Some Americans have exceptionally strong feelings about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and have engaged in various forms of protest to make their stance on the situation publicly known.

Few, if any, have acted in as extreme a manner as Aaron Bushnell, 25, the U.S. Air Force Airman who committed suicide via self-immolation in protest outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. on Sunday, according to NBC News.

Shouting "Free Palestine" as he burned, it was U.S. Secret Service agents who first arrived on the scene and extinguished the flames that engulfed Bushnell's body before local D.C. firefighters and paramedics showed up moments later to try unsuccessfully to save the man's life.

Secret Service first to respond

Newsweek reported that it obtained a copy of the public incident report from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department which revealed that at around 1 pm Sunday, the Secret Service Uniformed Division "received a distress call regarding an individual exhibiting signs of mental distress outside the Israeli embassy."

The report continued, "Before the Secret Service officers could engage, the individual, referred to as Subject-1 (SUB-1), doused himself with an unidentified liquid and set himself on fire."

"The Secret Service officers promptly intervened, extinguishing the flames before the arrival of the fire department. SUB-1 was subsequently transported to a local hospital due to the burns sustained from the incident," the report added. "Despite all lifesaving efforts, Sub-1 died and was pronounced dead by Dr. Hui Zheng at 2006 hours."

"About to engage in an extreme act of protest"

Just before his fatal act of self-immolation as an act of protest, according to Newsweek, Bushnell filmed himself as he walked toward the Israeli Embassy in D.C. and said, "My name is Aaron Bushnell, I am an active-duty member of the United States Air Force, and I will no longer be complicit in genocide."

"I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal," he added.

As he arrived in front of a gated driveway outside the embassy, Bushnell, wearing his military fatigues, set his camera on the ground, doused himself in a flammable liquid, then lit himself on fire, shouting "Free Palestine" a few times as he staggered around before ultimately collapsing to the concrete.

It was likely less than a minute later that Secret Service agents showed up with fire extinguishers to put out the flames, but the mortal damage had likely already been done and, as the D.C. police incident report revealed, Bushnell was pronounced dead at the hospital a few hours later.

Bushnell's commander expressed "deepest sympathies" to family and friends following "tragedy"

According to the Air & Space Forces Magazine, Bushnell was originally from Whitman, Massachusetts, and first enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in May 2020. He had achieved the rank of Senior Airman and had several service awards and medals to his credit.

He was reportedly stationed at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas as part of the 531st Intelligence Support Squadron, where he worked as a "cyber defense operations specialist" assigned to the 70th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing.

"When a tragedy like this occurs, every member of the Air Force feels it," 70th ISR Wing Commander Col. Celina Noyes said in a statement. "We extend our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Senior Airman Bushnell. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, and we ask that you respect their privacy during this difficult time."

The incident is reportedly being jointly investigated by local D.C. police, the Secret Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Reality television star Porsha Williams has filed for divorce from Simon Duobadia.

People magazine reports that Williams filed the divorce paperwork on Thursday at a court in Atlanta, Georgia.

Per the outlet:

Porsha Williams and Simon Guobadia's marriage is coming to an end over a year after they tied the knot. The "Real Housewives of Atlanta" alum filed for divorce from Guobadia on Thursday in Atlanta, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE.

The divorce comes roughly 15 months after Williams and Duobadia got married.

Background

Williams and Duobadia tied the knot in November 2022, after a very brief courtship.

"Guobadia proposed to Williams in May 2021 after publicly dating for just one month, and the betrothal was not without its controversy, as Guobadia had been previously married to Williams’ friend and co-star Falynn Pina," Page Six reports.

Williams, at the time, attempted to defend the quick engagement.

"Yes we are crazy in love. I know it's fast but we are living life each day to its fullest. I choose happiness every morning and every night," she wrote on social media.

In November 2022, Williams and Guobadia got married twice. The first wedding, according to People, was "a Nigerian traditional native law and custom ceremony," while the second was "an American ceremony in Atlanta."

Why the divorce?

This question has yet to be answered. But, it is well-known that there have been a lot of cheating allegations made.

"Not long after Williams and Guobadia became engaged, the businessman accused Falynn of cheating on him," Page Six reports. The outlet adds, "A month prior, Guobadia attempted to shoot down rumors that he had cheated on both Falynn and Williams by offering $50,000 in cash to anyone with credible proof of his infidelity."

Still, it is unclear whether stuff like this has anything to do with the divorce filing. Williams did post a social media message on Sunday - just days after filing the divorce - in which she thanked her fans for their support. She wrote, "Thank you for your prayers & support [broken-heart emoji and prayer emoji] – PW."

Guobadia also posted a social media message of his own. Page Six reports, "Guobadia . . . posted a series of photos of himself seemingly unfazed while hanging by his pool . . . wrot[ing], “Enthusiastically welcoming Spring. Happy Saturday."

It would appear that the divorce is affecting Williams more than Guobadia. But, of course, there is a possibility that this is just what Guobadia wants people to believe.

Business Insider just published a report identifying seven possible individuals who could replace President Joe Biden in the 2024 general election. 

The outlet also notes some of the pros and cons of each candidate.

This most recent speculation about Biden's replacement has been ignited by Special Counsel Robert Hur's report. Hur found that Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen."

Yet, Hur chose not to charge Biden, because, in the special counsel's opinion, a jury would be unlikely to find Biden guilty given that he is "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." It is this line, in particular, that has set off the latest Biden replacement talk.

The seven possibilities

The seven candidates whom Business Insider says are most likely to replace Biden are: Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D), Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D), U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

You, the reader, may notice that there is a big name missing from this list, namely, Michelle Obama.

One of the most popular theories right now is that the former first lady will be the one who will, at some point, replace Biden. Obama has claimed that she has no interest in doing so, but this has not stopped the rumors.

Business Insider did not explain why it chose not to put Obama on its list. Surely, she is a more likely candidate than many of the names on the outlet's list, such as Cooper, Moore, Klobuchar, and Booker.

Regardless, we'll focus on the candidates that the outlet did include.

The replacements

Many would consider Newsom to be near the top of the list of candidates to replace Biden. Business Insider reports:

California is often used as a foil by national Republicans to contrast with the conservative policies of states like Florida and Texas. But Newsom has been outspoken in not only promoting the Golden State, but touting Democratic policy stances and legislative wins – and he’s not afraid to take his arguments straight to the Republican Party.

Newsom, for his part, has insisted that he will not run for the presidency in 2024. Instead, he says that he will focus on getting Biden reelected. His biggest problem is that California is not exactly thriving under his leadership.

Whitmer is another individual who frequently is mentioned in Biden replacement talks. Business Insider reports:

In a potential field without Biden, Whitmer’s Midwestern background, strong alliance with organised labour, and moderate appeal could make her a strong contender. But she would also be a new face in a contest that will likely feature Trump on the Republican side.

The last big name we'll look at is Harris. Her biggest problem, of course, is that Americans do not like her. This has been demonstrated in poll after poll.

This all helps to highlight one of the likely reasons why Biden has yet to be replaced - the Democrats simply do not have a whole lot of strong national candidates.

Former President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith's case ought to be dismissed. 

They made the argument, according to Breitbart, in several different motions that they filed with the court on Thursday. Each of the motions is an independent ground for dismissal.

This is all part of the case that Smith brought against Trump in Florida, arguing that the former president illegally mishandled classified documents when he left the White House. Smith also accuses Trump of trying to obstruct his investigation of the matter.

Trump has pled "not guilty," and he has maintained that Smith is politically motivated - that Smith is essentially running "election interference" for President Joe Biden, considering that Trump and Biden are likely to square off, once again, in the upcoming general election.

An unlawful appointment

Among other things, Trump's legal team is arguing that Smith was unlawfully appointed to his special counsel role by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

"The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action," Trump's attorneys wrote.

The attorneys went on to insist that this "is a serious problem for the rule of law."

In addition to this, Trump's legal team is also arguing that there is no statute that allows for the establishment of Smith's Office of Special Counsel.

This is another reason why Trump's lawyers claim that Smith's prosecution of Trump is unlawful.

A politically motivated prosecution

Trump's lawyers are also arguing that Biden's use of Smith to prosecute his political opponent is a violation of the Appropriations Clause.

"President Biden’s DOJ is paying for this politically motivated prosecution of Biden’s chief political rival ‘off the books,’ without accountability or authorization,” Trump's team writes.

They continued, “Rather than funding the Special Counsel’s Office through the ordinary budget process, Jack Smith is drawing on a permanent indefinite appropriation that, by its terms and under the Reno Regulations, is not available to Special Counsel. Thus, Smith’s funding violates the Appropriations Clause."

These are just some of the many motions that Trump's lawyers filed this past week. Not all of them have been made public.

The judge, at the time of this writing, has yet to rule on any of the motions. Currently, the trial is set to begin towards the end of May.

Naomi Biden, the daughter of Hunter Biden and granddaughter of President Joe Biden, was reportedly living at the White House for at least several months in 2022.

It now appears that Naomi fled the White House to reside elsewhere in Washington D.C. at some unspecified point last year, as was revealed by an incident involving her U.S. Secret Service protective detail and a couple of since-arrested would-be carjackers, The New York Sun reported.

Court filings related to the arrests earlier this month of two teenage thieves appear to confirm the speculation that first arose during the incident involving Secret Service agents in November last year.

Naomi lived in the White House "for a few months" in 2022

In November 2022, The Hill reported that Naomi Biden confirmed in an interview that she and her then-fiancé, now husband Peter Neal, had moved into the White House several months earlier in preparation for their big wedding event on the South Lawn of the presidential residence.

Biden and Neal, along with their dog, had asked the president and first lady if they could stay at the White House "for a few months" after their lease on a D.C. apartment had expired earlier in 2022.

The outlet noted that it is not at all uncommon for extended family members of a president and first lady to live in the executive mansion, at least temporarily, and notably, the parents and mother of former first ladies Melania Trump and Michelle Obama, respectively, did indeed live in the White House alongside their daughters, sons-in-law, and grandchildren at different points in time.

Secret Service incident reveals Naomi no longer resides in White House

It is unclear when, exactly, Naomi Biden and her husband moved out of the White House, though that appears to have occurred before a November 2023 theft incident involving a Secret Service vehicle used by members of Naomi's protective detail, according to an NBC News report at that time.

The incident reportedly occurred outside Naomi's Georgetown residence and involved two to three unknown individuals who were caught in the act of breaking into the Secret Service vehicle, during which they allegedly stole several items and fled the scene when confronted, nearly running over one of the agents and prompting them to fire at least one round from their service weapon.

At the time, an agency spokesman said, "There was no threat to any protectees and the incident is being investigated by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the Secret Service."

Two teenage thieves arrested and charged

According to the BBC, two teenagers have since been arrested in connection with that theft, including Robert Kemp, 19, on Feb. 7, and an unnamed 14-year-old juvenile, who was taken into custody on Feb. 16.

Kemp had been found in possession of a stolen vehicle, believed to be the car in which the thieves fled months earlier, that contained several items stolen from the Secret Service vehicle, a black Ford Expedition SUV, including night-vision goggles and a protective vest, among other things.

Kemp, who has been released from custody and is due back in court next week, was charged with theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle, while the unnamed 14-year-old juvenile -- who was identified by way of a GPS ankle monitor he was wearing at the time and is suspected of involvement in a ride-share carjacking ring -- faces at least three counts of armed carjacking.

Why does Naomi Biden have Secret Service protection?

Both the BBC and The NY Sun noted that carjackings in the nation's capital have surged to record highs over the past few years, even as crime generally has been trending downward across much of the country.

As for the Secret Service protective detail for President Biden's granddaughter, while not unheard of, is not typical for extended members of the president's family, and may be due to her outspoken activities on social media in defense of her father and grandfather that has likely resulted in some threats against her from their political opponents.

The Alabama Supreme Court just issued a major ruling on the sanctity of life for unborn babies and, quite predictably, Democrats are freaking out and casting blame for the decision on former President Donald Trump.

Alabama's high court ruled that frozen embryos created by in vitro fertilization count as "unborn children" under the state's law and, as such, anyone who destroys those frozen embryos can be held liable for the wrongful death of a child, CNN reported.

The decision sparked instant outrage from the left, including blame for Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as furious invective toward pro-life Christians and overly dire predictions about the potentially grim and far-reaching consequences and repercussions of the court's determination.

Frozen embryos constitute protected human life, court says

At issue in the case was an incident in December 2020 in which the frozen embryos of three sets of would-be parents were destroyed in a Mobile fertility clinic when a patient supposedly removed them from the cryogenic storage facility but dropped them on the floor after suffering freezer burns on their hands.

The parents sued for wrongful death under a particular state law but lost at the district court level, as that court declared that the "cryopreserved, in vitro embryos involved in this case do not fit within the definition of a 'person' or 'child.'"

Yet, on appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded that decision back to the district court after the justices determined that "extrauterine children," or unborn babies "located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed," are considered to be "children" under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor law that allows parents to file punitive lawsuits when their children are killed.

The court's majority observed that unborn children -- whether located inside or out of the womb -- have a right to life, and Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote in a concurring opinion, "The People of Alabama have declared the public policy of this State to be that unborn human life is sacred. We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness."

Anti-religious leftists lose their minds

The CNN article shared numerous quotes from critics of the ruling who issued dire warnings about the potential ramifications that will stem from the Alabama Supreme Court's determination that frozen embryos constitute a protected human life.

That includes claims that clinics, doctors, and even would-be parents will now be too afraid of potential civil liability to move forward with IVF pregnancies, and assertions that the same will never be able to discard unused or even unviable frozen embryos, but rather will be forced to store them in perpetuity for generations to come so as to avoid a possible lawsuit if the embryo is ever destroyed.

None of what was in the CNN article compared, however, to the over-the-top hyperbole of MSNBC columnist Sarah Posner, who decried the Alabama ruling as a "terrifying preview" of what was to come in a nationwide "theocratic dystopia" if former President Trump was re-elected to another term, in that he and his allies would seek to impose a form of strict "Christian nationalism" of the sort that she insisted was exemplified by the expressed religious faith of the Alabama justices in the ruling.

In her fever dream, the columnist envisioned not just the imminent end of IVF pregnancies across the country, but also efforts to outlaw all forms of contraception, not to mention "sweeping anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ policies," if not forced Christianity for all, regardless of their particular religious or secular beliefs.

Biden denounces Alabama embryo ruling

Even President Joe Biden got in on the act with a statement that said, "Today, in 2024 in America, women are being turned away from emergency rooms and forced to travel hundreds of miles for health care, while doctors fear prosecution for providing an abortion. And now, a court in Alabama put access to some fertility treatments at risk for families who are desperately trying to get pregnant.

"The disregard for women’s ability to make these decisions for themselves and their families is outrageous and unacceptable," he continued. "Make no mistake: this is a direct result of the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

"I know that folks are worried about what they’re seeing happening to women all across America. I am too. I hear about it everywhere I go," Biden added. "My message is: The Vice President and I are fighting for your rights. We’re fighting for the freedom of women, for families, and for doctors who care for these women. And we won’t stop until we restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state."

In 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, there were warnings issued at the time that the decision could perversely lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against individuals with sincere religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality.

Those warnings appeared to be prescient, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in a statement Tuesday about a case involving two prospective jury members who were dismissed from the pool due to their Christian beliefs from a legal dispute involving a lesbian plaintiff, the Washington Examiner reported.

The high court did not take up a challenge involving the two Christian jurors dismissed from service because of their faith, but Alito nonetheless used the opportunity to reiterate his concerns about the real-world repercussions of the court's prior decision nine years earlier.

Jurors dismissed from case due to Christian beliefs

The case in question is Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, which sprung from a lawsuit involving plaintiff Jean Finney, a lesbian, who alleged that her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, had wrongfully discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

During the jury selection process in district court for that lawsuit, Finney's attorney questioned the prospective jurors on whether they were Christian and held the belief that homosexuality was a sin, then moved for the judge to dismiss from the jury pool three members who replied affirmatively about their sincere religious beliefs in terms of homosexuality.

The state appealed on the grounds that the prospective jurors had been discriminated against because of their religious faith, but an appeals court upheld the dismissals on the parsed explanation that they were rejected for their beliefs about homosexuality -- and the assumption that, as such, they couldn't be impartial and unbiased toward the lesbian plaintiff, even as the jurors insisted otherwise -- and not because of their Christian faith more generally.

The "holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated" in 2015 ruling

On Tuesday, as part of a lengthy orders list issued following a Supreme Court conference, Justice Alito included a five-page statement near the end that raised his concerns about what had occurred with the dismissal of the Christian jurors.

"I agree that we should not grant certiorari in this case, which is complicated by a state-law procedural issue," Alito wrote. "But I write because I am concerned that the lower court’s reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come."

"In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian," he continued. "That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges, namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government."

"The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid that this admonition is not being heeded by our society," the conservative jurist added.

"Fundamental rights" must be respected, especially by the judiciary

Justice Alito went on to address the relevant background information and specially called out the "tricky" question about religious beliefs from Finney's attorney that "conflated two separate issues: whether the prospective jurors believed that homosexual conduct is sinful and whether they believed that
gays and lesbians should not enjoy the legal rights possessed by others."

"Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case," he continued. "The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws."

"When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights," the conservative jurist asserted.

"I would vote to grant review in this case were it not for the fact that the Court of Appeals concluded that the Department of Corrections did not properly preserve an objection to dismissal of the two potential jurors and, thus, that their dismissal was reviewable under state law only for plain error," Alito concluded. "Because this state-law question would complicate our review, I reluctantly concur in the denial of certiorari."

President Joe Biden, both with and without the approval of Congress, has all but emptied the U.S. military's armories and coffers in his bid to support Ukraine in its desperate battle to fend off the Russian invasion that began in February 2022.

Now the U.S. Army's Europe and Africa Command is warning that it will essentially go broke within a few months if House Republicans don't agree to pass the latest foreign aid package devised by the Senate, about $60 billion of which is earmarked for the Ukraine conflict, the Daily Mail reported.

The stunning admission not only provides a glimpse of how dangerously depleted the U.S. military's budget and stockpiles have become due to Biden's insistent support of the Ukrainian war effort but is also the latest example of the guilt-tripping and fear-mongering that the administration and political establishment have resorted to as a means to browbeat hesitant lawmakers into voting for even more taxpayer-funded aid for Ukraine.

Funding set to run out within months for key U.S. Army command

CNN reported that while Congress and the White House continue to bicker over a stalled $95 billion foreign aid package, about $60 billion of which is earmarked for Ukraine, the U.S. Army's Europe and Africa Command has spent around $430 million of its own budget to continue Ukraine-related assistance and training since the beginning of the fiscal year in October 2023.

Now one unnamed senior Army official has warned that without a full 2024 defense budget or any supplemental funding for Ukraine, the command only has around $3 billion available to cover upwards of $5 billion in costs for both normal activities and operations as well as its Ukraine-related expenditures -- and that funding could completely run out in just a few more months.

"If we don’t get a base budget, if we don’t get Ukraine supplemental [funding package], if the government shuts down, if we get nothing else and nothing changes from today," the anonymous official cautioned, "we will run out of [operations and maintenance] funding in May."

Another unnamed official from the Army command suggested that, if operational funds weren't shifted from lower-priority projects within the budget to cover for the Ukraine-related efforts, "We would cease to exist."

Army will be forced to "rob Peter to pay Paul" if Congress doesn't act

CNN further reported that Army Sec. Christine Wormuth, the senior civilian leader tasked with governing the military branch's annual budget, told the outlet that the Army will be forced to "sort of rob Peter to pay Paul" if Congress -- meaning House Republicans -- don't rapidly approve this year's annual defense budget or the supplemental foreign aid package, two-thirds of which is destined to be spent on Ukraine in some form or fashion.

"Every incremental dollar I have, it’s very important where I put that dollar. And I’m constantly choosing between, do we put it on barracks? Do I put it on enlistment incentives? Do I put it on exercises? Do I put it on modernization? I don’t have spare cash to be just sort of donating some of that," she said, and added, "This was money that we anticipated to be replenished, obviously, by the supplemental."

The unnamed senior Army official also ramped up his fear-mongering by speculating about the broader consequences of Congress failing to approve the funding that President Biden and others have demanded. They warned, "It’s all interconnected. And what we’re doing in one space is impacting us everywhere. We renege on this stuff -- you don’t think China’s watching out there in the Pacific? You don’t think that’s going to have direct impacts on the Pacific? … Russia is definitely watching."

How much has already been spent -- and will be spent -- on Ukraine support

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, as of the end of FY2023 last October, the U.S. has spent at least $75.4 billion on aid to Ukraine since February 2022 -- including at least $46.3 billion in military-related assistance, $26.4 billion in financial assistance, and $2.7 billion in humanitarian aid, though that only counts what has been expended through appropriations bills and doesn't necessarily include all of the U.S. funding that has benefited Ukraine over the past two years.

As for this latest $95 billion supplemental funding package, of which around $60 billion is set to support Ukraine, the Associated Press reported that roughly half of that is earmarked to fund the purchase of weapons and munitions for Ukraine or to support additional military training and intelligence sharing, while around $10 billion is destined to help fund Ukraine's government operations and support the nation's private sector.

It was also noted that roughly one-third of the total amount for Ukraine wouldn't directly go to that embattled nation at all, but rather would be spent here in the U.S. to help replenish the depleted stockpiles of weapons, ammunition, and equipment that were previously sent to Ukraine via congressional legislation or unilaterally through President Biden's drawdown authority.

Biden himself got in on the action of attempting to shame House Republicans into agreeing to support the latest legislative package, as he told reporters on Monday, "They’re making a big mistake not responding," and added, "Look, the way they’re walking away from the threat of Russia, the way they’re walking away from NATO, the way they’re walking away from meeting our obligations, it’s just shocking. I mean, they’re wild. I’ve never seen anything like this."

President Joe Biden's White House once considered firing U.S. Homeland Security Secretary (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas.

According to a new report from the New Yorker, the White House considered firing Mayorkas in the spring of 2023 in an attempt to appease critics of the administration's mishandling of the southern border crisis. The firing, though, never happened.

Now, it might be Congress that gives Mayorkas the boot, as he was just recently impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives.

But, it remains unclear whether the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate will vote to remove him from office.

The details

The New Yorkers' source is "three administration officials."

"[A]ccording to three Administration officials, during a White House meeting in late spring, Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, raised the possibility of firing Mayorkas, just to reset the Administration’s message," the outlet reports.

It appears, however, that Klain disputes this reporting. He told the outlet, "I never suggested firing Secretary Mayorkas. I consider Ali a friend and a dedicated public servant."

Another revelation from the New Yorker is that the Biden administration stopped Mayorkas from publicly referring to the southern border crisis as a "crisis."

"The White House had instructed Mayorkas to avoid using the word 'crisis in his public appearances, but it was obvious to most observers that there was one," the outlet reports.

Will Mayorkas be removed from office?

The U.S. House of Representatives, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), voted to impeach Mayorkas last Tuesday. He was specifically impeached for failing to uphold America's immigration laws.

America has seen record levels of illegal immigration, via the U.S.-Mexico border, during the administration of Biden. And, it is only expected to continue, as there is no sign that the federal government is doing anything to secure the border.

Fox, in January, reported, "December broke records for migrant encounters at the southern border, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed on Friday, as it released numbers showing that there were a record 302,000 migrant encounters at the southern border."

With regard to Mayorkas, the question now is how the U.S. Senate is going to handle the matter. While the House can impeach, it is the Senate that gets the ultimate say in terms of removal.

The Senate is currently in the hands of the Democrats and, specifically, U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY). Thus, if Schumer does decide to hold an impeachment trial, Mayorkas would be expected to be acquitted.

According to a new poll, more Americans believe that former President Donald Trump will win the 2024 general election than believe that President Biden will win. 

The poll comes from the Economist and YouGov.

The pollster surveyed 1,671 U.S. Adult Citizens between Feb. 11 and Feb. 13, 2024. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll covered a wide variety of topics, but, here, we will focus on the 2024 general election questions.

Trump will win

Among the questions that pollsters asked participants is this:

Regardless of who you prefer, who do you think would win the presidential election if Joe Biden were the Democratic candidate and Donald Trump were the Republican candidate?

This is certainly not your typical 2024 general election hypothetical. Rather, the pollster is asking the participant to put his or her personal preference aside and to evaluate the current state of the race for the presidency.

Participants were given three options: Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and "Not sure." Trump came out on top with a 45% plurality. Biden came in second with 34%. And, "not sure" came in third with 21% of the vote.

In other words, it appears 45% are convinced that Trump will win the election, 34% are convinced that Biden will win, and 21% still believe that the election could go either way.

Something worth highlighting is that Trump received the overwhelming support of his party, namely 84%, whereas Biden only got 73% support from his party. Perhaps even more significant, though, is that Trump received from independents more support than Biden: 45% to 21%.

It's a tie

The pollster also asked the more typical question, that is, "If an election for president were going to be held now and the Democratic nominee was Joe Biden and the Republican nominee was Donald Trump, would you vote for Joe Biden, Donald Trump, 'Other,' 'Not sure,' 'I would not vote?'"

The result was a tie with both Biden and Trump receiving 44 percent of the vote. 6% went to "other," 4% to "Not sure," and 3% to "I would not vote."

Here, Trump, once again, won the support of the independents: 45% for Trump compared to 27% for Biden.

Currently, Real Clear Politics' poll aggregator has Trump beating Biden in the 2024 general election by, on average, 1.1 percentage points.

Although Trump, in recent months, has been beating Biden in the vast majority of hypothetical 2024 polls, there are some outliers - including one from Quinnipiac University that has Biden up by 6 percentage points - that have kept Trump from pulling away from Biden.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts