Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say local police who do not enforce gun control measures likely to pass in Virginia should face prosecution and even threats of the National Guard.
After November’s Virginia Legislature elections that led to Democrats taking control of both chambers, the gun control legislation proposed by some Democrats moved forward, including universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, and a red flag law.
Legal firearm owners in the state, however, joined with their sheriffs to form Second Amendment sanctuary counties, which declare the authorities in these municipalities uphold the Second Amendment in the face of any gun control measure passed by Richmond.
Over 75 counties in Virginia have so far adopted such Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in the commonwealth, the latest being Spotsylvania County. The board of supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution declaring that county police will not enforce state-level gun laws that violate Second Amendment rights.
Virginia Democratic officials, however, already say local law enforcement supporting these resolutions will face consequences if they do not carry out any law the state Legislature passes.
“I would hope they either resign in good conscience, because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they’re prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath,” Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”
Democratic Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin suggested cutting off state funds to counties that do not comply with any gun control measures that pass in Richmond.
“They certainly risk funding, because if the sheriff’s department is not going to enforce the law, they’re going to lose money. The counties’ attorneys offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down,” he said.
McEachin also noted that Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary.
“And ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” he said. “That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring blamed the numerous Second Amendment resolutions in the state on the “gun lobby” as a tactic to frighten state residents.
“The resolutions that are being passed are being ginned up by the gun lobby to try to scare people. What we’re talking about here are laws that will make our communities and our streets safer,” Herring told CBS 6.
As our viewers are aware, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince drafted an Amicus Brief in Commonwealth v. Hicks on behalf of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Firearm Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”) and Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), resulting in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issuing a monumental decision on May 31, 2019, wherein it held, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that the mere display of a firearm did not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As the Court explicitly held that its decision was rendered pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 (in addition to the 4th Amendment) and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn the PA Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution, it was expected that the case was over.
However, as we previously discussed, on August 16, 2019, the Commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can find a copy of the Commonwealth’s Petition for Certiorari here and Mr. Hick’s response here. The Petition and Mr. Hick’s response were considered during the December 6, 2019 conference and on December 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s request to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision; thereby leaving in place the decision by the PA Supreme Court that the mere open carrying or display of a firearm, in and of itself, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
If you or someone you know has had their constitutional rights violated by merely openly possessing a firearm, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.
Richardson Man Who Called for Slaughter of ‘Infidels’ In Name of ISIS Gets 30 Years in Prison
Said Azzam Mohamad Rahim lived a comfortable life in North Texas, where he operated his own convenience store.
But he wanted more, prosecutors say: war, murder and jihad.
As a result, the 43-year-old Richardson man will spend the next 30 years in a federal prison for trying to recruit ISIS fighters on a social media app called Zello.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle read Rahim’s own words to him before she sentenced him in a courtroom in Dallas in the terrorism case. Among the words Rahim used that she read were, “Kill them and do not show them compassion or mercy.”
Georgia Woman Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Support ISIS
An Augusta-area woman has pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS and will face up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines when she is sentenced Feb. 5, federal court records show.
The Justice Department announced Kim Anh Vo’s arrest in March, saying she was apprehended in Hephzibah, which sits about 14 miles southwest of Augusta.
Vo is at least the second person in the Southeast to be charged this year with supporting ISIS, also known as the Islamic State. On Thursday, the Justice Department announced the indictment of Romeo Xavier Langhorne, 30, of Roanoke, Va., accusing him of attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS. Langhorne, according to the Justice Department, was seeking to help ISIS adherents arm themselves with deadly explosives for terrorism.
The more Mike Bloomberg talks, the less the public like him
Late-entrant Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg, billionaire and former mayor of New York City, isn’t exactly a popular guy.
To us, we remember him well enough — the guy who was so busy stealing salt shakers off New York diners’ tables and telling them how much Big Gulps were good for them that he forgot to prepare the huge metropolis for Hurricane Sandy.
These days, he’s talking about packing the Supreme Court with anti-gun activists, a real political winner if there ever was one, given the repeated failure of such measures across the country. Gun control is always a loser. And voters know what rigging is, and packing the Court is rigging.
So it’s no surprise he’s seeing numbers like these following his multi-million-dollar shell-out for campaign ads, something the other candidates (not that they deserve any sympathy) can’t afford:
A newly-released poll shows billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is deeply unpopular with registered voters after jumping into the crowded 2020 Democrat primary field.
A Monmouth University poll released Tuesday found voters react to Bloomberg twice as negatively than they do positively — 54 percent unfavorable and 26 percent favorable — signaling that it will take more than multi-million-dollar ad buys to win over the electorate.
This comes after he splashed out all that cash and hired all those best-and-brightests from the company he founded, Bloomberg News, as his campaign handlers.
Voters can now see him up close from those nonstop ads, praising himself as better than the mere middle class, selling himself to voters as “not a deplorable,” and they don’t like it.
The more he talks, the less they like him.
It all goes to show how bad his judgment is.
For starters, it makes sense that billionaire Bloomberg is annoying to leftists, given that they think all the world’s ills were caused by billionaires — and they don’t like billionaires as it is. Remember Occupy! Wall Street and all that hollering about the 1%. Bloomie, with his $55-billion or so fortune, would be around the top 0.01% actually, so his argument of course is on the importance of tamping down that dreaded 1%, something that tastes funny to leftists.
But he also isn’t resonating with moderates, who have some semblance of liking for capitalism. Instead of promoting capitalism for them, as Trump did for the right-wingers in 2016, he’s promising bigger government, all the money — and all the power, in hands like his.
Has he really done anything for “the people”? It’s true he’s hired a lot, but he made money off those hires, so no need to give him any special credits unless he gets honest with voters and tells them that capitalism helped him get rich and he will sure as heck make sure that capitalism, and not government, does the same thing for them.
He’s too far up in the economic stratosphere to recognize that. He’s in Buffett territory, a rich guy trying to defend his fortress at the expense of all those nouveaux riches.
Bad premise. No wonder it’s not working. Good to see him lose money on his own cynical buy-an-election ego project, though. Run, Mike, run…
The Black Hebrew Israelites were the group that initiated the confrontation with the Covington High School students.
BREAKING: Gunmen who stormed kosher store in Jersey City identified as David Anderson and Francine Graham. Anderson was a follower of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement. There were postings connected to Anderson's social page with anti-police and anti-Jewish writings – WNBC
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 11, 2019
Pizza Delivery Driver Shot, Killed Suspect Who Tried To Rob Him In Dallas
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – For the second time this week, a delivery driver was attacked in northeast Dallas. This time, however, the delivery driver fired at the suspects, killing one and critically injuring another.
Police said the shooting happened at around 10 p.m. Tuesday in the 8100 block of Southwestern Boulevard near Greenville Avenue.
According to police, three males allegedly tried to rob the driver, but the driver had a gun and shot at them to fend them off.
Police said two of the suspects were shot and that one of them died from his injuries. The other is in critical condition in the hospital. The third suspect was detained at the scene.
The delivery driver was not injured. Police are continuing to investigate and have not said what charges will be filed for this incident.
On Monday, a delivery driver was shot five times while dropping off food at the Pearl at Midtown apartments in northeast Dallas. He’s expected to be okay and the suspect was arrested at the scene.
Thousands of lawful California gun owners are being denied ammunition purchases. Here’s why
It’s not a bug. This is a feature of the new law.
Christopher Lapiniski, operations manager at Last Stand Readiness & Tactical, describes the hurdles to buying ammunition in California on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019, at the gun store on Florin Road in Sacramento.
Zachary Berg usually buys guns and ammunition with relative ease. After all, he’s a Sutter County sheriff’s deputy and needs them for his job. California’s stringent gun laws usually don’t apply to him.
But Berg couldn’t buy shotgun shells at his local hardware store in Yuba City prior to a duck hunting trip last month. He was rejected under California’s stringent ammunition background check program that took effect July 1, because his personal information didn’t match what state officials had in their database.
Berg was one of tens of thousands of Californians who have been turned away from buying ammunition at firearms and sporting goods stores, even though they appear to be lawfully able to do so, a Sacramento Bee review of state data shows. Between July 1 and November, nearly one in every five ammunition purchases was rejected by the California Department of Justice, the figures show.
Of the 345,547 ammunition background checks performed, only 101 stopped the buyer because he or she was a “prohibited person” who can’t legally possess ammunition, according to state Department of Justice data.
New York Loses Its Climate-Crusading Suit Against ExxonMobil
ExxonMobil won a first-of-its-kind climate change fraud trial on Tuesday as a judge rejected the state of New York’s claim that the oil and gas giant misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming.
New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the state failed to prove that Exxon violated the Martin Act, a broad state law that does not require proof of intent of shareholder fraud.
“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling, deciding the case without a jury.
Ever since this dog-and-pony show culminating in today’s articles of impeachment got started, something has been on my mind.
It’s clear the FBI is corrupt at the upper most levels. Chief Weasel Jim Comey, and the dishonor roll of his underlings: McCabe, Strzok, Page, and lots more are all partisan hacks. We know this. We know they used the absolutely bogus Steele dossier to justify the need to monitor American citizens to the FISA courts (overview). Borepatch started the day with post that it’s time to Disband the FBI. Count me on board with that. While, from all I know, the majority of the agents and lower level staff are still honorable, there’s a saying in management classes (I originally heard it was taken from the mafia) that goes, “the fish rots from the head down.” If there are systemic problems in an organization, the problem lies in the top management’s offices.
What I’ve been saying since this whole mess started is “what about the FISA courts?” In my mind, if they were honest and honorable, they’d bust the FBI like 13 year olds pretending to be college students at spring break in south Florida.* I’d very publicly and loudly tell the FBI, “you’ve proven you’re not trustworthy. Because of that, from now on there will be no warrants issued to you unless you bring 10 times the amount of justification we used to require, and you’d better have far more than one source. You will be questioned about it relentlessly, and you’d better damned well have every last detail documented.” Or something similar. Let everybody know the FBI is getting their chops busted for their partisan politics.
The fact that this hasn’t happened doesn’t mean the FISA courts didn’t slap down the FBI in some classified meetings that we’re not allowed to know about. The fact that it wasn’t public, though, implies that the FISA court is just as rotten as the heads of the FBI fish. They could have dressed them down in secret but made a public statement about how shocked – shocked! I tell you – and how appalled the court is at having been lied to by the FBI. The fact that didn’t happen tells you the FISA court needs to be disbanded, just like the FBI. The whole Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act needs to be torn up and started again from blank paper.
The Danger of Making Ruthlessness Seem Reasonable
I use a lot of dangerous drugs. Well, not me personally, but on my patients. Of course, I use dangerous drugs only when the disease I’m treating is more dangerous than the drug.
In diseases that are not life-threatening, naturally I avoid dangerous drugs and try to stick with safer therapies. Chemotherapy drugs can save your life, but they can also have significant side effects. Side effects that you would not tolerate if you were treating a sinus infection. But if you have cancer, and you’re trying to avoid dying, it may make sense to take a chance on side effects – even very serious side effects. In truly desperate circumstances, there are few actions one would not consider, no matter how drastic.
That’s what always bothered me about the great leftist / progressive / socialist leaders of the 20th century: Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, and so on. They saw a problem and took drastic measures to fix it.
When I consider the horrifyingly drastic measures they took, I wonder, “What possible problem did they see that warranted such drastic actions? Who on earth could have possibly thought that was a good idea?” Even for those who lack sympathy for others, killing millions of people is no small thing. They claimed that they were trying to save or improve their countries for their citizens. Which some considered to be an adequate reason. Think about that. And then, think about Greta Thunberg.
There are many facets of the global warming fraud that I find concerning, but what bothers me the most about it is that its adherents claim to on a mission to save the world. Ok, so what would you not do to save the world? At that point, any action could be considered, right? Even horrible side effects are worthwhile in this case because the patient is dying and we’re desperate. So no action, no matter how drastic, is off the table.
It’s easy to chuckle when a self-important 16-year-old girl explains that the world is ending. It’s ridiculous.
Well, it may be ridiculous, but it’s not funny.
These people are dangerous. Their polarizing extremism encourages ruthless actions that would otherwise be unthinkable. Just ask a dead German Jew from 1943.
A few days ago, at a town hall on CNN, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained her concern about President Trump with the following statement: “Civilization as we know it today is at stake in the next election, and certainly, our planet. The damage that this administration has done to America, America’s a great country. We can sustain. Two terms, I don’t know.”
Not that long ago, Mrs. Pelosi would have said no such thing. She might have said, “I have serious disagreements with Mr. Trump’s policy proposals, and I don’t like where he is taking this country. I hope my fellow American citizens will choose to vote Democrat in the next election. Let me explain why I think that would be a good decision.” And she would then outline her specific disagreements with Mr. Trump, and how she would propose to do better for the American people than he would.
This is how the Republicans won the House in 1994. The “Contract with America” explained what they saw as problems, and how they intended to fix those problems. It worked – they won.
I’m not sure that approach would work now. As I often say, I hope I’m wrong about this. But American politics has changed. And more importantly, American society seems to have changed.
There are those who think that the Democrats’ repeated impeachment attempts against Mr. Trump and other extremist tactics are due to their particular dislike for Mr. Trump. I disagree. If Mitt Romney or Scott Walker were president, I suspect the Democrats would be using similarly ruthless tactics. This shift in tactics occurred before, and independent of, the inauguration of Mr. Trump.
President Trump may be a response to this new approach to American politics, but he is not the cause of it.
It seems strange that such extremism and such vicious approaches to politics occur now, in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, here in modern America. American politics were vicious and nasty in the mid-1800s, but slavery and other issues were on the verge of tearing our country apart. One can understand how such serious disagreements about such serious issues would lead to divisive politics.
But we’re not arguing about slavery and basic human rights anymore. We’re not even arguing about foreign wars or Prohibition. We’re arguing about transsexual bathrooms. It’s hard to understand such vicious political tactics in times of peaceful prosperity like these.
I’m not sure of the cause, but I suspect it started with the extremist environmental movement. Silent Spring was published in 1962. The Population Bomb was published in 1968. The cold winters of the 1970s led many to believe that we were all about to die in the next ice age.
All of those predictions turned out to be wrong, but the potential power of such messages was hard for some politicians to ignore. Particularly politicians who had no other compelling reasons for anyone to vote for them. Al Gore is an extreme example of this phenomenon, but many others on the left are using this technique now. And when one considers the success rate of leftist policies, one can understand why they use this approach.
A leftist politician no longer has to explain why socialism has never worked anywhere else, and how exactly it will work here. That’s a tough sell. All he/she has to do is convince voters that Republicans are evil capitalists who want to get rich by destroying the world, like a James Bond villain. And then convince those voters that global catastrophe is certain unless they vote for the leftist, who cares for the environment. Skip the details, just paint the picture.
At that point, no actions, no matter how drastic or ruthless, are off the table. Confronting and shaming people in public. Scaring the families of prominent conservatives. Arresting elderly nobodies like Roger Stone in SWAT raids in the middle of the night, with CNN along to broadcast it worldwide. It seems vicious, but hey, we’re trying to save the world here, so it’s ok. Really. Are you with us, or against us? Are you evil, or nice?
These people are dangerous.
So when I hear Nancy Pelosi say, “Civilization as we know it today is at stake in the next election, and certainly, our planet,” I don’t laugh. When I hear Greta Thunberg say, “For way too long, the politicians and the people in power have gotten away with not doing anything to fight the climate crisis, but we will make sure that they will not get away with it any longer,” I don’t just roll my eyes. When I hear AOC say, “There’s no debate as to whether we should continue producing fossil fuels. There’s no debate,” I don’t wonder what she’s been smoking.
These people are dangerous. They make ruthlessness seem reasonable.
In the past, people have agreed to drastic actions simply to save their country, as they saw it. People actually voted for Adolf Hitler for little more reason than that. What if they thought they were saving the whole world? What would they not do?
Saul Alinsky.
The impeachment charade is not a joke. Neither are climate protests, or boycotting businesses suspected of being insufficiently leftist, or economic sanctions against businesses in states that don’t enact your preferred policies regarding transsexual bathrooms. It may seem ridiculous, but it’s not funny.
This is scary stuff. And I don’t see a solution. This is just the way the left does politics now. It wasn’t just Hillary Clinton who learned a lot from Saul Alinsky. The Democrat party has decided that such ruthless tactics are reasonable. I suspect that things will get much worse before they get better.I really hope I’m wrong about all this…
Inspector General report on FBI’s FISA abuse tells us one thing: We need radical reform.
BLUF:
“Ironically, the FISA court was created in 1978 to prevent Nixon-style political spying.”
As my section CWO often said when a plan went over like a lead balloon:
“It briefed well.”
Yesterday’s IG report was only the latest in a long series of revelations about FBI misconduct at the FISA court:
*In 2002, the FISA court revealed that FBI agents had false or misleading claims in 75 cases and a top FBI counterterrorism official was prohibited from ever appearing before the court again.
*In 2005, FISA chief judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly proposed requiring FBI agents to swear to the accuracy of the information they presented; that never happened because it could have “slowed such investigations drastically,” the Washington Post reported. So FBI agents continued to have a license to exploit FISA secrecy to lie to the judges.
*In 2017, a FISA court decision included a 10-page litany of FBI violations, which “ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight.”
* In October, a secret FISA court ruling was released documenting the FBI’s illegal conducted warrantless searches of vast numbers of Americans’ emails despite congressional legislation seeking to curb FBI data roundups.
FBI machinations at the FISA court are especially perilous to American democracy because that court is extremely docile to federal agencies. The FISA court “created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans,” the New York Times reported in 2013 after Edward Snowden leaked court decisions. FISA decisions have “quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court…regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny.” The court’s servility can boggle the imagination, such as its rubber-stamping FBI requests that bizarrely claimed that the telephone records of all Americans were “relevant” to a terrorism investigation under the Patriot Act, thereby enabling N.S.A. data seizures later denounced by a federal judge as “almost Orwellian.”
Ironically, the FISA court was created in 1978 to prevent Nixon-style political spying.
Trump on IG Report: ‘This Was an Attempted Overthrow… We Caught ‘em Red-Handed.’
He’s not wrong.
And a lot of people were in on it and they got caught. They got caught red-handed. And I look forward to the Durham report, which is coming out in the not-too-distant future. He’s got his own information, which is this information plus, plus, plus. It’s an incredible thing that happened and we’re lucky we caught them.
Man shot while attempting to burglarize Fayette County home; now in police custody at hospital
And some crap for brains Federal gubbermint congresscritters and presidential candidiates, want laws passed that make it illegal for a teenager to even possess a gun.
REDSTONE TOWNSHIP, Pa. —
Pennsylvania State Police said a man was sent to an area hospital after being shot while trying to burglarize a home in Fayette County Friday night.State police said the suspect has been identified as 39-year-old Adam Earl Morgan. Police said he is also responsible for two other burglaries, along National Pike, in Redstone Township, that happened on Friday night.
“He climbed up a table and some chairs,” said neighbor Joe Shashura.
The back window to Joe and Sue Shashura’s home had been broken and several items stolen, minutes before police said Morgan walked into their neighbor’s home and was shot.
“I guess it doesn’t take more than five or 1o minutes. He grabbed a pillowcase, filled it with jewelry, anything he could find, cash money and all that,” said Joe Shashura.
The Shashuras said they are typically home, but each was invited out by their daughters on the night of the break-in.
“Relieved that I wasn’t here. I was going to come home earlier, but my daughter asked me to go out to eat dinner,” said Sue Shashura. “I was very tired, I didn’t want to go, but things happen for a reason.”
Morgan was flown to a Pittsburgh-area hospital where he was charged with three counts of burglary.
Police said Morgan was shot by a teenager who was home alone at the time he broke in.
Police said Morgan ran away after being shot, but was later found lying along the road and taken to the hospital.
From the vid commentary:
Virginia’s 2A: Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age.
The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.I do not think that it can be any more clear, on how much of a violation SB16-18-64 will be.
The IG **Admits** DOJ/FBI Attempted A Putsch
The IG report, after reading through a good part of it, states that seventeen “errors” were made by the FBI. May I remind you of an indisputable fact: Errors are randomly distributed.
That is, let’s assume you intend to drive at 40mph. If you make an error you will operate your car some of the time at 38mph, and some of the time at 42mph. The errors, if they are actual errors, will be randomly distributed around the correct action. Some of the errors will place you inside the correct action and some of them will be place you outside of the correct action. Approximately an equal number of errors will fall on each side of the correct action; some will help you, some hurt, but given enough errors there should be an approximately equal number in each direction.
If your speed, as measured at 1 minute intervals, is 40, 42, 45, 43, 41, 40, 46, 50, 42 and 45 mph that is not “error.” You are instead driving with a floor of 40mph; your intent is to drive at no slower than 40mph.
The probability of an error is 50% in each direction. Therefore half the errors should have been to Trump’s benefit.
However, exactly zero of them were to Trump’s benefit.
The odds of this being random chance can be computed.
The probability of the first error being to Trump’s detriment is 0.5 (50%.)
Each successive “error” is also equally probable to be of either benefit or detriment. So when the second error occurs for them to both be to Trump’s detriment by random chance — that is, if it’s an actual error without motivation or bias, is 0.50 * 0.50, or 1 in 4.
For seventeen “errors” to be all in the same direction is 0.5 ^ 17, or exactly 1 in 131,072.
This is not quite as bad of odds as winning the Powerball but it clowns the claim that such were errors and not intentional acts that evince a predetermined goal or desire.
Indeed in a criminal trial should odds of 1 in 131,072 be established that is almost certainly enough for you to be convicted and sent to prison. Remember that the standard in a criminal trial is not “beyond question” or “with absolute proof” — it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
1 in 131,072 does not admit reasonable doubt.
The FBI and Department of Justice did, beyond reasonable doubt, intentionally target Donald Trump and his associates as a candidate and as President for surveillance and did, with corrupt intent beyond said reasonable doubt, intend to harm both him and his associates.
This did not occur due to error. The manifest weight of the evidence as proved by fundamental, middle-school mathematics, is that this campaign was intentional, it was malicious, and given that it involved knowingly false statements to a court by means of omission it was criminal.
To refuse to prosecute everyone so-involved is for the United States Department of Justice and FBI to declare themselves above the law and to declare the Constitution of the United States, as a contract between the citizens and its government, null and void due to the intentional refusal to enforce same for political reasons.
It does not matter whether or not the scheme ultimately did or does in the future (e.g. impeachment) succeed.
The IG report establishes that the FBI and DOJ attempted to conduct a putsch in the United States to overthrow a democratically-elected President, along with imprisoning his associates and staff members by concocting knowingly-false pretense for surveillance and entrapment.
The IG report, in an attempt to claim that there was no “wrongdoing” but simple mistakes has mathematically proved that in fact the campaign to overthrow the President of the United States was intentional with a sufficient level of probability to secure convictions under criminal law for virtually any crime in the US.
It is important to note that the prosecutions and convictions obtained since the beginning with this process have been for obstructing an illegally-initiated investigation, as is, I note, the currently pending prosecution of Stone. That people in this nation believe that citizens have an obligation to comply and cooperate with an unlawfully-initiated investigation is exactly the sort of premise that the Politburo of Russia used to present, or the Communist Chinese Party presents today.
You decide what your response to this outright admission of wrongdoing by the IG shall be America.
You did pass middle-school math, right?