Folks, remember when the anti-gunners yelled that they wanted to take away our guns, and we told them that if they tried that, people would see that as the first move in a tyrannical dictatorship and shoot back?
That just happened.
Everyone who has claimed that the gun-rights side doesn't take this seriously and won't resist a gun confiscation operation when the police actually do show up at their door?
Giuliani: Deliberate efforts to cover up wrongdoing
Meaning in History thinks Giuliani is pointing at Wray as the coverup artist. I'm not so sure that's what Giuliani is saying here, necessarily, but I do think Wray is neck-deep in covering up elements of SpyGate. What I think has been happening is that people in Europe (Ukraine, Italy at least, maybe in the UK) have been trying to reach the FBI to tell their side of the story, and the FBI has been ignoring those requests. That could be Wray, it could be underlings. As far as I can tell, it took these people (Mifsud in Italy, some elements of the Ukraine government) going to the media and getting media attention before they got officially noticed.
Targetting political opponents for intimidation tactics
Exactly. The purpose is political intimidation: the coerced silence of public support for the opposing side, on pain of social ostracism and even, potentially, physical attacks. If donating to Trump gets you put on a list for targeted ostracism and violence, who will donate to Trump? And that leaves out the social side, when perhaps the social side is even more important.
By coincidence, earlier this week I was at a business lunch with most of my immediate coworkers. Of those 20-30 people, one of my coworkers mentioned, I was the only one generally known to support Trump. A few others admitted to having voted for him in 2016 but they were quick to add they would not do so again. Most remained silent, even though I knew there were Trump supporters among them (from private conversations). And this is in the very red state of Texas.
The continuing media attacks and intimidation are draining. No one wants to be on the political defensive constantly when they are just living their life. And when you conduct those informal polls of those around you, the Trump supporters mostly remain quiet while the Democrats (supported by the perceived media dominance) are outspoken and aggressive.
That translates into a perceived disparity of support, which has the tendency to intimidate people into silence, making them much less likely to vote or get involved in supporting their candidate.
Twitter suspends Sen Maj Leader McConnell's twitter account
They suspended the account because McConnell's team posted videos of protestors outside McConnel's home calling for him to be murdered. Apparently, Twitter does not allow public figures to call out those threatening them with death.
This is certainly a moment of political danger for gun owners -- followed shortly by intense, personal danger as ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, "triggered" liberals, and potential boyfriends of young daughters all call in to "red flag" anyone they think might own a gun and seems angry. But the fact is, so-called "red flag" laws won't change anything (at least not in a positive way) and are likely to instead make things dramatically worse.
Right now, we have laws against making violent threats, laws in many states enabling involuntary commitment of people who pose a danger to others, and most of those laws come with a prohibition on firearms ownership. They are already of questionable legality in some cases for lack of due process, they are already on the books, and they don't work. Every time this happens we hear about the warning signs, the calls to police, the threats. But no action is taken... and not for lack of legal authority. Sometimes the police don't bother. Sometimes they bother, but don't add the murdered to the NICS list. Sometimes the government sponsors straw purchasers smuggling guns to criminals (see Fast and Furious under Obama's watch).
Bottom line, background checks don't actually stop criminals from getting guns. Hardened criminals can get guns on the black market anyway. The people who commit mass shootings have usually come to the attention of law enforcement in myriad of ways before their mass murder but without being added to the appropriate lists or any serious action being taken. Adding red flag laws into the equation will do nothing but increase the false reporting rates and harass peaceful gun owners during divorces or even just a bad breakup with a girlfriend.
If Trump wants to win re-election in 2020, he absolutely cannot afford to piss off gun owners. He's going to have enough problems with the NRA sidelined, and he's already taken some actions that have pissed off the 2nd Amendment community. All we have to do is stay home, and he's a one-term president.
That said, other presidents -- both Bushes, for a recent example -- have danced around this issue successfully. They publicly supported assault weapons bans which Congress never sent to them to sign. At the moment, though, the Democrats control the House, and the Senate is in Republican hands by a very slim majority. The GOPe -- who hate Trump despite sharing his party -- might well send him a gun control bill hoping he would sign it and destroy his re-election chances. Without the NRA to speak up, Trump might not have the instincts to realize how bad an idea this would be.
Hannity thinks so. I think so, and I have for a long time, on a low-key way. Why? Some of the messages between Page and Strzok read, to me, like Page was very much not happy with Strzok towards the end. It sounded like a woman scorned and the end of an affair. (and, you know, having your "I had an affair with my coworker while plotting a coup" text messages published nationally seems likely to end an affair by itself). Not to mention she is still married (NOT to Strzok, but her original husband) which is not compatible with staying loyal to Strzok. And if that's the mindset she is in, cooperating is the logical course. Plus, trying to stay out of jail is a big incentive too.
So, yeah, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Lisa is cooperating. But this is the first time we're seeing people talk about it...
You may have heard the saying "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." Well, this is the third mass shooting we've had since the Democrat primary debate focused on gun control, which is to say within the last week or two. The (alleged?) murderer has an extensive criminal record, meaning he was already prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms.
BOMBSHELL: Mifsud prepared to testify to setup operation
So here's the deal. Mifsud -- a man with extensive ties to Western intelligence agencies and politicians with documented photographic evidence -- says he was tasked with meeting Papadopoulos and feeling him information on Russian dirt about Hillary. Mifsud then says he was tasked with introducing Papadopoulos to Russians. Again, tasked. Later, Papadopoulos talks with Downer and mentions Russian dirt on Hillary. (No emails mentioned either time -- all three parties agree on this).
It seems certain now that this whole operation was a setup designed to give the FBI a deniable reason to get an investigation opened into the Trump campaign. And the deception continued past the election, past the inauguration, all the way into the Mueller report, which describes Mifsud as a Russian agent.
So who tasked Mifsud with setting up Papadopoulos? Let's follow that up the chain.
So I think I just made an important implied connection here. Let me walk you through it.
Gowdy is urging the release of transcripts of Papadopoulos' meetings with Halper and some sort of agent whose nom-de-plume was "Azra Turk". But why does he have to urge the release of those transcripts? Why can't Barr, to whom Trump just delegated declassification authority, just release them?
Answer: there's a process, and even after Trump or Barr starts the ball rolling, the "owning agency" controls release to some extent. If it was the FBI's agent and the FBI's transcript, the FBI would control release. But the FBI's director (Wray, a Deep State ally) can be overridden by Barr as DOJ. So why are the transcripts still being held up?
They are not being held up by Wray -- they are were being held up by DNI Coates, who Trump just fired. This is probably why Coates got fired. And it's probably why the Deep State is pushing Sue Gordon or someone else who will protect them in the role. They want these transcripts (and other declass issues, too) in safe hands. Safe for them.
But... if Wray doesn't control the transcripts related to Papadopoulos and Halper and the mysterious Azra Turk, and if it's Coates who was controlling them, then which agency was controlling Halper and Azra Turk?
The 2020 elections will be the first (national) elections in which some voters will have been born after 9-11. We've been skirting around the edges of this for a while (in 2016 and 2018, voters likely voted who could not remember 9-11) but this is the first year we will actually have people old enough to vote who were born after the attack and thus could not possibly remember it at all.
Killed by supposedly strangling himself with a bedsheet, after being taken off suicide watch following an earlier "suicide" attempt that he claimed was a murder attempt, not checked on by guards when they were supposed to, and his cellmate was transferred out of the cell hours before his "suicide". Oh, and his lawyers, who requested he be taken off suicide watch, are seeking criminal defense lawyers themselves.
Google engineer confirms manual manipulation of search results
Sundar Pichai's claim is, obviously, bullshit. He thought he was being clever by suggesting that google doesn't manually intervene in individual search results. Of course they don't. The request and response takes fractions of a second. No human is fast enough to do that.
What google does instead is set up rules that govern how search results are handled. Their search suggestions displayed while you type (autocomplete) are often missing obvious candidates for completion that show a partisan bias. There are lots of other ways they can mess with search results without manually altering every result that comes in. For example, they could be systematically training their algorithm to return fewer negative stories about Democrats because their developers don't want to read (or click on) negative stories about Democrats. Or systematically ranking right-leaning sites like Fox as having lower credibility than left-leaning sites like CNN or MSNBC.
Mark Wauck asks the question. I think the answer is no. The idea that the FBI honestly believed they were spying on Trump because he was a Russian agent is absurd. Remember, as just a few counterpoints among many, that Kavalec debunked at least three elements of Steele's claims before the FISA was applied for the first time: there is no Russian consulate in Miami, Michael Cohen has never been to Prague, there is no secret communications channel between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower; and the FISA application did not pass on any of this derogatory information about Steele and his story to the court. They were told directly it was BS and went ahead with it, swearing under penalty of perjury that the information was "verified" when it was not.
The idea that the FBI was fooled by Steele (and the story will eventually evolve into "and fooled by the intel agencies") is their version of an "Aw, shucks... but I meant well" cover story. It's a defensive posture that, if believed, paints them as good-faith actors who just got duped. And that gets them off scott-free of criminal charges.