 |
 |
|
|
A majority of Americans support President-elect Donald Trump's plan to declare a national emergency over the border crisis, according to a new poll. Declaring such an emergency would allow Trump to utilize the military to secure the border and help with his plan to deport violent criminal foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally.
The Napolitan News Service survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen Nov. 18-19. It asked: "President Trump has said that he will declare a national emergency because of the illegal immigration problem. This would let the Trump Administration use military force to help with a mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Do you favor or oppose declaring a national emergency to address the problem of illegal immigration?"
In response, 31% of those polled said they strongly favor declaring a national emergency, and 24% said they somewhat favor it. Combined, 55% of Americans support Trump's plan. Those in favor include 62% of Hispanic voters, 57% of white voters, and 50% of Black voters.
On the other side, 12% said they somewhat oppose the idea while 26% said they strongly oppose it, with a total of 38% in opposition. An additional 7% said they were not sure.
"Declaring a national emergency would allow the president to use military forces to assist in the deportation of illegal immigrants," Napolitan News Service said in a statement accompanying the polling results. "Support for the plan comes from 62% of Hispanic voters, 57% of White voters, and 50% of Black voters."The border crisis and Vice President Kamala Harris’ work on the immigration issue were a focal point of the Trump campaign. Trump vowed to close the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration, which rose to unprecedented levels during the Biden-Harris administration.
Jose Ibarra, a suspected member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and in America illegally since 2022 according to immigration officials, has been found guilty on all counts related to the murder of Laken Riley.
Judge H. Patrick Haggard gave the ruling on Wednesday morning shortly after testimony and closing arguments had closed. Ibarra's defense attorneys waived the right to a jury trial in opting for a bench trial.
Riley, 22, was a former University of Georgia student who had transferred into the Augusta University nursing program on the Athens campus. Her name became synonymous with immigration campaign points by Republicans in this year's election cycle.
Prosecutors said, and Haggard agreed, Ibarra killed Riley on the morning of Feb. 22 as she was jogging near her Athens apartment. Haggard said he took two legal pads full of notes during the trial but typically just listened during closing arguments.
The judge offered that he wrote down two things, one by prosecutor Sheila Ross and the other by defense lawyer Kaitlyn Beck.
"One was a statement by Ms. Ross, that the evidence was overwhelming and powerful," Haggard said. "And then I also wrote down what Ms. Beck said that I am required to set aside my emotions. That's the same things that we tell jurors."
The court has recessed to consider when sentencing will take place.
(This is a developing story. Check back for updates.)
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Tuesday that his office will oppose President-elect Donald Trump's motion to dismiss his felony conviction in New York.
Bragg said that despite plans to oppose Trump's motion, his office would agree to hit pause on the proceedings pending the judge's decision on Trump's motion to dismiss. Bragg also suggested the case could wait until Trump's finishes his term in the White House.
"No current law establishes that a president's temporary immunity from prosecution requires dismissal of a post-trial criminal proceeding that was initiated at a time when the defendant was not immune from criminal prosecution and that is based on unofficial conduct for which the defendant is also not immune," Bragg wrote in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan. "Rather, existing law suggests that the Court must balance competing constitutional interests and proceed 'in a manner that preserves both the independence of the Executive and the integrity of the criminal justice system.' "
In late May, a Manhattan jury convicted Trump on all counts in his hush money case. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records for disguising hush money payments to an adult film actress as legal costs ahead of the 2016 election. Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony with a maximum sentence of four years in prison.
Trump and his attorneys want the judge to dismiss the case based on the U.S. Supreme Court's immunity decision. In July, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that presidents and former presidents have absolute immunity for actions related to core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for official actions. The ruling said the president has no immunity for unofficial conduct.
Bragg said Tuesday that the case could remain on pause through the end of Trump's second term. Trump beat Vice President Kamala Harris in the two-way race for the White House. He will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2025.
"Given the need to balance competing constitutional interests, consideration must be given to various non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of Defendant's upcoming presidential term," Bragg wrote.
The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Deanne Criswell, told lawmakers that she personally approved the firing of an employee who directed FEMA workers to not knock on the doors of those affected by Hurricane Helene if they had Trump signs in their yards.
Helene hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane and wreaked havoc from Florida up the Eastern United States, killing more than 100 people in North Carolina alone and causing billions of dollars of damage across several states.
In less than two weeks, Hurricane Milton did its own damage in many of the same areas, leaving thousands of Americans needing help.
FEMA, however, has taken fire for its handling of the storms as well as its ongoing funding to help illegal immigrants.
In particular, The Daily Wire first broke news showing screenshots of text messages from a FEMA employee telling about a dozen workers under her supervision to avoid visiting houses with Trump signs.
The text message instructed workers that its “best practices” include avoiding “Trump homes.”
Criswell began her remarks at the hearing saying she does not believe this employee is representative of a broader problem in the agency but acknowledged it is investigating more.
She pledged to make sure nothing like this happens again and said a team went back to the homes skipped over.
However, the employee in question told the media that she was only following orders from higher up the chain.
“Since being fired, this supervisor has made multiple media appearances claiming she was following direction from above and that the practice is widespread,” House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. said.
“So, the question is this: from FEMA’s perspective, was her main offense not only saying the quiet part out loud, but that she put it in writing?” he added, apparently referring to the text messages.
U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., referenced the fired employee’s claims, adding that “independently we’ve heard reports of similar practices in places like North Carolina” and that the employee said she was following orders and the FEMA culture.
House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pressed Criswell on the issue, pointing out that another anonymous FEMA source backed up the fired employee’s claims about getting orders from higher up.
“She said it’s common practice, you said it’s reprehensible and isolated,” Jordan said. “Both statements can’t be true…”
Perry demanded answers about the internal investigation into FEMA, and compelled Criswell to eventually promise to request an investigation from the inspector general.
“What has your investigation gleaned regarding [the fired employee’s] direct supervisors,” Perry asked Criswell. “Have you questioned them and what have your answers been.
Criswell said they have been questioned but said they denied the employee’s claims.
Comer pointed to Trump’s promise to bring the federal government into check. Trump’s cabinet nominees, billionaires Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, have promised to significantly cut back federal agencies and even eliminate some outright.
“The current system does not have strong enough mechanisms to ensure accountability. The disciplinary system is run by and for civil servants to protect civil servants,” Comer said.
“President Trump has pledged to take action to bring accountability to the federal workforce and ensure there are measures in place to appropriately deal with poor performers and those who actively resist implementing the policies of a duly elected president,” he noted.
(The Center Square) – Citing discrimination against nonminorities in farming assistance programs, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff Robert Holman's litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
He's a corn and soybean farmer.
The institute is calling on the incoming Trump administration to address the issue among other federal agencies as well.
In an amicus brief supporting Holman, the conservative-leaning institute says prioritizing members of races deemed “socially disadvantaged” in taxpayer-funded assistance programs is unconstitutional.
“During the Biden administration, race discrimination infected every nook and cranny of the federal government,” Deputy Counsel Dan Lennington of the Institute for Law and Liberty said. “These programs impact Americans and small businesses every day. The new Congress and administration should immediately dismantle each one of these discriminatory programs. Otherwise, we’ll see them in court.”
WILL also said it had identified more than 60 federal programs across 11 federal agencies that allocate support based on racial preferences.
Examples included those agencies prioritizing racial minorities when distributing financial assistance, awarding contracts, granting business subsidies and home improvement rebates, and waiving required fees for those seeking disaster assistance.
In addition to the USDA, the law firm said such programs are being run in the Small Business Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Treasury, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Federal Communications Commission, Department of Transportation, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
“These programs are designed to serve ‘socially disadvantaged individuals,’ a racially charged term created to favor some races over others," the firm said in a statement. "Like many other federal agencies, USDA relies on unlawful stereotypes in distributing benefits to farmers, assuming that some races are all ‘disadvantaged’ while others are not.”
The law firm added that the incoming administration should use the USDA lawsuit and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty's findings as a “road map” in rooting out diversity, equity and inclusion policies in the federal government.
