Gun control is another area where I don't trust Barr. Or Trump. McConnell has already said he will allow votes if Trump supports a proposal. It might be a good idea to contact the White House and encourage Trump to shut down any gun control proposals if he wants a second term.
San Francisco libels NRA as "Domestic Terrorist Organization"
I think this really does take politics too far and violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association. It's an allegation of serious criminal acts applied to millions of people nationwide on an absurd basis.
I'm honestly not sure what his private cause of action is here. He cites a variety of things (RICO, conspiracy, wire fraud, obstruction of justice) but how does a private citizen bring a lawsuit for those things? Normally that would be the DOJ. Still, details here.
If he can claw information out of Fusion with discovery, that may help us advance the ball.
Aside from that, I don't know whether the theory that government agents are somehow contacting mass shooters and encouraging them to commit their attacks is actually correct. I know that those agencies are not above encouraging terrorists through informants to commit attacks or conducting armed raids over budget concerns. I'm certain the federal agencies have infiltrated as many "terrorist" and "potential terrorist" groups as they possibly can and probably know who they might be able to wind up. Recent revelations have demonstrated that the agencies are politically biased to an extreme degree and willing to act on their bias in ways that exceed any conceivably legal justification.
In other words, they have means, motive, and opportunity to wind up at least some killers.
I still find the idea that they are actually taking that step difficult to accept. My policy on such things is that I need to see positive evidence. More than circumstantial, more than the three Ms. I know it's hard to get to that kind of evidence in something like this, but it's an extraordinary claim, too.
Let's just say I would not be surprised if there turned out to be something to this idea in at least some cases.
And hell, by that criteria, we're already there; the Texas attack linked above meets everything.
Dem Rep Ilhan Omar's husband alleges she was married to her brother
And he would know, wouldn't he? I've been mostly ignoring this story because it's one representative's personal issues and I have very little to add. But what is ignorable when it is merely suggestive allegations and suspicious refusal to discuss the topic becomes a bit more credible when offered by the person you are still married to.
Granted, there's a divorce proceeding underway and allegations of an affair, too. So take with some salt.
What Ford doesn't understand is that by lying about Kavanaugh for pure political gain, she's damaging the credibility of every woman in the future who comes forward with unprovable accusations of this type.
I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. The most common line taken appears to be that, yes, he violated FBI policies and (probably) laws, but he was very clever about it and it would be very difficult to successfully convict him in DC where a jury would be composed of mostly Democrats who probably think Comey is a hero. But, they say, wait for the FISA abuse report and surely Comey will be charged for that.
That's pretty much the same line of argument they used after the Clinton IG report. Gosh, this all looks bad and it's obviously a cover up, but we'll get them in the next report..
And again, and again, and again, each time getting no prosecutions, and being told to wait for the next one where surely there would finally be consequences.
I'm getting tired of that and it's starting to sound like a Deep State delaying tactic designed to draw it out until after 2020 when it can be made to disappear, as well as inducing "scandal fatigue" so the public get tired of the whole thing and start to tune out.
On the flip side, there are credible reports that suggest McCabe may actually get charged on something, and if those are accurate, AND Comey gets charged on the FISA angle, it would go a long way towards demonstrating progress.
Part of the problem is that we are being asked to view independent decisions as linked, with the later decisions (implied as being harsher) justifying/excusing the relative leniency of the initial decisions. But they aren't linked. Each decision is independent and doesn't influence the others. This is the only chance the IG and DOJ have to go after Comey for his memos.
So as far as I am concerned, I'm evaluating each decision to prosecute or not independently, too. Comey's memos case is hard to win, but he needs to face charges for what he did to undermine and betray the elected official he supposedly served.
Democrats determined to prosecute Trump no matter what
Actually, Mueller told Barr 3 times before witnesses that the OLC opinion was NOT the reason he declined to indict. And, in a joint statement with DOJ after Mueller's pissy little press conference, Mueller had to walk back his statements a bit. Basically, Mueller is dangling impeachment bait for Congress and trying to worm his way back into the good graces of the left by setting up an impeachment over nothing, and violating legal and prosecutorial ethics rules in the process.
Odessa Shooter: Mental health issues and a failed background check
Turns out the Odessa shooter had existing mental health issues that probably contributed to getting fired from his job, and failed a background check when he tried to buy a gun. Obviously, somehow he got a gun anyway.
Background checks are not a panacea. They don't actually stop anyone from buying a gun. Between people whose disqualifying incidents don't get entered into the system and people who have the black market contacts to easily obtain a gun illegally to people who already have all the guns they need, background checks just do not provide a barrier.
They do provide the government with a mostly-complete list of honest citizens who own guns, though.
Mueller and the Brady rule for exculpatory evidence
If you take into account the missing 302s from the Flynn case, the missing texts from Strzok's phone while he was working for the special counsel, the missing notes from interviewing Mifsud, Mueller may well have destroyed more evidence of criminal behavior than he prosecuted.
UK disowned Steele before Trump inauguration, FBI likely knew
Before Trump's inauguration also means before Mueller's investigation and before at least one and possibly two of the FISA renewals. There are people who claim Mueller's team interview them about it, meaning Mueller provably knew about it. And yet it's not in his report, and his investigation continued.