Woman considered bringing her gun to work because she was worried about coworkers. She chose not to because there was a rule against it. The next day, one of the coworkers she was worried about ignored the no-guns rule and shot up[ the place, killing her and 11 others.
As far as gun rights go, Trump has been pretty much a disaster... unless his judges strike down the gun control rules his administration is pushing by fiat.
I'm not suggesting any 3-dimensional chess here, but the courts seem to be the only real hope for advancing gun rights. The Establishment Republicans won't do it. Trump seems to be worse on that issue that the Establishment. And the Democrats, who used to be afraid to touch guns after Gore lost, are finding their courage again.
If the police can stop you, search you, seize your firearm, and interrogate you simply for going about your business peacefully while bearing a firearm, you don't actually have a right to bear arms. It's heartening to see courts slowly beginning to recognize that.
UPDATE: The scope will be limited to his contacts with US intelligence. That means he won't be able to talk about anything he did purely for Fusion GPS or Hillary. It may still provide valuable information, as current US intelligence agencies are run by people who were likely involved. In fact, if Steele talks about operations in London, he might well implicate current CIA Director Gina Haskell.
In an extended cut of a scene on the blu-ray release, so-called "hero" Captain Marvel is rude to a man offering to help, then commits assault, battery, robbery, and grand theft of a motorcycle. The provocation for this display of villainy was a offer of directions, a compliment, and a request for a smile.
Strzok was the person in charge of briefing the Trump campaign on security threats
Funny that Strzok didn't mention the investigation he'd personally opened just a few weeks before into alleged (and now known false) Russian attempts to contact the campaign. You would think that would be part of the job -- to let the candidate known two of his minor staffers were being investigated so they could be kicked off the campaign. But despite claims to the contrary, Strzok was really investigating Trump, so of course he couldn't tell Trump.
It also seems like Strzok's virulent anti-Trump bias might have been a conflict of interest for him in conducting this briefing.
Fake black woman Rachel Dolezal has been charged with felony theft for receiving about $9000 in welfare and child care assistance from the government. No, it didn't have anything to do with her skin color, as far as we know. Allegedly, she claimed to have almost no income, but received $84,000 in proceeds from a book and sale of homemade goods.
Forgive my cynicism, but if he is dead, and they know who he was, and they know that he was a disgruntled employee... why haven't they released his name? Whenever media get shy about this sort of thing, the killer's name is usually Mohammed.
They even name a different mass murderer from a different incident at the bottom of the story. He had a relatively normal, non-ethnic name.
UPDATE: Assuming this is accurate, it's amazing how these mass shooters seem to pick just the areas where we might be making progress in order to commit their attacks. It's almost like a strategy.
Mueller worked with the IRS to target the Tea Party (political spying, not just delaying applications), and was then asked to investigate the Tea Party scandal and found no wrongdoing. Then Mueller set up an arrangement with the CIA around the time the Tea Party scandal started to become a problem; the arrangement started in 2012 and lasted until 2016 and allowed the CIA to use FBI access authority for domestic spying (likely with political motives). When THAT got shut down, Mueller -- who had left the FBI -- was brought back in as special counsel to "investigate" (ie, cover up) what he himself had set up.
Anti-Trump FISA application followed unusual approval path
So what is the takeaway here? Well, first, the FISA application clearly followed an unusual, top-down, very much not "by the book", dare I say political process. By the time it reached Trisha Anderson's desk, who would normally see it first, it had already been approved "informally" by McCabe and Sally Yates had already signed it.
McCabe is infamous for his pro-Hillary involvement in the Hillary email investigation, and for this anti-Trump involvement in the Trump investigation, and also for the $500,000+ in campaign donations his wife received from Hillary-linked donors while all this was going on.
Yates is infamous for getting herself fired over a relatively trivial policy position during the early Trump administration. It suffices to establish her anti-Trump bias.
Anderson clearly admits she didn't do her job to review the FISA because her superiors had already signed off on it.
Second point. Remember Susan Rice's last minute email to herself saying Obama said to do it all "by the book"? This is the last firewall before this scandal reaches Obama. "He said to do it all by the book!" This is clearly not by the book.
Third... whether we believe her that she didn't look at the application or not, she signed off on it. That makes her complicit. It's not the informal approvals that matter. It's her signature.
I'm not sure he's right. Here's what the Constitution says:
What they did is probably not "levying war". "Adhering to their Enemies" is a bit trickier. Steele is British; is he an enemy? Steele's alleged sources were Russian; they are definitely Enemy-ish. Ukraine was involved too, and Australia. Aid and Comfort, sure, that's easy enough. Does Hillary Clinton count as an "Enemy" if she is trying to overturn the government, or is that more of a nation-state designation?
It might be easier to pin some kind of rebellion or insurrection charge, or just nail them all for wiretapping and abuse of civil rights under color of law.
Under common English, however, treason would be an appropriate charge for trying to overthrow the government illegally.