They not only knew about it, but there are allegations they were encouraging him to commit the attack via undercover agents. With that much prior warning, why weren't they able to intercept him before he got within shooting range of innocent people at the target? Did they bother to inform the people there?
Clinton spokesman denies rumors of ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton Foundation
We already know how this plays out. Comey "reluctantly" clears Hillary shortly before the election, citing ambiguities in the law government that sort of thing and the difficulty of making a case and suggesting campaign finance reform laws are needed to prevent this sort of thing in the future, including a constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens' United case (which was, you may recall, all about criticizing Hillary before an election).
Of course not. It's a revolutionary war flag. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seems to think otherwise. And that's not just their opinion, they want it to be made the law, at least in the workplace.
The backstory here is that True the Vote and another group, Linchpins of Liberty, had their suits against the IRS dismissed as moot after the IRS allegedly took action to address their complaints by ceasing to target "Tea Party" groups. The DC court of appeals reinstates the cases against the IRS as an agency based on the violation of their Constitutional rights, but leaves intact the dismissal of the suit against individual defendants and the 6103 violations (the latter relating to holding tax return information confidential).
More details about the mootness holding below.
The major takeaway from this case, however, needs to be heavily emphasized.
DC Court of Appeals rules IRS targeting is still ongoing
Yes, you read that right. They are still doing it. The court also rules that the IRS has not established a reasonable expectation that the conduct will not reoccur, not eradicated the effects of the violation.
The case has been sent back to the district court for further proceedings.
Did the House bill remove the restrictions on DDT and fund a project to blanket the southern united states with it? No? Then it's not a serious threat and you're just wasting money.
His core point, though, is at least worth noting: the House has passed a bill, flawed as it is; the Senate has a weaker bill, but the Democrats are filibustering it. If you're severely concerned about Zika, you probably don't understand statistics. But you can at least take comfort in knowing who is blocking money and action on it.
Link above has autoplay video; sorry. But I agree with the sentiment. The only effective defense against terrorism is a armed populace. Even that's not perfect, but it's the best we can practically achieve, and it's sufficient when combined with a good (preemptive) offense against organizers and funders and a reasonably secure border.
It wasn't so very long ago when we were told by the IRS and the FBI that it was the agents in Cincinnati who started pulling the Tea Party cases by name and ideology and created the IRS scandal, forcing the DC leadership to send a team of IRS agents to Cincinnati to "help out". Now, however, Judicial watch has uncovered documents from the FBI investigation that demonstrate what was really going on:
The imperative to slow down Tea Party applications came from DC, as did the actual implementation, and the intrusive questionaires, and everything else. That's the official FBI conclusion based on the evidence.
That's the sound of a guilty conscience when he knows he's caught.
I suspect Judicial Watch has already issued the requisite FOIA requests to obtain those directives and who exactly sent them. This is the "orders from Washington" smoking gun that the media claimed was missing.
The courses being discussed here are the basic, fundamental instruction in the legal protections required to access various levels of classified information. They are the same courses that would have explained why running your own email server for government communications is not just a really bad idea, but is actually against the law.
Will anything be done about this? Of course not. No charges, no firings, nothing.
And this is why gun owners won't trust any gun control law, or gun control advocate, with anything. They will lie about wanting to ban guns; they will lie about keeping lists of gun owners explicitly forbidden by law. That means the law is no defense. The only thing stopping the government from confiscating guns is the fact that the people have guns.
If finding someone to vouch for you or signing an affidavit is enough to vote without an ID, rampant voter fraud is both inevitable and undetectable. Imagine a busload of people traveling from polling station to polling station, voting once at each one. Imagine hundreds or thousands of those buses running all over the single votes of honest citizens.
The thing is, it's not Constitutional to shut down all mosques or ban all muslims from the United States. It IS constitutional to investigate mosques preaching terrorism and shut down those who do, particularly when those mosques are linked to individuals who then conduct attacks. Hopefully, that is only a small fraction of mosques in the US. And similarly, it is constitutional (and wise!) to reject potential immigrants who pose a significant risk of becoming terrorists.
9 government employees charged in Flint water coverup
Just because you put the government in charge of something doesn't mean the people within the government will necessarily act altruistically. In practice, it often produces the exact opposite, by placing public officials beyond accountability.
Reid admits to violating election law but government won't prosecute
There seems to be a very evident political bias in these decisions concerning prosecution for campaign law violations. Leave aside for the moment whether the rules are a good idea or a Constitutional law. Just look at the decisions. Lerner: Not prosecuted. Clintons: Not prosecuted (on many, many possible charges). All Democrats. But a left-wing prosecutor in Austin, TX goes on a revenge kick and invents something to charge a sitting Republican governor with a crime and take him out of the presidential primary. The same office charges the Republican speaker of the Texas House with campaign finance violations, ending his political career. Years later, with an expensive appeal, he is cleared of the charges. But where does he go to get his political career back?
More important than the bad methodology is the fact that the author of the study won't release either his detailed methodology or his data. Without the data, his work is worthless because it can't be independently replicated. Without the methodology, he can't even defend it in public.
The easiest and quickest ways to identity bunk science is to ask to see the data. If they won't give it to you, it's bunk.
How kind of Lankford to make the whole thing easy for us to reject.
Patterico spells out each lie. This is not new information, but a useful collection in pointing out that Hillary is a fundamentally dishonest candidate.
