Conservative Treehouse makes the case. It's pretty open and shut. The claim is based on Nellie's application for a HAM radio license, which is a public document now verified by FOIA request, and what she told Congress about how that license compared to her employment at Fusion GPS. She told Congress she got the license "well before" working for Fusion, but it appears from the document that she actually applied for the license after gaining employment at Fusion GPS.
This doesn't seem like a big deal, but... why lie to Congress about it?
Speculation is that she was using it to communicate with others, possibly still inside the intel community, without being monitored. But that's just a guess. The dates -- and her lie -- are not just guesses; they are evidence.
Details. Three churches and three hotels were targets. Death toll of at least two hundred, and approximate 450 injured. Given the location, timing, and method (suicide bombs) it's almost certain to be an islamic terror attack.
One of the major flaws in the Constitution as written is the lack of a significant enforcement mechanism. There are no penalties for the government violating the 4th Amendment. Sure, they can't use the evidence against you in court -- usually. But there are so many other things they can do with the surveillance results that don't involve courts.
California judge strikes down standard capacity magazine ban
This will likely end up at the Supreme Court itself. 9th Circuit will strike it down, almost inevitably. The Supreme Court, with new presumably pro-gun members, will see the district court opinion pointing out how California's laws are in direct conflict with Heller.
Not specifically stated in the article, but I believe these were requests for injunctions against enforcement. As such, it's not a final decision, just letting the law go into effect while the lower courts work their way through. Of course, that means people not protected by an injunction (some people are, the specific plaintiffs and their members, IIRC) are stuck holding stuff they can get in trouble for. Or, you know, going on boat trips.
While this isn't reason to panic on gun rights in general, it's a reminder that gun rights cases are a hard sell at the Supreme Court level.
Speaking of... when was Ruth Bader last seen in public? Recently, it seems, but apparently someone thinks she needs at least 4 bodyguards men in suits to go to a movie.
I know some of my readers are religious. I am not, but I wanted to point something out. Attorney General Barr released the redacted Mueller report at 11am Eastern Time, April 18th, 2019. Immediately, the media attacked Barr for running a cover up, attacked Trump for obstructing justice (even though the Mueller report did not charge that he did), called on Congress to impeach, and generally went completely nuts.
The day after the report was released --that's today -- is Good Friday.
Mueller, despite his corruption, despite his biased team, despite everything, could find nothing with which to charge Trump. Not even with obstruction, for the protests of an innocent man being framed are the cries of justice. Nevertheless, the media and the Democrats cried out to crucify him.
Who delivered Trump to Mueller to be tried? That would be Hillary and Obama, aided by the Deep State. And they should now be very, very afraid. The wyrm has turned; Mueller's investigation has closed and can no longer offer cover against Congressional or internal investigations. IG Horowitz's report on FISA abuse is now expected this summer. AG Barr is unlikely to whitewash the conclusions of the report as was done with the Hillary coverup. And, speaking of, there are calls to reopen that investigation and investigate how it was covered up too.
If Trump doesn't release his prepared rebuttal to the Mueller report on Easter Sunday, the day when Christ rose from the tomb, he's a fool. So that's the prediction I'm putting on the table: we'll see the rebuttal released Easter Sunday.
AG Barr's comments. He thanks Rosenstein. Rosenstein looks constipated; it's political hostage situation. Barr is roping Rosenstein into every major controversial decision here. Barr points out, again, no collusion from the Trump team or any (knowing) cooperation from any other American. Three times (so far). Very heavy emphasis on that point.
Barr says Mueller's report says GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks. The GRU to Wikileaks claim remains unproven, I think. No member of the Trump campaign colluded illegally in the document release. This may mean the report alleges someone in the campaign did try to get involved in the release in a way that is not illegal. I think we've seen some allegations about this, and they are weak.
Barr notes the Mueller report discusses obstruction, notes his own findings, and explains them.
He discusses redactions at length. No executive privilege. No redactions, or recommended redactions, from anyone outside the AG's office (presumably including Mueller) and possibly from the intelligence community ("advice" not specific redactions). Congress will get a version with ONLY grand jury information redacted.
The claimed cause of the fire seemed sketchy to me. Announcing it while Notre Dame was still burning (and thus before any possible investigation) seems like a fatal flaw, especially when considered in context. I don't claim to know what actually happened, but connecting the dots leads to a clear implication, and the official story is nonsense.
So, Assange finally wore out his welcome in the Ecuadore embassy in London. This was probably inevitable, but the timing is interesting. Right after Mueller releases his report to Barr, Assange gets kicked out and immediately arrested? Timing does not seem coincidental, especially since the key Russian Collusion allegations are that Assange published the DNC emails which were allegedly obtained by Russian hackers. The alternative explanation -- as Assange tells it -- is that they were leaked to him by an insider within the DNC. Speculation is that the leaker was Seth Rich, who was subsequently murdered in what may -- or may not -- be a robbery gone wrong.
So we will have to wait and see what Assange is charged with. If he's charged with the DNC "hack" -- or more likely conspiracy with the DNC "hack" since he probably did not conduct it himself -- it means someone is trying to keep him locked up and under threat so he can't contradict the official story on those events... or else he actually did it.
If he's NOT charged with the DNC hack (and/or conspiracy), Russian Collusion is toast. No Russian hackers, no possible collusion, and Hillary's opposition research fairy tale goes up in smoke.
If he is charged with other hacking, especially Russian-linked espionage type hacking (eg his involvement with Bradley Manning) but not the DNC hacking, it may be a smokescreen to imply he was involved in the DNC hacking. There's another DNC-related hacked -- someone with an account there had their account phished via email -- and that would confuse the situation still further.
But the key thing to keep an eye on is whether Assange is charged with hacking the DNC in a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. If not, then not only is Russian Collusion dead, but so is Russian Hacking. It's all a hoax at that point.
So unless more indictments appear later on, the idea that the Russians hacked the DNC emails and gave them to Assange can no longer be taken seriously. It, too, was part of the Russia Hoax. A DNC insider leaked them to Assange, probably someone annoyed that Bernie was being cheated out of the nomination.
I'd like to know who was telling Brie all this crap about woman in the movies, because I haven't seen any of it. I've seen a lot of people complaining about her movie, specifically, and the ideological fellow-travelers like the failed 2016 Fartbusters all-female reboot.
Also, "the female story"? There is no "the" female story. Unless Brie thinks "the female story" involves a Patriarchy holding down the female with superpowered limiting devices and breaking those limits will magically allow her to succeed?
There are lots of human stories. Some of them, but not anywhere near all of them, are only applicable to females. Certainly, a lot more than just one.
But she wants us to know that she doesn't hate white men, even though she isn't making movies for white men and doesn't want white men to review her movies.
People need to go to jail for this, and the people who should be doing that keep making promises that never seem to amount to anything. IG Horowitz ended up whitewashing the Clinton email investigation in the executive summary (even though the actual facts were damning). Huber was appointed to help investigate and prosecute SpyGate, and we've heard nothing from him since. Supposedly a grand jury was convened to charge McCabe, and nothing. Now Barr has promised to look into SpyGate personally. Good for him, but when will we see results?
If the Dems win in 2020 they will sweep this ALL under the rug, including any pending prosecutions. There's a definite time limit here. Move faster.
Tax the payments and use the funds to build the wall.
I honestly do not know to what extent Trump can act unilaterally here. It depends on trade agreements, authorities from existing legislation, and so on. But he absolutely should be looking into the possibility.
Democrat Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam appeared in his yearbook either in blackface or wearing a Klan hood and robe. His Democrat Lt Gov, Justin Fairfax, is black... but accused of sexual assault. His Democrat Attorney General has admitted wearing blackface.