Pressure is mounting on Congress to “do something” in response to recent mass shootings in Texas and Ohio. A poll released Monday confirms what has been true for years: namely, that Americans support new gun regulations.
As the Washington Post put it, Americans “overwhelmingly support expanded background checks for gun buyers and allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize weapons from troubled individuals.” That includes “at least 8 in 10 Republicans, white evangelical Christians, members of gun-owning households.”
Democrats have a big advantage on the issue, with a 51% of Americans trusting them on the gun issue, and only 36% trusting Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has blocked knee-jerk gun control efforts in the past, but has said he will follow President Donald Trump’s lead. For the president, the issue presents a dilemma: he risks handing the Democrats an election issue if he does nothing, but risks losing support from his base if he compromises on guns.
Fortunately, there is a solution that could allow both sides to claim victory. Trump and McConnell could agree, on condition, to “expanded” background checks (a placebo, since most mass shooters pass background checks).
In return, they would demand universal reciprocal concealed carry — that states honor each other’s decisions to grant specific individuals the right to carry concealed weapons after an additional application.
According to scholar John Lott, Jr., the most important measure to lower gun violence — perhaps counter-intuitively — is expanding concealed carry. Criminals are less likely to shoot if someone may shoot back.
Trump could expand the Second Amendment’s reach while expanding background checks — and do the one thing that might actually address the problem.
To summarize: Congress could make concealed carry universal in exchange for requiring background checks on the small percentage of sales that don’t involve them. Trump would defuse the Democrats’ issue while expanding gun rights.
It seems like a no-brainer, and a way to prevent Democrats from taking it all in 2020 — in which case, there will be expanded background checks plus new restrictions on guns, in exchange for nothing and for no benefit.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
President Donald Trump said Monday that talks with the Taliban about peace with Afghanistan were over, citing the terrorist attack last week in Kabul.
“They’re dead as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said when asked about the proposed talks with Taliban leaders.
Trump spoke to reporters as he left the White House, after he canceled a meeting scheduled with the Taliban at Camp David for Sunday.
The president called the Taliban attacks “a big mistake.”
He said that the United States had escalated attacks against the Taliban in response to the terrorist attack that killed 12 people as well as one U.S. soldier and one Romanian solder in Kabul.
“We’ve hit the Taliban harder in the last four days than they’ve been hit in over ten years,” he said.
Trump said that meeting with Taliban leaders was his idea and that it was his idea to terminate the meeting after learning about them claiming responsibility for the attacks.
He defended the proposed talks, noting that even “bad” people met with presidents at Camp David in times of war.
“I’ve met with a lot of bad people and a lot of good people during the course of the last almost three years,” he said.
He expressed frustration with the ongoing engagement in Afghanistan, suggesting that it was up to the Afghan government to take control of their country.
“We’ve been policemen there for a long time, and the government’s going to have to take responsibility,” Trump said.
He reminded reporters of his campaign promise to end the war in Afghanistan, despite the recent escalation.
“We’d like to get out, but we’ll get out at the right time,” he said.
Following an allegation that members of one Democratic congresswoman’s staff were coaching migrants on how to game the rules at the border, House Republicans want to know why Democrats sent House Oversight Committee members on unexplained trips to Mexico. Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the ranking Republican on the panel, made the request in…
The animal rights movement took another credibility hit last week when a vegan activist known only as “Mythical Mia” raided a Spanish farm to free captive rabbits. Mia proudly proclaimed that she and her fellow rescuers (read “thieves and trespassers”) managed to save 16 “lucky” rabbits, according to the New York Post. “We only managed…
When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow branded One America News Network “paid Russian propaganda” back in July, the network demanded a retraction. Since that hasn’t worked, the conservative network decided on something stronger. About 10 million times stronger. One America News Network filed a $10 million lawsuit on Monday, according to a news release from the network’s…
Judicial Watch just released the transcript of a major court hearing (held last week) in which U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted significant new discovery to us on the Clinton email issue (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).
During the hearing, Judge Lamberth specifically raised concerns about a Clinton email cache recently discussed in a letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and wants us to “shake this tree” on this issue.
[J]ust last week, the Senate’s – Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees released documents revealing that Clinton IT aide Paul Combetta copied all but four of the missing emails to a Gmail account that does not appear to have ever been reconstructed and searched. The court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this tree.
Judge Lamberth also criticized the State Department’s handling and production of Clinton’s emails in this case stating, “There is no FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.”
In the beginning of their oral arguments, lawyers for the State Department wrongfully stated that we could no longer continue their discovery. The court stopped their arguments stone cold:
STATE DEPARTMENT: … it is, of course, Judicial Watch’s burden to explain to Your Honor why there has been good cause to reopen discovery now that discovery has closed in this case.
THE COURT: Well, I didn’t close discovery. So your premise is wrong.
STATE DEPARTMENT: Fair enough, Your Honor. Whether you want to call it closed or not, it is still —
THE COURT: I didn’t close it. I said I would have a status after they took this initial discovery, and that’s what I’m doing today. I didn’t close discovery.
STATE DEPARTMENT: That’s right, Your Honor, but it is still Judicial Watch’s —
THE COURT: So they don’t need any good cause —
STATE DEPARTMENT: Whether
THE COURT: — Today the good cause continues from whether or not State was acting in good faith, and I’ll tell you everything they’ve discovered in this period raises serious questions about what the hell the State Department’s doing here.
The Court also rejected DOJ and State’s efforts to derail further Judicial Watch discovery. Judge Lamberth called their arguments “preposterous” and cited a prior Judicial Watch FOIA case in which he ordered U.S. Marshals to seize records from a Clinton administration official in a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit:
I’ll tell you another thing. I didn’t like in your brief. I’ll tell you right now upfront. You put in your brief the most preposterous thing, I thought, in your brief was the very idea that — let me read you the line. Competitive Enterprise Institute was a case of first impression and that some District Judge bought that and the Court of Appeals reversed it. Now, that wasn’t a case of first impression at all. The first impression with me was a case I had involving Ron Brown and the travel records of whether or not, in the Commerce Department — and it was a Judicial Watch case — whether or not the Commerce Department was selling seats on trade missions, and I had a Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce who took a box of records home and then they gave a no-records response and, in the course of that, I found out he had taken the records home and they said they had no records. I sent marshals over and they got the box at his house, and I ordered them – the marshals — to seize the records. That was the first case.
The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and the discovery of information including former Secretary Clinton’s emails so poorly that we may have the ability to prove the they acted in “bad faith,” which would entitle Judicial Watch to attorney’s fees.
Judge Lamberth detailed how the State Department “spent three months from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear,” and that after discovering the State Department’s actions and omissions, “Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now.”
When I authorized discovery back in December, I described my goal: to rule out egregious government misconduct and vindicate the public’s faith in the State and Justice Departments. That’s still my goal today. This isn’t a case I relish, but it’s the case before me now, and it’s a case of the government’s making.”
The court granted us seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose being deposed by Judicial Watch.
Below is the court’s ruling from the bench granting us significant new discovery:
First, let me clarify the Government’s misunderstanding. We’re not reopening discovery here. Discovery never closed. Back in January, I said, quote, The Government will — the Court will hold a post-discovery hearing to ascertain the adequacy of State’s searches; to determine if Judicial Watch needs to depose additional witnesses, including Hillary Clinton or her former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills; and to schedule dispositive motions, unquote. So June 19th was a checkpoint, not a finish line. And whether Judicial Watch previously knew about some of the other individuals it now wants to depose is beside the point. They tailored their initial discovery request to the facts and questions then before the Court.
Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now.
Remember what got us started down this path in the first place. In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So, I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.
Now, the Government says, quote, there is simply no factual basis to justify any further discovery on that subject, unquote, but Judicial Watch’s most recent submission lays out the following:
It appears that in the middle of 2013, State’s Office of Information and Program Services launched an inquiry into Clinton’s email practices.
It appears that in August 2013, that office directed FOIA responders to stop issuing, quote, no record located, unquote, responses to FOIA requests for Clinton’s emails.
It appears that by the summer of 2014, State knew a large volume of Clinton’s emails had never been searched, potentially violating FOIA and record management obligations. It turns out State had a standing meeting every Wednesday afternoon during the summer of 2014 to discuss Clinton-related FOIA inquiries. Attendees included Secretary Kerry’s Chief of Staff; his Deputy Chief of Staff; the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources; the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs; several attorneys; and Patrick Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management. That’s every Wednesday afternoon.
It appears that in August 2014, State began planning for media investigations into Clinton’s emails.
It appears that in November 2014, State told Judicial Watch it performed a legally adequate search and tried to settle. In fact, I think, in my original opinion on authorizing discovery, I noted that State had given a draft Vaughn index to Judicial Watch at that time. I don’t think I have ever seen that, but I think it was given to I think, in my opinion, I said that it had been given to Judicial Watch. Indeed, State spent the next three months from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear. They kept doing it even after they came into the possession of Clinton’s emails.
Judicial Watch wants to follow up with the State attorney assigned to this FOIA request to participate in settlement discussions and negotiations. That seems reasonable to me.
[Judicial Watch] wants to ask the Department official responsible for overseeing FOIA requests more about why he directed his office to stop using “no record located” responses to FOIA requests relating to Clinton’s emails if that, in fact, is what happened. I’m curious, too.
They want to ask the current Department FOIA overseer more about what went on in those weekly 2014 meetings. I look forward to hearing what he says.
They want to ask the Justice Department attorney who led the settlement negotiations to divulge when he learned Clinton’s emails were missing. He must answer.
Another reason we had this initial discovery was to see if Secretary Clinton intentionally attempted to evade FOIA by using a private email. When Judicial Watch deposed the Deputy Director who oversaw State’s FOIA responses, he recalled an instance when in — his office found an email from Clinton’s private account and the Public Affairs team said, Remember, you’re not supposed to use that email. How can you spin that?
I agree with Judicial Watch that it’s worth deposing the State Department records officer who personally reviewed archiving procedures with Secretary Clinton and her departing staff to see what they discussed.
I also think Judicial Watch is justified to seek more information about how Secretary Clinton ultimately determined which emails were public records and which were private.
The final reason I authorized discovery was to determine whether State adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Now the Government seeks to duck behind an unpublished D.C. Circuit opinion from 2018 holding the Government has already taken every reasonable action under the Federal Records Act to retrieve Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails and no imaginable enforcement action could recover any more.
But just last week, the Senate’s — Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees released documents revealing Clinton IT aide Paul Combetta copied all but four of the missing emails to a Gmail account that does not appear to have ever been reconstructed and searched. The Court thinks Judicial Watch ought to shake this tree.
And the Court agrees with Judicial Watch that it should talk to three never-before-deposed State officials who raised concerns about Clinton’s private email use all the way back to 2009.
There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.
The Government also tries to say this Court [sic] is — no longer — or no longer presents a live controversy. This is wrong. Judicial Watch can still obtain fees if they prove agency bad faith.
I’ll close with this. When I authorized discovery back in December, I described my goal: to rule out egregious government misconduct and vindicate the public’s faith in the State and Justice Departments. That’s still my goal today. This isn’t a case I relish, but it’s the case before me now, and it’s a case of the government’s making.
The Court authorizes Judicial Watch to take the additional discovery described in its status report, except for deposing Secretary Clinton and her Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills. I will give their attorneys 30 days to file any additional opposition to their depositions and 10 days thereafter for Judicial Watch to file any reply, and I’ll issue a separate ruling on that. Otherwise, the discovery should go forward and all of it should be completed by December 13th. A status will be held on December 19th at 10:00 a.m. to set a further schedule in this case.
We uncovered new information about the Clinton email scandal that a federal court agrees requires more answers. We share the court’s annoyance with DOJ lawyers who continue to defend the indefensible. It is beyond disturbing that the State and Justice Departments would continue to try to protect Hillary Clinton and cover up her email scandal. President Trump should order the agencies to cooperate in uncovering the truth.
The new discovery comes in our July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014, request for:
Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
On December 6, 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”
The court ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request.
Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:
John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS) testified under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
In the interrogatory responses of E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testifiedthat both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.
We are, of course, grateful that a federal judge sees through the charade perpetrated by these high-ranking officials. I’ll be sure to update as the case continues to progress.
THIS IS BIG NEWS…
The International Police Union Associations serving over 100,000 members were early endorsers for the re-election of President Trump.
The International Union of Police Associations Formally Endorses the Campaign for the Re-election of President Donald J. Trump
Today President Sam A. Cabral announced that the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, has formally endorsed the campaign for the re-election of President Donald J. Trump.
President Trump has done more for Law Enforcement in the past two and a half years than was accomplished in the eight years that preceded his election. He has even undone some of the harmful acts of his predecessor.
– He signed an order that once again provided law enforcement agencies with life-saving surplus military equipment, especially armored vehicles that have saved the lives of
countless police and civilians.
– He directed the Attorney General to develop a strategy that will aggressively prosecute criminals who attack law enforcement.
– He provided more than 100,000.00 dollars to help communities hire more law enforcement officers.
– He championed and signed the Mental Health and Wellness Act that improved police access to Mental Health Service.
– He has resumed capital punishment of Federal Prisoners sentenced to death after a nearly two decades pause.
He has made our communities safer. Despite the daily news of violence, murder, and mayhem in the Democratic strongholds of Baltimore as well as Chicago and the absolute deteriorable situation of the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, the national crime rate has decreased during his presidency.
HUGE union & law enforcement endorsement for @realDonaldTrump – International Union of Police Associations, representing 100,000 cops!
IUPA has history of bipartisan endorsements.
Trump stands WITH POLICE OFFICERS who keep us safe in our neighborhoods.https://t.co/c30zCctChO
NYT deleted this tweet pic.twitter.com/UMaRTTZlfs — Anders Hagstrom (@Hagstrom_Anders) September 9, 2019 They deleted it sometime after posting it, noting it “lacked historical context.” We’ve deleted a previous tweet about Mao Zedong that lacked critical historical context. — NYT Archives (@NYTArchives) September 9, 2019 That killing and oppressing millions of people is some “historical context” […]
Democratic congressional candidate Valerie Plame’s (N.M.) campaign on Monday released a new ad, where she ended it with a message of having a "few scores to settle."
The ad, which is titled, "Undercover," shows liberal activist and ex-CIA operative Plame driving a Chevy Camaro backwards on an empty road in rural New Mexico while narrating her background throughout the ad.
"I was an undercover CIA operative. My assignment was preventing rogue states and terrorists from getting nuclear weapons. You name a hot spot, I lived it," Plame said, as Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea flashed as text on the screen.
Plame, who is running for New Mexico’s open 3rd Congressional District seat, then accused former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, of leaking her identity to get revenge against her now-ex-husband Joe Wilson for repeatedly criticizing the war in Iraq. While Libby was charged into obstruction of justice and perjury stemming from the investigation on who leaked Plame’s identity, it was former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage who admitted to leaking her identity. Plame then mentioned how President Donald Trump pardoned Libby last year.
"I come from Ukrainian Jewish immigrants. My dad was in the Air Force. My brother almost died in Vietnam. My service was cut short when my own government betrayed me," she said. "We left Washington to raise our kids in New Mexico, one of the best places on Earth. Now I’m running for Congress because we’re going backwards on national security, health care, and women’s rights."
"We need to turn our country around," Plame said while braking and getting out of her Camaro. "Yes, the CIA really does teach us how to drive like this. You’ve probably heard my name. Mr. President, I’ve got a few scores to settle."
While Plame mentions she comes from Ukrainian Jewish immigrants, she has a history of anti-Semitism. Back in 2017, she tweeted an article from the fringe site UNZ Review in Sept. 2017, accusing "American Jews" of "driving America’s wars."
She acknowledged she "messed up," but the Washington Examiner reported back in March she posted nine UNZ articles over the course of three years. Two of the articles included one titled "Why I Still Dislike Israel" and another about "Dancing Israelis" on 9/11.
When pressed by MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt back in May she claimed, "It’s not who I am and it’s not what I believe. It was extremely painful. I had not read the whole article all the way through and when I realized what it was, it was embarrassing and hurtful, so I apologize deeply and sincerely, and I’ve done it multiple times both privately and publicly."
She went on to say, "We all make mistakes" and that sharing the article was a "doozy."
State Attorneys General launched the largest, bipartisan antitrust investigation against Google Monday, encompassing nearly every state in the country.
State attorneys general announced Monday that they will begin an antitrust investigation into Google, primarily looking into whether Google’s dominant control of the online search markets and search traffic may have stifled competition, restricted access, and harmed consumers.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton started the conference by noting that the search giant “dominates all aspects of advertising on the Internet and searching on the Internet.”
The investigation includes nearly all state attorneys general– except for California and Alabama. The attorneys general from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico joined the investigation as well. The probe features Republicans, Democrats, and politicians across the political spectrum.
Google collects more than $48 billion in digital advertising spending annually and captures more than 75 percent of online American searching ads.
Paxton added that Google’s dominance on Internet advertising stretches from all aspects of the online advertising markets.
“They dominate the buyer side, the seller side, the auction side, and the video side with YouTube,” the Texas attorney general charged.
Louisiana Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry said, “We’re here because there’s an absolutely existential threat to our virtual marketplace.” He went on:
The Internet was once a revolutionizing home for ideas, debate, and content – a place that could benefit countless Louisiana consumers and businesses. However, Google’s dominance of online advertising and searching may have undermined the free market, harmed consumers, and stifled the free flow of thought and information.
Florida Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody said that the Google investigation revolves around Google’s data collection. He explained:
Google monitors our online behavior and captures data on every one of us as we navigate the Internet. This investigation will initially focus on capture of that information and whether Google embedded itself on every level of the online market [for] ad sales to monopolize this industry.
Meanwhile, 11 other attorneys general, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, started an investigation against Facebook, investigating whether the social media company violated competition laws and abused Americans’ privacy.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), a former Missouri state attorney general, said during a press conference call that the antitrust investigation was “very significant” “for those who believe in holding the big tech companies accountable.”
Utah attorney general Sean Reyes said that their investigation is not “anti-tech,” but will “level the playing the field” in the technology marketplace.
Reyes added that the question today is whether Google “strayed” from its “founding principles to not do evil in its search and relentless drive to be the market-dominant player.”
Landry said that Google’s dominance in the digital advertising market could “kill online publishing,” or Google could decide “who stays and who goes.”
Landry asked rhetorically, “How’s that for the fulfillment for the Internet promise for open places, ideas, debate, and content?”
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
