It's only significant insofar as Flynn testifies against people in the administration as a result of the plea deal. And while I'm sure Mueller would love to get some nice, juicy testimony about people higher up, let's remind ourselves that Flynn lasted about a month as National Security Advisor and was fired by the Trump administration for the very same lies he has now pled guilty to, lies which the FBI has already investigated and determined to be without intent to deceive, declining to file charges. That was Comey doing the declining, by the way, before he was fired for gross incompetence and being a political hack for the other party.
It's been a long time since we had a real chance to advance gun rights on a national level. We had a pair of good Supreme Court decisions, and a few in federal courts that at best did not suck. We have to go back to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 to get a legislative advance, and that was really just playing defense against the courts. Before that, there was the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act which traded a ban on newly manufactured automatic weapons for a number of minor improvements and reforms to the Gun Control Act of 1968. (It was a bad trade, in my opinion).
If Congress manages to actually pass it, we will move the ball forward. That would be nice, even if the legislation ends up having some flaws.
FBI agent who interviewed Clinton on email server sent anti-Trump texts
Remember how odd that interview was? How she wasn't sworn in, was allowed to bring in her lawyers (who were also subjects of the investigation)? How no one bothered to video the interview?
Oh, and he also interviewed Michael Flynn, who recently pled guilty to lying in that interview about perfectly legal foreign policy activities conducted as part of Trump's transition team.
So in other words, this one agent and his fellow agent / mistress (possibly working with others as yet unrevealed) both managed to clear Hillary Clinton of her email server problems and hang a couple felonies on a Trump administration transition team member.
If I had to guess, and assuming it was genuine, I would guess that lawyers have been nosing around H&K and found a judge willing to compel information disclosure like that. That sort of data sounds exactly like what a crusading lawyer would ask for in order to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
So the lawyer demands to know how many guns individual dealers are selling, and then will probably try to use a high number of evidence of negligent entrustment or something like it against the dealer.
The bit about not supplying the US market I have no idea.
Judicial Watch is suing for documentation on how the IRS handles document preservation, under the theory that they will take any opportunity they can to destroy records. Specifically, Judicial Watch wants to know about the IRS policies and procedures for records retention, any changes to those policies and procedures since 2010 (and we know already that there were some, and even some in which Lerner was involved), and any communications about preserving or retaining those records. So far, the IRS is lending credence to the Judicial Watch hypothesis by ignoring their FOIA request, thus resulting in the suit.
In the True the Vote case, lawyers provided by the Department of Justice are still stonewalling even after Trump's election. Trump's appointees at Justice need to make some heads roll until behavior changes in this case. Or simply retain outside counsel, since Justice was itself involved with the targeting and is likely compromised. How likely is that? Trump doesn't even seem to know the IRS exists, aside from paying his personal taxes and bitching about being audited. We're not likely to see Trump pushing this issue personally, but if we can get the attention of someone lower on the totem pole, we might see something happen.
Judicial Watch is also pursuing records recording the BATFE's attempt to ban AR-15 ammunition as "armor-piercing".
I'll take this one step farther. If you can't improve your position in life by working a legitimate job for fear of reducing your welfare benefits, but you still want to improve your position in life, what career paths are open to you? Illegitimate ones. That means crime, whether theft, smuggling contraband (ie, drugs), or low-skilled under-the-table labor that isn't reported to tax agencies.
Sure, working in the criminal sector bears a substantial risk of being caught, convicted, and put in prison. But it also bears a substantial potential upside: successful criminals star in Hollywood movies or have careers as rap artists or get away with successful complex heists that result in billions of dollars in loot. No, not really, but that's what Hollywood sells as the upside to a life of crime. I happened to be browsing Netflix last night, and there must have been two or three separate file projects about a widow whose husband ran a drug business and how she had to take it over when he died. Two or three different ones just about that one scenario. Quite a few others about the more broadly viewed drug trade, even more about various heist movies, and so on.
Sure, on one level it's just entertainment. On another, what do the options and incentives look like for a man or woman on welfare considering what they can do to improve their lives? Work hard for years, keep their nose clean, go back to school to learn a skill (and what if their experience of the school system tells them they don't learn very well?), get a job (possibly hampered by criminal history), pay taxes... or make a few quick criminal scores and relax until you need to make the next few quick criminal scores?
So let's put aside the massive, indeed unprecedented, arguably literally insane response from both the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) to Trump's electoral victory. Obviously such a temper tantrum will work up Democrat partisans and the media -- but I repeat myself again -- to a fever pitch of disapproval and disgust. That accounts for the 45% right there: they were stupid enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, so obviously they aren't happy.
What about the rest?
Well, 14% say "great" start, 21% say "good" start. That's 35%. That covers the portion of the Republican base that actually liked Trump. Add the 19% who said "fair" start and you get 54%.
The above is from a lengthy article that claims to be about how to repeal Obamacare. I tried to read the whole thing, but when I got to the above passage, my tolerance for stupidity ended.
The Democrats passed Obamacare through reconciliation. Therefore, Republicans can repeal it through reconciliation. The whole thing, not bits and pieces. It may be politically difficult, but increasing the political difficulty by insisting on respecting political hurdles the Democrats do not is just a way to lose.
The Byrd Rule (by which he means the filibuster) objection is likewise absurd. Yes, the "rules" require 60 votes on some issues. Yes, the Senate parliamentarian may rule that 60 votes are required. The Republican majority can then vote to overrule the parliamentarian with 51 votes, just as they did recently to put Justice Gorsuch on the bench. Collecting 60 votes is harder; collecting 51 votes is not as hard. Insisting on 60 votes is just another way to lose.
And what does the author recommend as a way forward?
Why is it so hard to just repeal the whole damn thing -- like they have been promising since it passed -- and then try to pass specific reforms issue by issue? Why does everyone insist on a "master plan" for healthcare? Why can't we have a free market?
Even if we can somehow use pervasive global surveillance to identify terrorists ahead of time, it does not help us if we cannot then do something ahead of time. The logical thing to do is to deport anyone (not already a citizen) who poses a terrorist threat.