair Lapid, calling Ben-Gvir’s comments a “terrible truth.”

Donald Trump jumped to claim credit for brokering the ceasefire moments after it was announced on Wednesday, despite the fact that he was not in office for the duration of the conflict. But his instinct may not be far off: A diplomat briefed on the negotiations credited their sudden progress to the incoming forty-seventh president, reported The Washington Post.

Trump warned last week that “all hell” would break loose if the two nations did not reach a ceasefire agreement by the time he returned to the White House on January 20. That was, apparently, the “first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal,” the diplomat told the newspaper.

Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for the next U.S. attorney general, refused to give a basic yes or no answer, during her confirmation hearing Wednesday, regarding her views on birthright citizenship, which is etched into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

“You’ve testified repeatedly to this committee that you will uphold the laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United States,” said Democratic Senator Alex Padilla. “Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and will you defend it regardless—a child born of the United States—regardless of their parents’ immigration status?”

Bondi refused to answer the question. “Senator, I will study birthright citizenship, I would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship—”

“Ma’am, you’re asking to be considered to serve as the attorney general of the United States, and you still need to study the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution?” Padilla retorted. “That is not helping me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.”

Bondi’s nonanswer is deference to President-elect Trump, who said he’d end birthright citizenship via executive order on Meet the Press in December.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Senators on both sides of the aisle took issue Wednesday with Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, noting that Russell Vought’s evasive and bureaucratic nonanswers as to whether he’d obey the law while serving the country were alarming.

When pressed on whether he would obey the Impoundment Control Act—in which Congress reexamines executive branch withholdings from the budget—and break away from Trump on his plans to withhold congressionally approved funds, Vought deferred and said that he would obey the law.

“I’m not going to continue to break the law,” Vought said. “I’m giving you my commitment to uphold the laws of this land.”

But the nominee then followed up by claiming that the law is unconstitutional and suggested that Trump’s incoming administration would have to consider on their own whether or not they would follow it.

Vought also refused to pledge that he wouldn’t deny grants based on the requester’s political alignment.

“I’m astonished and aghast that someone in this responsible a position would, in effect, say that the president is above the law and that the United States Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but mine should supersede it,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal during the hearing.

Vought ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget from July 2020 to January 2021, during which time he froze military aid for Ukraine, claimed that foreign aid expenditures were “wasteful spending,” and worked to expand the number of federal employees required to work during a government shutdown.

He scooped up another supporting role in Trumpworld during the incoming executive’s presidential campaign: developing a 180-day “transition playbook” to expedite Project 2025’s implementation in the federal government. But his appointment to run the nation’s budget office could see him enter a critical role in shrinking the federal government and advancing Trump’s agenda.

The 920-page Christian nationalist manifesto advanced outwardly outrageous policy positions, including dismantling wholesale staples of the executive branch such as the Department of Education. But as time has marched on, those outlandish policies have morphed from a fascistic pipe dream to a forthcoming reality among the far right in Congress: On Monday, North Carolina Representative David Rouzer introduced legislation in the House formally filing to eradicate the public education agency.

Other portions of Vought’s Project 2025 proposed revisiting federal approval of the abortion pill, a national ban on pornography, placing the Justice Department under the control of the president, slashing federal funds for climate change research in an effort to sideline mitigation efforts, and increasing funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Vought was also the architect of Trump’s “Schedule F” proposal, which plans to fire thousands of civil servants and replace them with as many as 54,000 pre-vetted Trump loyalists to the executive branch via executive order.

In oral arguments for a First Amendment case before the Supreme Court Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito pursued an odd line of questioning regarding free speech and pornography.

The case, Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton, concerns a Texas law that requires adult users of pornographic websites to verify their ages before they can view content. The law is opposed by free speech advocates, including the ACLU, which is representing a coalition of organizations, including some adult websites, in the lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

During Wednesday’s arguments, Alito brought up the pornographic website Pornhub, one of the members of the coalition, and asked the lawyer representing the coalition how much of Pornhub’s content is “obscene” to children. The attorney, Derek Shaffer, couldn’t provide exact numbers, but ultimately Alito and Shaffer arrived at an estimate of 70 percent. Then Alito revealed his ignorance about the topic.

“Is it like the old Playboy magazine; you have essays there by the modern-day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.?” Alito asked, drawing an audible laugh from Shaffer.

“Not in that sense, but in the sense you have wellness posts about women recovering from hysterectomies and how they can enjoy sex,” Shaffer replied. “That’s on there, discussions about age verification proposals and where the industry lines up, as far as what they think should be legislated and what should not.”

While Alito’s question might seem funny, it also creates the impression that only serious essays merit free speech protection, and nothing else, which doesn’t seem to be in line with what the First Amendment actually says.

Texas’s law, as well as similar laws in Republican-led states across the country, are part of a greater right-wing effort, as spelled out in the Project 2025 manifesto, to target not just pornography but also drag queens, trans people, LGBTQ library books, and more. By placing such a high standard for free speech, the right would be able to criminalize what it previously could only demonize.