"Not so long ago, and not so far away, the Democrats -- some of whom are still alive in prison to this day! -- used the intelligence agencies of the United States in a coup attempt against the legitimately elected President Trump. The agencies involved were the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, and many others. I can see you are puzzled, you don't recognize those names from your civics class? Those agencies are no longer around today; they were disbanded, their buildings demolished, and the earth upon which they had stood was salted, so that nothing would ever grow from their poisoned trees again..."
We already know British intelligence was involved to some degree, without having any details. We know the head of one of their intelligence agencies resigned shortly after Trump's election, after only a few months on the job. It would be too much of a coincidence for that to not be related.
The House Intel committee is now investigating former SecState Kerry's role in the dossier. Were any of Obama's cabinet officials not involved?
This is the problem with having massive government agencies that collect everything. Once they've got it, they can't keep it safe, and privacy is inevitably violated.
This is why the 4th Amendment should be read to mandate that they do not get access to it, at all, until they specifically go to a court and get specific permission for a specific person based on specific probable cause of a crime.
If he's right, it's not the first time Halper engaged in a little election meddling on both sides. And there are some very large payments from government accounts to him. It looks very much like the intelligence community is for hire and willingly takes money to help decide elections. That's a bigger scandal than even I expected.
Yes, elections. He apparently has close ties to the Bush family, which has surprisingly amiable relations with the Clintons. There are indications he meddled in the Reagan-Carter race, in the other direction, perhaps explained by his connection to the Bushes (George Bush Sr was Reagan's VP candidate). And if he'll do it twice, why wouldn't he or others do it much more often than that?
The claims from the intelligence community that revealing his name would jeopardize his life seems absurd and self-serving. Unless, you know, they think someone would object to him fixing elections for the intelligence community rather violently.
They ruled out terrorism as a motive already? Smells like bullshit to me. Not to mention media censorship; have there been any reports in major US media about this attack? No?
Oh, and remind me again how this doesn't happen in the Europe?
And note how these are "automatic" rifles, not semiautomatic. That's the full military scary version that the gun control crowd likes to imply are heavily used in the United States. They aren't, but terrorists can get them even in gun control friendly Europe.
Twitter shadowbans author of article criticizing Twitter for shadowbans
None of these companies can be trusted to remain neutral arbiters of speech. The early success of the Internet was based on the use of open protocols that allowed many sites and systems to communicate via the agreed-upon standards like HTML and HTTP. What we have now are huge walled islands controlled by large companies with distinct political biases.
There are millions of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners in America.
How many of us are you willing to kill to get our guns?
Will you stop at murdering ten times the number of people who die in school shootings?
Will you stop at one hundred times that number? One thousand times?
If you kill one million gun owners for every student who died in a school shooting this year, you'll still have millions of formerly peaceful, law-abiding gun owners left over who will not be very happy with you. And the blood of their friends, their family, their children, their parents... all of it will be on your hands, Dave, because you said you were going to come and take our guns, right now. You're not going to wait to change the law or allow for due process, so when we respond, it will be self-defense against felony home invasion and theft.
At least, I assume you meant you, personally, right? You'll be on the front lines going door to door, right? Taking the risk yourself?
Oh, and while you're on the front lines to confiscate guns from peaceful, law-abiding Americans, will you be threatening them with a gun?
Oh, you say you won't be doing it personally? You'll send the police? Well, Dave, fuck you anyway.
UPDATE: He added a followup article, in which he claims his original article was "moderate" and that he just wants to "compromise". Sorry, no. We've compromised how many times over the past few decades? And every time you want something more as soon as the next inevitable tragedy rolls around. So, no. No more one-sided compromise. If you want something, at least consider giving us something we want in return. Because taking half of what we have left isn't compromise just because you left of half of what we started with.
It sounds like there are reporters out there who know the identity of the source who leaked those records. Find them and prosecute them. This bullshit has to stop.
IG report on Clinton email investigation will contain criminal referrals?
If it's just one, we're probably looking at McCabe, for interfering and delaying before finally recusing himself after taking a huge payoff in campaign cash for his wife.
Another report says no criminal referrals. Not sure who I believe there. I would hope it's as simple as the decision hasn't been made yet. The final version is still outstanding.
Trump is also demanding the FBI and DOJ release the documents requested by Congress.
And it looks like there will be an order to DOJ/FBI to release the documents to Congressional oversight, too. Personally, at this point, I'm curious who was making the decision to try to keep those documents held back, because it seems likely they have a vastly personal stake in hiding what those documents contain.
I'm not sure if I want to go that far. Any serious attempt at regulating the media would invite regulatory capture immediately, and backfire upon the small, indepedent bloggers and commentators. But to be honest... yes, I do think the media attention given to mass murders that happen at school contributes to them happening again and again and again.
Rand Paul wants to know what Haskel knew and when she knew it
I could care less about what Haskel did to terrorists. But what she may have done to Trump's campaign is important. If there is reason to think she was involved, she should be questioned about it, extensively, under oath, after a thorough review of all available documentation. Treat this as an opportunity to get her on the record. And, if she lies... there's always a perjury charge, or contempt of Congress, or impeachment.
Treat it, as well, as an opportunity to extract a pledge from Haskel to provide Congress with everything CIA has on Brennan's abuses of power.
Funny how all these upstanding straight shooters from the left always turn out to have skeletons in their closets when you bother to open them. In this case, a Russian billionaire in 2009 (under Obama, when Mueller was running the FBI) spent about $25 million trying to rescue an FBI agent captured in Iran. The operation ended when then Secretary of State Clinton refusing to make a statement that would allegedly have shifted the blame away from Iran.
Funny how leaving Americans to die is better for Clinton then a little diplomatic lying. Of course, the Russian billionaire involved has since been caught up in legal issues over ties to Paul Manafort, whom Mueller has charged, and the aid he gave to the FBI in that case may have been illegal as well.
Russian company demands dismissal of Mueller's charges
I don't claim to know if any of these companies actually did what Mueller is accusing them of or not. But Mueller should not be allowed to get away with sham indictments designed to smear a president. He should have to prove his charges.
Did Brennan lie to Congress about using the dossier?
May Brennan and Clapper be prosecuted for their lies to Congress with exactly the same force and intent as Michael Flynn was prosecuted for allegedly lying to the FBI.
Jack Dunphy, a pseudonym for a police officer who writes articles on police work online, has an article complaining the "untrained" are criticizing police work. He seems to think that being untrained in police work means the criticizes of police work are invalid, and, by implication, that members of the Civilian Oversight Board should be "trained" to police standards before they criticize the results of that police training.
He's got it exactly wrong.
Police should be trained to meet the standards of the Civilian Oversight Board. Those civilians are representing the larger public who employs the police force, and from whom collectively the police derive their authorization to operate.
Don't get me wrong; I believe civilian oversight boards should be fully informed about the training and policies used by the police forces they oversee. But their role in that process is not to be passively trained until they accept both the police training and the results that come from it. Their role is to understand the current training standards and evaluate the results of that training in the real world.
That they are civilians, not trained police officers, is the whole point.