Fear And Justice
The question is not who’s lying. They all are in one point way or another. The question is who decides to cut their losses first in the attempt to keep out of jail.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch denied that she instructed former FBI Director James Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation,” as Mr. Comey had claimed in 2017.
Mr. Comey had testified that Ms. Lynch instructed him to refer to the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server – a major issue in the 2016 presidential race – as a “matter,” rather than an investigation.
But Ms. Lynch told House investigators that’s not true.
“I did not,” she said in December 2018, according to a transcript from an interview with congressional investigators that was released on Monday. “I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will.”
Mr. Comey had testified to lawmakers in 2017 that Ms. Lynch directed him to call it a “matter” rather than an “investigation,” saying the request confused and concerned him.
“That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly,” he said, saying the language troubled him because it was similar to how the Clinton campaign was describing the case.
The White House sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler Monday afternoon informing him former White House Counsel Don McGahn will not be complying with a subpoena for testimony.
“At the President’s direction, the White House has been completely transparent with the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Special Counsel received more than 1.4 million documents and hours and hours of interviews from White House officials, including more than 30 hours from former Counsel to the President, Don McGahn. The Democrats do not like the conclusion of the Mueller investigation – no collusion, no conspiracy, and no obstruction – and want a wasteful and unnecessary do-over,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders released in a statement.
“The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to try and force Mr. McGahn to testify again. The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly,” she continued. “This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency.”
Shortly before the White House announcement, the Department of Justice issued a 15-page memo explaining the legal precedent for why the Trump administration is capable of keeping McGahn from testifying.
“We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisors to testify about their official duties. This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President’s independence from Congress,” the memo states, citing actions by former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and others. “The immunity of the President’s immediate advisors from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.”
In Other Words:
On Brexit and Mueller:
One of reasons why elections are a good thing is that they provide a mechanism for peaceful transitions without the losers being shot or put in jail. The fact that the losers in this election appear to have attempted to undermine the winners is an extremely bad precedent because it leads to the winners deciding to take it out on the losers next time around and that in turn leads to people not relinquishing power short of being turfed out with violence – see Venezuela and any number of Latin American, Central Asian and African dictatorships.
In fact allowing the losers to come up with one way after another to try and delegitimise an election they lost is bad on its own because the ability to “throw the bums out” is a key feature of democracy. If voters can’t trust that their votes will be respected they are likely to resort to other methods of expressing their displeasure with the current set of rulers and that is something that these rulers may come to regret. The good news is that the New AG seems to be doing his job and turning over any number of stones that various parties would have preferred remained unexamined.
It is unclear to me how many of the plotters will end up in the poor house or jail – sadly I suspect most will skate – which means that the distrust of government which fired up the Tea Party and the Trump campaign is not going to dissipate.
In a 2003 interview with New York Magazine, Comey said that before voting for Carter in 1980, he’d been a Communist. He admitted, “I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now.”
Former CIA Director John Brennan’s ties to communism are well known. Although I’ve never heard about James Comey being connected to communism, the words do come straight out of the horse’s mouth.
Just asking, does anyone else find it unnerving that America entrusted the CIA and the FBI to individuals who were, at one point, self-declared communists?
This disturbing bit of trivia comes to us from journalist Paul Sperry.
WTF?! Former FBI Director James Comey started out as a Communist like CIA Director John Brennan in the 1970s: "I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now," Comey told New York Magazine in 2003https://t.co/nwJyyKOnjZ
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) May 16, 2019
The author, Chris Smith, wrote that, “Comey has been savaged by William Safire and lauded by Chuck Schumer; just what kind of Republican is he, anyway?”
Comey apparently howled with laughter.
He explained, “In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”
Perhaps his “gradual” move away from communism had something to do with his chosen career path. It may have dawned on him that communist leanings might be a serious disqualifier when one is hoping for a career in government law enforcement, especially during the Cold War.
It shouldn’t really surprise that Obama would nominate former communists to two of the most important offices in the U.S. government. Underneath it all, Obama really is a socialist – who surrounded himself with other socialists like Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The Attorney General needles the Speaker of the House.
Today at a law enforcement ceremony at Capitol:
AG Barr approached Pelosi, shook her hand: "Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?"
Pelosi smiled and, per a bystander, told Barr the House Sergeant at Arms was there should an arrest be needed. Barr laughed; walked away
— Nicholas Fandos (@npfandos) May 15, 2019
Undoubtedly he had heard about this standard operational demoncrap-for-brains idea:
1. Career Prosecutor
Durham, 68, began his career as a Connecticut state prosecutor working from 1978 to 1982 in the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office.
A registered Republican, he next served in nonpolitical positions through 35 years in the U.S. District of Connecticut, based in New Haven.
From 1982 to 1989, Durham supervised the New Haven field office of the Boston Strike Force in the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. For the next five years, he was chief of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Haven.
From 1994 through 2008, he served as deputy U.S. attorney, and then, through 2017, as counsel to the U.S. attorney.
Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, appointed Durham as acting U.S. attorney for Connecticut in October 2017, and Trump nominated him for the post the next month. He took office in February 2018.
2. Busting Mafia-FBI Connection
In 1999, then-Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Durham to investigate corruption in federal law enforcement in Boston.
He examined whether two Boston mob figures, Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, had corrupted the FBI agents whom they served as informants.
Durham’s investigation led to a 10-year prison sentence for retired FBI agent John Connolly Jr., found guilty of helping the two gangsters avoid prosecution.
As part of this investigation, Durham produced documents showing four men had been framed by FBI agents and convicted of murder in the 1960s. Two died in prison, but two others won a $100 million civil judgment against the Justice Department.
3. Special Probes of CIA and Terror Detainees
In 2008, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Durham as a special prosecutor to conduct what turned into a three-year probe of the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. He didn’t recommend any prosecutions.
In an overlapping probe, then-Attorney General Eric Holder named him as a special prosecutor to investigate alleged mistreatment of terror suspects by CIA interrogators and government contractors.
The second probe came after the Justice Department released a report noting possible past abuse by CIA interrogators. Durham concluded by closing most of the cases, but called for continued inquiries into the deaths of two prisoners.
4. Devoted Catholic, Red Sox Fan
Despite handling high-profile cases, Durham typically keeps a low profile.
Earlier this year, according to The Day newspaper in New London, Connecticut Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Leonard C. Boyle noted the only reason that Durham would make a public speech to a crowd at the University of St. Joseph, a Roman Catholic school in West Hartford, Connecticut.
“Other than an overwhelming commitment to the cause of justice, the two great devotions of John’s life are his Catholic faith and his family,” Boyle said of Durham.
Durham and his wife Susan have four sons and eight grandchildren. He reportedly is a big Boston Red Sox fan.
The New Republic, a liberal magazine, wrote of Durham in 2011 that he “earned a nonpartisan, camera-shy, ‘white knight’ reputation.”
5. Public Corruption
Durham led some of the biggest public corruption cases in Connecticut.
Among them was the case of Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, a Republican who resigned in 2004 after federal prosecutors found he illegally took gifts from state contractors. Rowland pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for offenses committed as governor.
Durham also led an investigation of Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, a Democrat, who was convicted on racketeering and bribery charges in 2003. Ganim spent six years in prison.
6. Lauded by Democrats
Democrats recently excoriated Barr for even using the word “spy” to talk about actions by the Obama administration’s FBI and Justice Department against the Trump campaign before the presidential election in November 2016.
However, Democrats could have a difficult time in attacking Durham.
Confirmed as U.S. attorney in February 2018 by a voice vote in the Senate, he had gained praise from Democrats when Trump nominated him.
Among these admirers were two of Trump’s biggest critics, Connecticut’s two Democratic senators—Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. The two men had recommended Durham to serve as U.S. attorney.
“John Durham has earned immense respect as a no-nonsense, fierce and fair prosecutor, and we are pleased that the White House has agreed with our recommendation that he serve as United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,” a joint statement by Blumenthal and Murphy said. “As an Assistant United States Attorney, John Durham has proven himself time and time again in some of the most challenging and sensitive cases.”
It looks like Barr has found just such another case for Durham.
The Democrats have, evidently, no idea how to deal with this president, and their moral crusade against him is about to be swamped by the unmasking of the skullduggery and chicanery of the Clinton and Obama Democrats in 2016.
The last fact that the Democrats have not begun to deal with in the effort to unseat the president is his extraordinary success. The economic performance is phenomenal, and the pathetic attempts of President Obama to claim credit for the economic recovery, like his fatuities about “the magic wand,” will be mocked with vicious hilarity. The success of this president in proclaiming a border emergency and doing something about it will be noted.
The relationship between the Muslim community in America and the Marxist Democrats is commonly described as a marriage of convenience, where Muslims will ally with leftist politicians, who will joyfully yield some of their authority to this group of enforcers so principled conservative politicians and Christians who advocate sane social policies are kept out of office. To acquire power has always been the goal of the Democrat party.
While America is in hibernation, Muslim organizations with the help of Democrats have been busy, working “stealthily” to change America into what is called “soft jihad.” Soft jihad is practiced where Muslims are not strong enough to unsheathe the sword of jihad, where the true nature of Islam is exposed and when the public would likely stamp them out. A critical tool of soft jihad involves penetration of the American educational system, such as Da’wa, the religious duty of each Muslim to convert non-Muslims and strengthen the Islamic Ummah.
The Democrat Party has intentionally put America on a precarious path to lose its freedom and American values we have cherished for over 200 years. We, not only must accept, but be as vocal as we can to declare the current Democrat Party and enemy of our country. This party is no longer the party of Kennedy. It has become the greatest threat to our national security and our survival as a nation.
Clark County WA – The debate over a controversial gun control initiative has led to North County’s own homegrown group of Second Amendment hardliners as the North County Sons and Daughters of Liberty (NCSDL) are working to see resolutions passed in local governments.
The group formed following many members attending rallies by Vancouver-based Patriot Prayer, then eventually picking up steam on social media. Their primary rallying cry is opposition to I-1639.
The group most recently came to a Battle Ground City Council meeting on May 6, during which the council made an official statement on I-1639. The city approved by consensus the statement, which affirmed the role of the judicial branch of government on determining the constitutionality of laws in Washington state.
Currently, I-1639 has received a legal challenge by the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The initiative, which Washington voters passed in November, imposes restrictions on ownership of semi-automatic rifles ranging from age of purchase, interstate sales, mandating safety classes for purchases and regarding storage and liability on those firearms if used to commit a crime.
“I think we all pretty much expected it,” Shauna Walters, the chief organizer of NCSDL said about the statement, commenting on a previous meeting where the council had a discussion on the initiative. She said the statement wouldn’t slow down the group’s momentum, adding she felt if anything it empowered the group to keep working at getting people against I-1639.
Republicans have come a long way since 2012, when I ran Mitt Romney’s campaign in Ohio. President Barack Obama took an op-ed Romney had written with the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” four years earlier and used it to slam the GOP. Romney never had an answer to Obama’s attack depicting Romney as a heartless corporate raider who cared more about profits than people.
“When some wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on American workers, on the ingenuity of American companies,” Obama said in a Columbus speech in May of 2012. He was still at it in October: “[We] refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.” I had nightmares about that “bankrupt” headline; I couldn’t turn on a TV or pick up a newspaper without seeing Obama’s team relentlessly hammering that nail.
The gambit worked perfectly: Obama bested Romney by three points in Ohio, en route to winning a second term.
But four years later, Ohioans, like many other Midwestern voters, had soured on Democrats, with Trump owning Hillary Clinton by eight points. In fact, Trump’s margin of victory in Ohio was bigger than Georgia (5) and Arizona (3.5), states that pundits routinely think of as being redder than Ohio. And Trump’s work in the state will make it more likely than not that Trump will outperform any earlier poll that predicts a Democratic edge.
Washington, D.C. super-lawyers Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing have consistently been ahead of the news on the course of the unfolding scandal of spying on the Trump campaign and administration. Appearing last night on Lou Dobbs’s Fox Business Network show, the two law and marriage partners revealed that the DoJ inspector general has already concluded that the last three of four FISA warrants were illegally obtained.
Moreover, with the revelation from John Solomon that that “[n]ewly unearthed memos show a high-ranking government official who met with Steele in October 2016 determined some of the Donald Trump dirt that Steele was simultaneously digging up for the FBI and for Hillary Clinton‘s campaign was inaccurate, and likely leaked to the media,” Horowitz is re-opening the investigation into the legitimacy of the first of four FISA applications.
Joe Digenova shared the conclusion of the OIG report on FISA abuse today on @LouDobbs – because of the recently uncovered information from the FOIA release and John Solomon today, he is now having to add and investigate that. Thanks for the clip @detachedaz pic.twitter.com/e8ihB4h2Wr
— Tracybeanz (@tracybeanz) May 10, 2019
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Hours after House Judiciary Committee Democrats voted to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for withholding parts of the Mueller report, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the House Oversight Committee settled the 2012 contempt case against the DOJ.
The case, related to the “Fast and Furious” document subpoena demanded of Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder when Republicans held the majority, is now considered settled, since Democrats became the majority in the lower chamber and Elijah Cummings became Oversight Committee Chairman
According to court documents, settlement negotiations first began January 2017 during the 115th Congress. By March 7, 2018, the Justice Department and the Oversight Committee signed a conditional settlement agreement with certain conditions, which included that the court would vacate certain rulings at issue on remand. However, the court ruled last October that it would not vacate the rulings.
Following a subsequent lapse in appropriations for the DOJ and the election of Cummings as Chair, “the parties resumed settlement negotiations in early February 2019. The parties informed this Court on April 4, 2019, that they had ‘made substantial progress towards a negotiated solution.’”
The settlement agreement includes that the Oversight Committee “will take all necessary steps to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with prejudice in Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives v. Barr, No. 16-5078 (D.C. Cir.), marking the termination of all civil litigation between the parties arising out of the complaint filed by the Committee…”
I’m surprised they have any functioning brains cells.
This is all just more Democrat theater of the absurd.
House Democrats not getting their way is not a constitutional crisis. At some point the issue will land in court, and a court will determine whether the Executive Branch properly is withholding the material. Then more judges will rule on the appeal, and it will end up at the Supreme Court, in all likelihood.
If the Supreme Court rules that the material must be turned over, and if the administration defies that court ruling, then we have a crisis. I’m not sure it’s technically a constitutional crisis, because the constitution does not provide for judicial supremacy. But the norm since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 is that the judiciary’s interpretation of the law prevails.
Remember what is at issue. Congress has been offered the entire Mueller report except for grand jury material, which DOJ say it is prohibited from disclosing. Nothing in that slight percentage of grand jury material in the Mueller report changed Mueller’s conclusions, so it’s unlikely to be helpful to Democrats. Nadler and crew refused even to view the redactions related to classified material and ongoing investigations, which DOJ offered to provide for viewing. What Democrats want is not the grand jury material, but the ability to cry “constitutional crisis!” over being denied access.
At issue also are underlying investigation documents, which DOJ is not required to disclose (it didn’t even have to disclose the Mueller report), and would not normally be disclosed. Those files would contain unfiltered personal information about people, such as bank account and telephone records, and personal information about their lives. To turn that material over to the Democrats so it could leak within minutes would be the height of irresponsibility and would lead to the type of doxxing and savage internet and physical attacks we have seen #TheResistance carry out.
This is all part of the attempt to unwind the 2016 election. Trump and DOJ should play hardball, since Democrats are acting in bad faith.
Survivors of a Colorado school shooting walked out of a vigil for their slain classmate Wednesday night in protest of politicians and other groups using it as a platform for gun control, a local report said.
The students from STEM High School, where two gunmen killed a student and wounded eight others Tuesday, began yelling from the stands that they “wanted to be heard” after two politicians and pro-gun control advocates addressed the crowd, according to the local NBC affiliate, KUSA.
They then stormed out of the vigil after Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet and Democratic Congressman Jason Crow addressed the crowd, the Denver Post reported.
The kids chanted “Mental health” and hurled expletives at the media, according to the report.
The students returned, and some of them took the microphone, saying their grief was being used for political purposes.
“What has happened at STEM is awful. But it’s not a statistic. We can’t be used as a reason for gun control. We are people, not a statement,” one student said, according to video by KUSA.
Speaking of the lone fatality, 18-year-old Kendrick Castillo, another student added, “We wanted Kendrick to be mourned. We wanted all of you to join us in that mourning, but that was not allowed here. We all walked out. We were not kicked out.”
The vigil was organized by Team Enough, the student branch of gun control group the Brady Campaign.
I’d say he’s stupid and -obviously – ambitious, which is dangerous
Presidential hopeful and New Jersey U.S. Senator Cory Booker has made headlines recently for his list of wildly unconstitutional gun control proposals. At the top of his list is requiring a government license to buy and own a firearm.
To make his case, Sen. Booker argues that if one needs a license to drive a car, the same should be required to own a gun. What he misses is that unlike the privilege of driving a car on public roads, owning a firearm is a Constitutional right. A better analogy is requiring a license to exercise the right to freedom of speech or to practice one’s religion. Of course, then even he would have to admit that would constitute a dangerous threat to our rights as Americans.
Barriers to Rights
He is arguing that it is ok to set up barriers to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional right. As if requiring fees and photos and fingerprints will not necessarily prevent some from their right to protect themselves and their families is somehow acceptable, particularly those with less income and free time to spend in government lines. It wasn’t ok to require a poll tax for voting, why should it be ok to restrict the rights of citizens now?
So maybe he is just confused, and he hasn’t really thought this through. After all, why would he also be arguing for a return of the so-called “assault weapon ban” that did nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes, or for microstamping technology that doesn’t actually exist?
Perhaps if he actually wants to help ensure that those who should not have guns don’t get them, he should call for making sure all states and federal agencies submit their disqualifying records to the FBI’s background check database? Or help educate law-abiding citizens about options to safely store their firearms?
If he wants to know what policies actually work, we can help. The firearms and ammunition industry has real solutions for safer communities. And none of them require limiting any of the fundamental Constitutional rights we enjoy as U.S. citizens. Whether he is aware or not of how dangerous it is to toy with American freedoms, we hope he does his homework and supports actual solutions to the real problems in our country.
Meanwhile, if you are a firearms owner or anyone who cares about protecting the Constitution, you should be sure to register to vote
New Jersey senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker released a sweeping gun control plan today. Its most noteworthy aspect is a proposal that all prospective gun owners be required to obtain a federal license, which they’d have to renew every five years.
The plan also calls for bans on “assault weapons,” high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks (which President Donald Trump has already prohibited), as well as universal background checks and other measures.
Booker’s campaign compares buying a gun to driving a car, arguing that “just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain basic safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.” Under Booker’s system, anyone who wants a gun would have to prove he or she has passed a gun safety course. In addition to giving information on their background, applicants would also submit fingerprints.
If approved, prospective gun buyers would be issued a license. “The license would be valid for up to five years before renewal with regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms,” the proposal says. Under another part of the plan, no one would be able to buy more than one handgun a month, though this restriction presumably wouldn’t apply to rifles and shotguns.
Booker would essentially create a federal firearms registry, an idea that raises serious civil liberties concerns. As Reason‘s J.D. Tucille explained in December 2017:
We live in a world governed by officials who love exercising power to punish people they dislike. To put yourself on a registry of people who engage in activities, or own goods, that are even mildly controversial is to make yourself vulnerable to such officials. It identifies you as a target for such people, and outs you in a position to be singled out for special treatment.
Booker’s call for universal background checks is also notable. Federal law already requires a background check at the point of sale for people looking to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. But Booker wants to close the supposed “gun-show loophole,” which allows prospective buyers to obtain a gun from an unlicensed dealer without undergoing a background check. He also wants to end the so-called “Charleston loophole,” which got its name after a man murdered nine people in a Charleston church in 2015. The shooter was a prior offender, but his background check took longer than three days, meaning he was able to legally buy a gun.
Requiring universal background checks may sound great in theory, but it’s a bad idea in practice.As Reason‘s Jacob Sullum explains here, the requirement is impossible to enforce. It would also likely bar nonviolent offenders and people who admit to having had suicidal tendencies from buying a gun. And of course, truly violent criminals who obtain their guns illegally will probably just continue to do so.
As noted above, Booker also wants to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks. These platforms, particularly the first, are hallmarks of Democratic calls for gun control, despite the fact that the term “assault weapon” itself is really just a scary name for an arbitrary group of firearms. Banning high-capacity magazines, meanwhile, raises the question of what the government will do to ensure that people turn in the ones they already own.
Booker’s plan also takes aim at the gun industry. “Firearms are exempt” from federal regulations, his campaign claims, and this allegedly means “gun manufacturers have little incentive to make their products safer.” Booker “will work to close this loophole in federal oversight and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure gun safety by making safety warnings and issuing recalls for faulty firearms.” The candidate also wants firearm sellers and manufacturers to face civil liability for gun violence.
There are several other elements to Booker’s plan. It would, for example, “incentivize states” to pass laws making it easier for “family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals showing warning signs of hurting themselves or others.” These “red flag” bills have become law in some states, such as Colorado, and Reason‘s Sullum has explained why the process used to take away people’s guns based on their future behavior is rigged from the start.
You can read the Booker campaign’s full proposal here.
The attorney general’s testimony was clearly accurate.
I originally thought this was too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague inside the Beltway — one person catches it and next thing you know there’s an outbreak at MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic chickens around Capitol Hill.
So I give you: the Bill Barr perjury allegation.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. But are we entitled to our own facts? Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s bon mot says no, but Washington makes you wonder. Like when spleen-venting about the supposedly outrageous, unbelievable, disgraceful invocation of the word “spy” to describe episodes of government spying is instantly followed by a New York Times story about how the spying — er, I mean, court-authorized electronic surveillance — coupled with the tasking of spies — er, undercover agents — green-lighted by a foreign spy — er, intelligence service — was more widespread than previously known.
If I were a cynic, I’d think people were trying to get out in front of some embarrassing revelations on the horizon. I might even be tempted to speculate that progressives were trotting out their “Destroy Ken Starr” template for Barr deployment (which, I suppose, means that 20 years from now we’ll be reading about what a straight-arrow Barr was compared to whomever Democrats are savaging at that point).
The claim that Barr gave false testimony is frivolous. That is why, at least initially, Democrats and their media echo chamber soft-pedaled it — with such dishonorable exceptions as Mazie Horono, the Hawaii Democrat who, somehow, is a United States senator. It’s tough to make the perjury argument without any false or even inaccurate statements — though my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano did give it the old college try. As recounted by The Hill, he twisted himself into a pretzel, observing — try to follow this — that the attorney general “probably misled” Congress and thus “he’s got a problem” . . . although this purported dissembling didn’t really seem to be, you know, an actual “lie” so . . . maybe it’s not a problem after all. Or something.
I assume that in his black-robe days, Judge Nap would have known better. When meritless perjury cases are thrown out of court, judges are often at pains to explain that the questioner who elicited the purportedly false testimony bears the burden of clarity; the terms of the question dictate the evaluation of the answer. In this instance, Barr’s April 9 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee was true and accurate; if a misimpression set in after, it is because the relevant questioning by Representative Charlie Crist (D., Fla.) has been ignored or distorted.
The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way Barr’s March 24 letter described Mueller’s report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why Mueller was upset because he had received the latter’s March 27 letter complaining about Barr’s missive.
Out of the CCW permits I’ve had in 5 states, only three required ‘training’ and in one – Virginia – my military service counted.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — It will be up to Republican Gov. Bill Lee to decide whether Tennessee will start offering a concealed carry-only handgun permit that doesn’t require training that includes actually firing a weapon.
The Senate voted 18-11 Thursday for Republican Sen. John Stevens’ bill, which would allow online training of at least 90 minutes with a test to suffice for the new, less expensive permits. The current handgun carry permits would still remain an option, but Stevens contended that their eight-hour training requirement with live firing is time-consuming and burdensome.
The House already approved the bill, so it heads to the governor.
The proposal would be the highest profile gun rights change this year. Efforts died on several big pushes to loosen gun restrictions, including letting teachers carry guns and holding permit holders harmless if they mistakenly bring guns into businesses that ban them, then immediately leave when they find out they aren’t allowed.
LANSING, MI — Michigan gun owners could carry concealed weapons without a license, letting license-holders carry in gun-free zones and carry loaded weapons on off-road vehicles under Republican-sponsored bills pending in the state House.
With firearm legislation flying, the House Committee on Military, Veterans and Homeland Security took up two gun-related bills this week — one to decriminalize carrying a concealed pistol with an expired license, and another to allow residents to carry loaded rifles on their own property, including on off-road vehicles.
The bills aren’t formally linked, but fall into a general grouping from Republicans looking to expand gun rights and peel back regulations. The caucus named protecting second amendment rights as one of its top priorities this session.
Committee Chair Rep. Beau LaFave, R-Iron Mountain, said the bills are part of a broader effort to strengthen second amendment rights in Michigan, including a bills allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms without permission from the state, and allowing CPL holders to enter gun-free zones.
LaFave and a handful of other Republican representatives are co-sponsoring several bills similar to legislation that languished in the 2017-18 session. Most are pending in the House Judiciary Committee or Committee on Military, Veterans and Homeland Security.
LaFave said Michigan should be a “constitutional carry” state, a term referencing the Second Amendment right to bear arms. LaFave said the U.S. Constitution and Michigan Constitution clearly state government can’t abridge an individual’s right own firearms for self-defense.
There may be 20 different Democrats entering the presidential race, but all the primary candidates are coming together on one issue: restricting the Second Amendment.
Gun control has always been a complicated issue in the United States, with lawmakers on both sides trying to strike the balance between keeping Americans safe and not trampling their right to bear arms and defend themselves from tyrants.
But if recent policies have any indication on Democrats’ intentions, the candidates have stopped their consideration for the rights of gun owners. Here are six ways — big and small — that 2020 Democrats plan to strip gun owners of their access to firearms.
Harris’ executive power grab
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) promised that she wouldn’t wait for Congress to target the rights of gun owners. Instead, she revealed her plan to allow Congress 100 days to “get their act together” on passing gun control laws before she takes over with executive power.
Warren’s no-fly, no-buy
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was the first to come out of the gate and call for “no-fly, no-buy” legislation that would prevent those included on the Department of Homeland Security’s terror watchlist from purchasing a weapon.
Following the horrific mosque shootings in New Zealand, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for the U.S. to follow in the footsteps of the New Zealand government and impose a mandatory buyback program on semi-automatic weapons.
Beto’s AR-15 sales ban
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) has tried to walk the line of protecting gun owner rights while appeasing the gun control crowd in the Democratic primary, which has led to some confusing policy stances.
Booker’s imaginary loopholes
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) left some scratching their heads when he announced his plan to end gun violence in the United States by making laws that already exist. During a CNN town hall, Booker explained that he would close the “loopholes” that allow domestic abusers or other violent criminals to get guns.
Swalwell’s prison promise
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) made gun control the cornerstone of his campaign and has vowed to implement a New Zealand-style gun ban if he becomes president. However, he set himself apart from other 2020 Democrats by promising to lock up gun owners who would refuse to comply with his takeover of the Second Amendment.
It was the best of Trump, it was the worst of Trump…
If you listen to Democrats, both elected and in the media, President Donald Trump is both a diabolical monster worthy of being a character on Game of Thrones, and a bumbling moron who wears slip-on shoes because he’s incapable of tying a successful knot. On which side of that scale he falls depends on the day and what they need him to be.
Donald Trump, of course, can’t be both. No one could be. But leftists treat him as both in an attempt to convince people of just how unstable or dangerous he is. In the end, they expose just how unstable and dangerous they are.
Did you know that the president of the United States is, perhaps, the world’s greatest anti-Semite? It’s true, it was on MSNBC and CNN so it must be.
He’s sending “dog whistle” messages to “his base” to inspire hatred, which occasionally boils over to attacks on synagogues. He’s just like Hitler, using hate and coded messages into the world as a wink to horrible people to let them know he’s on their side.
He’s also a suck-up to Israel, somehow. When he moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, something Israel wanted for years and presidents promised for just as long, he did it out of hate, or something. The same is true for when he recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, it just has to be.
Were you also aware of the fact that Donald Trump is a bumbling moron? It has to be true, I read it in the papers. He’s so clueless and incompetent that it’s only a matter of time before everything around him collapses and our very democracy is destroyed.
He’s also a mastermind who managed to collude with a foreign adversary to manipulate the results of the 2016 election, yet managed to leave zero evidence of this collusion. A two year, $25 million investigation with no limits by experienced prosecutors was able to find nothing, not one bit of evidence, he’s that good…somehow.
Did you know he’s an economic illiterate as well? His economic policies will lead to massive job losses and a recession, if not a full-blown depression. People are going to be made to suffer as this bankruptcy machine moves like a drunken bull in a china shop through our economy.
He’s so incompetent, in fact, that we’re experiencing economic growth on a scale the people accusing him of incompetence swore to us was impossible before he took office. Being near full employment, with real wages increasing at a rate unseen during the entirety of the administration of Barack Obama is just a distraction from the reality that people don’t have any idea how bad they really have it.
As far as unemployment goes, these amazingly low numbers only came about as a result of the policies of Barack Obama. Eight years of stagnation and backsliding under Obama only happened because of the policies of George W. Bush. After nearly a decade of “recovery summers,” and only once he left office and many of his policies and regulations were repealed, did Obama become responsible for the economy. The Trump tax cuts were just a payoff to rich whitey, the record low black and Hispanic unemployment rate that followed is a trick, a distraction from the president’s obvious racism against those very same groups of people who’ve never seen numbers like this.