The problem here is that once the FBI gave all the aides immunity, they then declined to prosecute Hillary herself. Which defeats the point of giving aides immunity in return for testimony. However, it does ensure that Congress can't threaten those aides to force them to testify. The FBI is using immunity deals to obstruct justice.
Obama used a pseudonym when communicating with Hillary's private server
So there are a couple reasons this is a big deal. The pseudonym itself is actually a minor one. People in the Obama administration using pseudonyms (in some cases to avoid FOIA requests) has been very common, but this is the first time we've had it confirmed that Obama was using one.
That's how Politico headlines the article, but they are burying the lede. There's much more significance here.
USA Today is trying to push the narrative that Trump won't do well on the gun issue, so gun rights advocates shouldn't vote for him. It's a more effective strategy than trying to get gun control advocates to vote against him, because gun control advocates are too few and not motivated enough to make up a major influence among voters. (Their political influence comes from billionaire donors and astroturf, not real support).
I think gun owners are smart enough to not be deceived by Trump's vocalized support for "stop and frisk", a somewhat controversial law enforcement policy. He's talking about police stopping people who they think might be carrying a gun and searching them. If they are carrying a gun illegally -- unlicensed carry, or a felon in possession, or likely both -- then the gun is confiscated, and the person can be arrested and charged with a crime.
The policy is controversial for good reasons. How can a police officer detect a gun AND the lack of a legal license to carry it on someone he doesn't recognize? It pretty much boils down to behavioral cues, which are subjective, and race, which is illegal. But it's a long way from "taking guns away" in the usual sense, that is, police conducting door-to-door home invasions to search and confiscate lawfully owned guns from peaceful citizens.
The best part is that Trump, as President, won't really be able to do much one way or the other about stop and frisk policies. Those are under the control of the local police, not the federal government or the president.
So while I doubt Trump will be great on gun rights, this particular statement doesn't bother me. Especially since I know Hillary would cheerfully authorize the door-to-door version.
There's a new study out from a think tank run by Hillary Clinton's campaign director claiming Trump's plan to make cuts at the Department of Education would cost a lot of teachers their jobs. As in, half a million of them.
The Department of Education doesn't employ any teachers.
Public schools are funded by the states.
Trump's plan, if enacted, would fire a bunch of useless idiots and save some money.
I think that being caught in your car on a highway surrounded by such a mob trying to get you out of your car is a deadly force threat (disparity of numbers, fires, other cars presenting hazards, etc, etc). While it's a good idea to look for ways to avoid the situation, once you're caught in it, driving your way out through the rioters if necessary seems like a horrible but legally defensible choice. (This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.)
It's really looking like we need a free-speech alternative to twitter.
The only thing she can really say here is that she contacted people at the State Department using their .gov address so that State's system could pick up the email from their account. Which, obviously, it did not. Worse, that's obviously not true for Huma (who also had an account on the Clinton server) and possibly her other aides. It's also not helpful with respect to anyone not at the State Department (even if they are at other government agencies, Hillary's emails are the responsibility of the State Department).
What he means is that he's going to cash in by giving a lot of speeches about climate change. It's probably a step down from the position as UN General Secretary that he was expecting, but a failed president is hard to put into that slot and it has become pretty obvious that Obama is a failed president.
Frankly I think climate change is on the way out as an issue too, but there may be enough time left for Obama to cash in. Or maybe he just couldn't find anything better.
First Presidential Forum to be moderated by Clinton Global Initiative member
It's not a debate, it's two people who appear on the same stage in front of the same audience... but not at the same time. In other words, the Hillary campaign is afraid Trump will talk over her, interrupt her, correct her lies and misleading statements, and generally act like a strong and dominant alpha male. But if Hillary is the best the feminists can offer, shouldn't she be able to handle him?
Being a "notable past member" of the Clinton Global Initiative costs $20,000 in cash or in-kind favors from journalists. Per year, I think.
... 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.