... but just this part looks pretty bad for the police. He wasn't the guy they were looking for, and they aren't alleging he did anything threatening other than being armed and getting out of his vehicle. No one is saying he was holding the gun or pointing it at police that I've seen. Could be an honest citizen with the legal right to be armed.
So blaming the Republicans in Congress for not passing Zika funding is literally blaming them for refusing to roll over and fund a Democrat priority that has nothing to do with addressing the problem.
And that's pretty much the same story every single time. Hell, the Democrats have even done it with Planned Parenthood within the last year or so.
UPDATE: A reader vigorously informs me in email that Planned Parenthood offers a wide variety of valuable services at low prices for feminine medical and reproductive health needs. Not being female, I will leave that claim to stand or fall on its own merit. It does not do anything related to Zika, however.
If she says no she's an idiot; if she says yes she's a criminal. No simple way out of this one that should lead the White House. She'll probably say she thought that by emailing State employees at their official email addresses her email would be stored in "the system". That's an abdication of her personal responsibility to preserve the records, and it's also not how the system works.
It turns out that the IT guy responsible for maintaining Clinton's server, one of those granted immunity by the FBI, was asking for advice on how to do it on reddit. And when people noticed, and figured out his identity, he started deleting his posts.
As in many other matters related to Hillary's email server, the timing matters and is enough to imply motive. The tech started asking about removing a "VERY VIP" email address from certain messages -- presumably to avoid providing those messages in response to subpoenas or FOIA requests -- right after the Benghazi committee started asking for those messages.
Notice the difference between the media spin and what is really going on here. The Globe reports that MA AG is investigating two gun manufacturers, in what appears to be a secret effort similar to the RICO conspiracy to investigate energy companies for not agreeing with Democrats on climate change. What's really going on is that two gun manufacturers are suing the MA AG to block her document demands.
Adding insult to insult, her state does not allow Glocks to be sold to consumers, only to police, and the AG doesn't care if the sales were legal or not:
And as for Remington:
This is plainly using the legal process to persecute political opponents during the run up to an election. And it's on top of her earlier efforts to attack gun owners and manufacturers, including an illegal expansion of the state's assault weapons ban.
Another question with no good answer. If she didn't consider any of those things, she's incompetent or deliberately avoiding FOIA. If she did consider them, and still decided to use a private email server, then either her intent was to avoid FOIA or she's incompetent. Her answer will probably be that she thought emailing people on their own official government addresses would be sufficient, which is demonstrably incorrect but probably the least damaging line of defense.
Is there a secret pact to allow African migrants into the US through Mexico?
"Only" 50 people a day we can't vet, who probably can't speak english or work any job more skilled than manual labor, and who get a free all-expenses paid welfare pass for being refugees. How does allowing these people into our country benefit us?
It only took 19 hijackers to kill 3000 people. What kind of disaster are we setting ourselves up for?
Do note, too: this is technically "legal" immigration.
I was concerned about the issue during Obama's first run for president on the basis of evidence presented, because I believed (and still believed) that constitutional principles and requirements for office matter and should be followed. All candidates should be required to establish that they are constitutionally eligible for office. None of these things are based on race. Hillary may or may not be a racist, but her raising concerns about Obama's eligibility due to his birthplace were not based on race. They were based on the desire to win a primary election.
I don't know why Trump raised the same concerns. I can think of a number of possible reasons. He wasn't running against Obama in a primary, but he was IN a primary and attacking the sitting president is one way to get attention when running in a primary of the opposing party. You could call it a test run of the immigration issue, one that failed that year but succeeded in updated form in 2016. You could also call it many other things, including some that are conspiracy theories in and of themselves. I don't know.
What I do know is that Hillary attacking Trump as racist for having forced Obama to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate is absurd. If true, how much more racist does it make Hillary herself for originating the idea?
William Wilkins is likely the black hole in the IRS.
She's in it up to her neck, but she's the one who publicly falls on her sword to protect William Wilkins, because William Wilkins leads straight to Obama's White House... and with William Wilkins running document production for Congress, he can make damn sure nothing pointing past Lerner gets produced.
And we're not seeing this on the news pushed by prominent Republicans because at least some prominent Republicans were likely involved, using the Tea Party name to run political scams and protect incumbents.
Clintons want to rebuild Detroit with imported Syrian refugees
What both Clintons fail to understand is that people are not identical cogs in machines; you cannot simply replace 600,000 unemployed ex-auto-industry Americans in Detroit with the same number of illiterate Muslim refugees or Mexicans. Even if you believe that the genetic differences between those groups average out, by the time someone is old enough to work they have been raised in a vastly different culture with different values, customs, and morals. Those differences matter, both in the obvious threat of terrorism and in the longer-term threat of reduced assimilation.
Hillary continued to email classified information even after leaving State Dept
I'm betting the "diplomats and top aides" don't all have appropriate clearances for classified information, even if she had sent it via correct (secure) channels. That would cover the "intent" angle, since it's a deliberate act of sending the email to someone not cleared for it. Since she sent it over insecure channels, our enemies probably have it regardless.
Like the licensed concealed carry movement, we're making slow but steady progress by focusing on local politics and pointing to the positive examples of other states that haven't had problems with constitutional carry. It's a winning formula, so let's keep it up and keep it low-key.
Clinton granted two week extension on Judicial Watch interrogatories
I've been posting the Judicial Watch interrogatories on their FOIA lawsuit over Clinton's email server. The court in that case has granted her a two week extension on her responses, making them due October 12th.
Privileged resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner Koskinen introduced
Even if the House impeaches, the Senate is extremely unlikely to convict and remove. But the impeachment itself is important. It is the only tool Congress has to address a recalcitrant executive branch once the power of the purse has been surrendered.
The utterly feckless Republican leadership would prefer this issue to go away.
UPDATE: And now they have, by working a deal to hold impeachment hearings through the Judiciary Committee rather than going straight to the whole House vote. This is the correct procedure generally, but also seems like a delaying tactic and will certainly push the question past the elections. Republican leadership in the House and Senate appear to be playing "Don't rock the boat and hope we don't stir up Democrats to vote".
FBI tries to deny unredacted documents to Congressional oversight committee
Just watch; it's worth it. Political theater leading up to an election, yes. But the FBI drove the timing here, and they are clearly trying to hide something and delay the Congressional side of the investigation past the election.
CBS then edits the interview to remove the admission. That's an admission against interest for Bill, and a stunning ... well, ok, pretty much expected... failure of journalism at CBS. Note that even when Bill is trying to walk back the admission, he walks it back to "on more than one occasion".
Again, the obvious answer to this interrogatory is Powell, who denies making a "recommendation" but apparently admits to having some communications on the subject in a memo. The non-obvious answer is who recommended that she not use such an account? We know from released emails there were a number of people who did, but whether they communicated their concerns with Clinton directly or were shut down by aides is unknown.