REPORT: DeSantis Beats Trump in 2024 Poll

WASHINGTON (Daily Caller)– Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is leading former President Donald Trump among likely Republican primary voters in New Hampshire, a poll released Wednesday shows.

DeSantis garnered 39% support in the poll of 318 likely GOP primary voters, followed by Trump with 37%. Former Vice President Mike Pence received 9% support, and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley garnered 6%. No other candidate mentioned in the poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire from June 16-20, received more than 1% support. The poll had a margin of error of 5.5%, meaning that DeSantis and Trump were effectively tied.

DeSantis will likely run in the 2024 primaries, although he has said that he is solely focusing on winning re-election in November. Several straw polls have also found the Florida governor leading a hypothetical matchup with Trump. The University of New Hampshire conducted a similar poll in October 2021. That survey found Trump with 43% support and DeSantis with 18%. 

“Trump slipping in pre–primary polls is part of a typical pattern,” UNH Survey Center director Andrew Smith said in a statement accompanying the poll. “A party’s losing candidate in the prior electon is typically the best–known person in their party. As the primary gets closer, new candidates emerge and attract more media attention, and therefore more voter attention, than the losing candidate from the previous election.”

The most recent New Hampshire poll also found that DeSantis would match up better against President Joe Biden. That portion of the poll, which included 845 likely voters and a margin of error of 3.4%, found DeSantis with 47% support and Biden with 46%. In a hypothetical rematch between Biden and Trump, Biden polled at 50% support and Trump held 43%. Biden defeated Trump in the state during the 2020 election, 53-45.

Trump won the New Hampshire primary with 35% support on his way to the GOP nomination in 2016. The state has held the first election in the primary calendar since 1920, and is the second contest on the calendar after the Iowa caucuses.

REPORT: Biden Turns To Venezuelan Dictator For Oil After Canceling US Lease Sales

WASHINGTON (Daily Caller) — The Biden administration is expected to soon announce it would ease sanctions on Venezuelan oil amid the ongoing energy crisis, several media outlets reported.

The federal government will ease “some” of the energy sanctions on Venezuela, two senior administration officials told CNN. In addition, U.S. oil corporation Chevron will be allowed to enter into negotiations with Venezuelan state-owned firm PDVSA over potential continued operations in the South American oil-rich nation.

As part of the deal, Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro agreed to open talks with opposition leader Juan Guaidó, Reuters reported.

“[The U.S. agreed to lift some sanctions] on the basis of ambitious, concrete and irreversible outcomes that empower the Venezuelan people to determine the future in their country through democratic elections,” one official told CNN. (RELATED: Gas Prices Hit All-Time High As White House Turns To Dictators For Help)

While the U.S. has pursued an aggressive sanctions regime against Venezuela for more than 15 years, in 2019 the Trump administration imposed a fresh swath of restrictions on the South American nation’s oil industry to renew pressure on Maduro, a 2021 report from the Congressional Research Service showed. Trump administration White House officials said the sanctions would reduce Venezuela’s oil exports by $11 billion.

As a result of the Trump-era sanctions, the U.S. hasn’t imported oil from Venezuela since May 2019, according to government data. The U.S. imported about 462,000 barrels of oil per day from Venezuela in 2018, and it imported 670,000 barrels per day from Russia in 2021.

Chevron has recently lobbied the federal government to remove the sanctions, according to Senate disclosures.

“Our experience buying Russian energy should have taught President Biden that buying energy from tyrants is a dangerous proposition,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso said in a statement.

“Yet President Biden continues to reward our enemies by waiving sanctions while his administration does its best to kill American energy production. Funding despots isn’t in the national interest. Supporting American energy is,” he continued.

Venezuela consistently ranks as one of the least “free” countries in the world, according to Freedom House.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has increasingly moved to restrict further domestic oil and gas production. The Department of the Interior canceled the three remaining federal offshore oil and gas lease sales last week and dramatically scaled back the federal onshore program in April.

The average price of gasoline reached an all-time record $4.52 a gallon on Tuesday, according to AAA data.


The Daily Caller’s Thomas Catenacci contributed to the contents of this report.

‘DESPICABLE’ — Parkland survivor confronts ‘Coward of Broward’ deputy who hid during mass school shooting

PARKLAND, Fla. (Daily Caller) — Kyle Kashuv, survivor of the Parkland school shooting in Florida, tweeted out a video Tuesday of his confrontation with Deputy Scot Peterson, who was widely accused of hiding outside of the school instead of intervening.

Peterson remains completely silent as Kashuv presses him on his inaction.

“Can you explain to me why you let 17 people die at school?” he asked. “That was your job … it’s disgusting, it’s despicable.”
Peterson, who was 33 years old at the time of the shooting, has gone public with his regret and apologies to the Parkland community. He offered no such remorse when confronted by Kashuv, though his expressionless face appeared to be red throughout the exchange.

Despite being the only armed deputy stationed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 8, 2018 — the day gunman Nikolas Cruz went on a deadly rampage — Peterson has claimed he had no legal responsibility to intervene.

He has since stepped down from his post as Broward County Sheriff’s deputy, and a member of the Florida house proposed a bill that would strip Peterson of his $8,771 pension in the Florida Retirement System, according to the Sun Sentinel.

“You had a chance to save those kids,” Kashuv continued. “I don’t know how you live with yourself … 14 of my classmates, never coming back because you didn’t act.”

coward

 

REPORT: Weekly border crossing numbers ‘dwarf’ that of caravan

WASHINGTON (Daily Caller) — The massive procession of migrants winding through Mexico may be weeks away from the southwest border, but a “caravan”-sized number of people cross into the U.S. illegally every single day.

That fact has been overshadowed by coverage of the 4,000-strong caravan and President Donald Trump’s reaction to it, particularly his deployment of thousands of active duty troops to three border states. Commentators are quick to note that the caravan is still hundreds of miles from the nearest U.S. port of entry, and its members are unlikely to swarm across the border when it does arrive.

But the caravan is only a small — if highly publicized — part of a much larger phenomenon that has completely swamped the U.S. asylum system.

After falling to historic lows in the early months of the Trump administration, illegal immigration across the southwest border has risen in nearly every single month since, driven largely by a wave of people traveling together as families. Arrests of so-called “family units” — the vast majority of them from Central America — have now reached unprecedented levels, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) figures.

In October, the Border Patrol arrested 23,121 migrant family members, the highest one-month total ever recorded. It was a 39 percent jump over the 16,658 such migrants arrested in September, which was also a record for a single month. (RELATED: DHS: More Than Half A Million People Arrested, Denied At Border In FY2018)

When the family unit arrests are added to other categories — single adults and unaccompanied minors — the total number of people caught trying to cross the southwest border illegally in October was about 51,000, or 1,700 per day.

That means the number of migrants arrested along the southwest border in an average week — 11,900 — is about three times as many people traveling in the highly publicized caravan. Put differently, the equivalent of about 13 caravans is caught after crossing the border illegally every month.

Historically speaking, illegal immigration remains well below numbers seen at the turn of the century, when border authorities were regularly arresting more than 1 million migrants per year. While overall arrests have declined since then, the demographics of illegal immigration have changed in ways that make it harder for the system to absorb the latest wave of migrants.

In 2000, more than 95 percent of border arrests were Mexican nationals, mostly single men looking for work. Today, migrants from Central America have surpassed Mexicans as the majority of illegal border-crossers — 56 percent of CBP arrests at the southwest border in FY2018 were of Central Americans.

Family units and unaccompanied minors accounted for about half of the arrests within the Central American group, meaning about a quarter of all border apprehensions triggered special detention procedures required by law for migrant families and children. These complicated cases have outstripped the government’s limited detention space for families, so most of them are released pending an immigration court date months in the future.

As the demographics of illegal immigration have changed, so has the aim of the migrants themselves. Until recent years, most migrants arrested at the border were men who were obviously looking for work, often in agriculture or construction.

Today, there are economic migrants among those in the caravan and among Central American migrants more broadly, but just as often the people crossing the southwest border illegally are asylum seekers. And unlike previous waves of illegal immigrants, many aren’t trying to avoid arrest by the Border Patrol — they want to turn themselves into federal authorities at first chance.

That’s because, under U.S. law, a person can petition for asylum as long as he is in U.S. territory, regardless of how he got there. When a migrant claims “credible fear” of being persecuted in his home country, the arresting agent must refer him to an asylum officer for screening.

The Trump administration contends that this arrangement leads to abuse of the asylum system by meritless applicants. As evidence, it has pointed to the wide disparity between credible fear pass rates and successful asylum determinations for Central American applicants. In FY2018, 89 percent of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador received a positive credible fear interview, but only 9 percent of those who were referred to an immigration judge ultimately received asylum.

The White House has called on lawmakers to change immigration laws to make it easier to detain families together and raise the bar for a credible fear determination, but those policy recommendations face insurmountable opposition in Congress. As a result, the administration has moved to change asylum polices via regulation — most recently on Friday, when Trump issued a proclamation making most migrants who illegally cross the border ineligible for asylum.

The ACLU and other groups challenged the order almost immediately, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California for a nationwide injunction. A judge has yet to rule on the motion.

illegalscrossingtheborder

ROGER STONE: Behold the ‘treachery’ that is Steve Bannon

WASHINGTON (The Daily Caller) — The Washington Post reported that former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon testified for the Grand Jury yesterday regarding his communications with me regarding the Wikileaks disclosures in October 2016.

The Special Counsel is reportedly probing whether I somehow directed or urged Wikileaks to release the allegedly hacked e-mails from the DNC in the wake of the Billy Bush accusations against Trump on Oct. 7. I did not — and there is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, Wikileaks Publisher Julian Assange announced his release schedule on Oct. 2.

When Assange held a press event Oct. 2 (Oct. 3 U.S. time) and did not release any documents that day as had been widely expected, Bannon e-mailed me asking why.

I had long predicted an October release based on Assange’s June 2016 CNN interview with Anderson Cooper in which he said he had a trove of documents on Hillary and would release them. I had been told this would come in October for months by my source Randy Credico who I identified for the House Intelligence committee.

Then Bannon (or his hatchet man Sam Nunberg) leaked this e-mail exchange to the various media outlets.

The source of Assange’s Security Concerns came from Credico

On March 9, 2018, I wrote on Stone Cold Truth:

When Assange made no disclosures on October 1st, Alex Jones was among those publicly m*therfucking Assange for losing his nerve. Credico told me that Assange had demurred on October 1st because of the concerns of one of his lawyers, Daniel Ellsberg, about threats to Assange’s life if he went forward with the disclosures. Remember, Hillary Clinton actually advocated the use of a drone strike to kill Assange in London, in order to prevent the disclosure of what she knew he had.

Credico told me that Secretary of State John Kerry had astonishingly gone to British Prime Minister Teresa May and asked that Britain rescind its diplomatic recognition of Ecuador for one day, stripping Assange of his asylum, so that United and British authorities could storm the Embassy and seize Assange …

Credico predicted that Assange “would do the right thing” and in fact Assange announced the schedule of a serious of forthcoming disclosures in his October 2nd remarks, which was little noticed by the press. He would follow this schedule to devastating effect.

More importantly my prediction of “a load every week going forward” is based on Assange’s own public announcement hours before-that there would be weekly releases going through and beyond the election and not any communication with Wikileaks or Assange. Politico reported this.

When Bannon’s minion Matt Boyle asked me if what Assange had was “good” I replied it was, based on Credico’s insistence the material was “devastating,” “bombshell” and would “change the race.” This turned out to be right, although — as I have testified — I never knew the content or source of the Wikileaks disclosures in advance.

Bannon’s animus toward me stems from a column I wrote for the Daily Caller arguing that he had outlived his usefulness in the Trump White House and should be fired. The next day, he was.

Bannon also told the Washington Post that the idea to bring the woman victims to the debate was his while the paper trail tells a very different story.

If the Grand Jury was told that either of my comments to Bannon were based on anything other than information I had already attributed to my source under oath or information reported publicly that day, they were misled.

What I am guilty of is using publicly available information and a solid tip to bluff, posture, hype and punk Democrats on Twitter. This is called “politics.” It’s not illegal.

roger-stone-steve-bannon

BREAKING: Dems successful in bid to reinstate net neutrality rules

Washington, D.C. (The Daily Caller) — Senators, almost all Democrats, voted 52 to 47 Wednesday for the reinstatement of “net neutrality” rules that were undone by the Federal Communications Commission in December 2017.

Democrats already seemed to have the votes to successfully restore the internet regulations, but Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana put it over the top. Murkowski voted against classifying the internet as a Title II utility rather than a Title I — the crux of the net neutrality argument — in 2009, but has changed her tune as evident by her vote.

After initially having to vote Wednesday to move forward for debate, which passed narrowly 52-47, Senate Democratic leaders were able to muster enough “ayes” to overturn the FCC’s more recent repeal of rules previously mandated under a different FCC makeup known as the Open Internet Order. That part of the legislative course was expected, however, the rest of the path forward for Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Markey’s Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution is inauspicious to say the least, as its prospects for survival in the House and the president’s desk is very unlikely.

The CRA is a legislative maneuver that allows for an official disapproval of a decision mandated by a federal agency with just a simple majority. Democrats (including two Independents) have been campaigning for one more Republican to join their fellow party member Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and the coalition to tip the scale to 51 of the 100 Senators required. Despite the lack of any concessions, they didn’t need 51 because of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona’s absence, leading some to believe they may have taken advantage of the veteran lawmaker’s poor health.

Proponents of the CRA resolution say the 2015 rules are necessary for ensuring that broadband companies don’t throttle or block internet access, nor splice such services into different tiers of payment.

“The internet should be kept free and open like our highways, accessible and affordable to every American, regardless of ability to pay,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a statement, echoing recent statements made on the floor. “The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses.”

Despite such assertions, Democrats also know that regardless of the probability that Markey’s bill won’t go any further, it’s key for galvanizing voters ahead of the 2018 midterm and 2020 elections — especially since it’s a debate that has grown into hysterical proportions. Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii has said as much, stating that “it’s really important for those of us who care about net neutrality to mobilize for 2018.”

Petitioning the FCC and educating “friends via social media” is also important, “but in a representative democracy, the way to get policy changes is through elections,” the legislator continued.

Schumer used his political stature to do so once again during the opening remarks of the deliberation.

“I would urge Americans, average Americans, young people, old people, everyone in between, small businesses, e-mail, call, write, visit your senator on the Republican side and urge them to preserve net neutrality,” Schumer appealed. “It’s only right. It’s only fair, and it makes economic sense.”

netneutrality

‘OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES IS A BASIC DIGNITY’: FBI releases Pro-2nd Amendment statement warning of importance staying armed

Washington, D.C. (Western Journal) — Active shooter incidents are defined as any incident involving one or more individuals who are actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill those within a populated area — gang or drug-related shootings notwithstanding.

There were 50 active shooter incidents in 2016 and 2017 combined, leaving many to question if America is, in fact, safer when armed.

However, a recent investigation by the FBI in April showed that, in numerous incidents involving active shooters, there were people who stopped them by use of a weapon.

“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents,” read the report. “Their selfless actions likely saved many lives.

“The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

Ten active shooters had been confronted by citizens, and eight of them ended successfully, according to The Daily Caller. Four of those eight shooters were stopped by a lawfully armed citizen.

“In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting,” the report read.

Yet, in the wake of so many gun shootings and violence, the call for disarming American citizens remains.

According to Timothy Hsiao for The Federalist, it is not a matter of if guns increase violence, but if they are a good means of self-defense.

“What matters is not the risk (or lack thereof) that guns pose to society, but simply whether guns are a reasonable means of self-defense,” wrote Hsiao, adding that to defend one’s life is a basic dignity that cannot be taken away in the name of “social utility.”

“Rights function as moral ‘trump cards’ that override appeals to utility,” he said. “Like our right to life, our right to defend ourselves is a basic dignity that can’t be defeated just because it might produce a net benefit.”

In nearly all national survey estimates, the result saw that defensive gun uses by victims were nearly as common as offensive uses by criminals.

Though millions of Americans are legally permitted to carry firearms every day, most of them cite self-defense as the first and foremost reason to do so.

“The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger,” wrote Paul Hsieh for Forbes. “But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense.”

Any conversation, Hsieh added, that centers around firearm policy needs to acknowledge those that are saved by the legal use of guns and self-defense, such as those in the active shooter incidents.

“The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented,” he said, “Not criminals killed.”

Guns Legal Challenges

REPORT: Newest Mueller prosecutor donated to Hillary

Washington, D.C. (Daily Caller) — The latest addition to special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors contributed to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, according to federal campaign records.

Uzo Asonye, an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, is joining Mueller’s stable of prosecutors to work as local counsel on the case against Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman who has been indicted on money laundering and bank fraud charges.

Asonye worked at the firm O’Melveny & Myers before joining the U.S. attorney’s office in 2010. Asonye donated $900 to Clinton’s presidential campaign from January to April 2008, according to Federal Election Commission records. He has not donated to any other national political campaigns since then.

Asonye is just the latest Democrat to join Mueller’s team.

donated

 

REPORT: McCabe to sue Trump for wrongful termination, defamation

WASHINGTON, D.C. (The Daily Caller) — Andrew McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich told reporters Friday that the former FBI deputy director is planning on suing the Trump administration for wrongful termination and defamation.

Bromwich announced that McCabe will repurpose the more than $500,000 he raised through a GoFundMe campaign to his official legal defense fund and that the team will “file when [they are] ready.”

News broke Thursday that the Department of Justice inspector general had issued a criminal referral for McCabe to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia.

The IG said in a report provided to Congress that “McCabe lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions in connection with describing his role in connection with a disclosure to the WSJ.”

Former FBI Director James Comey, McCabe’s former direct superior, told CNN’s Jake Tapper Thursday that he likes McCabe “very much as a person but sometimes even good people do things they shouldn’t do,” comments Bromwich said he was “disappointed” to hear.

FULL STORY: http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/20/andrew-mccabe-to-sue-trump-wrongful-termination-defamation/

MCCABETRUMP

SHOWED THE DOOR: Man wearing ‘F**k Trump’ shirt booted from Texas restaurant to cheers of staff, fellow customers

GARLAND, TX — A man wearing an anti-Trump shirt was kicked out of a Texas restaurant Sunday much to the pleasure of fellow patrons (https://tinyurl.com/yagnwqln).

In a Facebook post that has since gone viral, Andy Ternay says he and his wife were escorted out of the First Watch Café on February 11 for wearing a shirt that read “FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM” on the front and “FUCK THE RACIST ALT-RIGHT” on the back after first being scolded by the restaurant’s manager.

“First, we were approached by a manager who let us know that customers were very distressed by my shirt and that children might see it,” Ternay recalled in the post. “I expressed deep sympathies and let her know that explaining ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’ and golden showers to my daughter was equally unpleasant.”

As Ternay and his wife were being seated, the manager again told him that a group nearby “was suffering due to my indescribable poor taste.”

Ternay says after initially placing their order and being served their drinks, the restaurant’s cook, who refused to serve him, approached his table and told him to leave.

Ternay went on to say that customers sitting at a nearby table, and many of the restaurant staffers, applauded as he exited the establishment.

Ternay remains unapologetic over his attire and wrote in his Facebook post that children should be able to handle reading the f-word.

“If your kids can’t handle the word ‘Fuck’ they are going to have a really tough time in this world,” he wrote.

The restaurant in question says they’ve received mostly positive responses to the controversy.

As for Ternay, he has since deleted the post (https://www.facebook.com/andy.ternay/posts/10156008781013898) citing a wealth of backlash.

fucktrumpshirt