(from Judicial Watch…)
Just when you think we’ve learned most of what there is to learn about Hillary Clinton’s emails a new mole pops up out of the hole.
This week Judicial Watch released State Department documents including a declaration from FBI Special Agent E.W. Priestap, the supervisor of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email activities, stating that the former secretary of state was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.
The declaration was produced in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to take steps to “recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” and other U.S. Department of State employees (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785)). We originally filed the lawsuit against then-Secretary of State John Kerry. The Trump State Department filing includes details of the agency’s continuing and shameful refusal to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department, as the law requires.
In the filing, Priestap declares under penalty of perjury that the FBI “obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers.”
On April 30, 2015, Judicial Watch sued Kerry after the State Department failed to take action on a letter sent to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the [Federal Records Act],” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.
After initially being dismissed by the district court, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was revived on appeal by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016.
While at the State Department, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official government business using an unsecured email server and email accounts. Her top aides and advisors also used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business. Clinton left office February 1, 2013.
The FBI convened a grand jury to investigate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why is this information being released only now?
It is disturbing that the State Department, Justice Department, and FBI are still trying to protect Hillary Clinton. President Trump needs to clean house at all these agencies.
(Last Minute Louis™ is the moniker I’ve given myself for procrastinating)
So, here it is again. Tax time.
The government giveth and the government taketh away.
INCOME TAX IS THEFT! Period.
Having said that, being on disability, I don’t generally get taxed. Of course, I don’t get paid much, either.
And, as most of it comes from the government, they could decide at any moment to take it back, or stop giving it to me.
Regardless, I must file stoopid paperwork under penalty of law this time of year, showing how poor I really am.
I may make up to $1000 a month over my stipends, and not lose benefits – like someone would hire a 64-year-old cripple with many health problems, including the need to recline every couple of hours!
I DID finish the requisite forms and efiled last night about 1915 hours.
Having no real property, assets or income, I pay nothing. And am receiving nothing in return.
The State of Arizona does see fit to give the lowly $25.00 in return. Of course, it cost me $10.00 to file!
And a couple hours of combing through meaningless paperwork.
Is it any wonder I’m a Last Minute Louis™?
My friend Borepatch is an Internet security professional. And a fine blogger and good friend.
Here’s what he has to say about the latest Wikileaks CIA revelations:
(Here’s a hint – the media is less-than-accurate!)
The media has a poor track record of getting security stories right, and the CIA Wikileaks document dump is no exception. For example, they don’t hack your TV over the network:
The CIA didn’t remotely hack a TV. The docs are clear that they can update the software running on the TV using a USB drive. There’s no evidence of them doing so remotely over the Internet. If you aren’t afraid of the CIA breaking in an installing a listening device, then you should’t be afraid of the CIA installing listening software.
So as long as you’re not worried about a CIA operative breaking into your house, this specific exploit isn’t going to be aimed at you. Does this mean you should hook your smart TV up to the ‘net? Ohhellsno. Just no.
And this is pretty interesting:
There’s no false flags. In several places, the CIA talks about making sure that what they do isn’t so unique, so it can’t be attributed to them. However, Wikileaks’s press release hints that the “UMBRAGE” program is deliberately stealing techniques from Russia to use as a false-flag operation. This is nonsense. For example, the DNC hack attribution was live command-and-control servers simultaneously used against different Russian targets — not a few snippets of code. [More here]
Like I said, it’s hard to get stories like this right and mostly the Press doesn’t. There are more examples at the link.
I’ve no expertise in this area, but I trust Borepatch.
You gotta trust someone, right?
(joke, or sarcasm, depending on your mood)
(from my friend Joel @ TUAK)
…but there were no cars, because there was no fuel.
Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem.
In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights[*] said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.
Yup. The honchos in the Venezuelan government were embarrassed by bread lines. So, in a brilliant example of historical illiteracy – dovetailing nice with their economic illiteracy – they arrested a bunch of bakers.
Yeah. We need more government controls here.
Also I’m reminded I need to buy more flour when I’m in the big town next week…
*Dig this: The National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights is apparently responsible for arresting people who get caught exercising what, in a sane society, would be their socioeconomic rights. Must be socialism.
AH! Government at it’s best! I would have said ‘at HER best’, but that would be insulting all femininity.
(March 15 for the Julius Caesar/Shakespeare impaired!)
I subscribe to a smattering of emails from allegedly like-minded individuals.
Sometimes I am in agreement with their themes.
Other times, not so much.
One guy, who operates a small libertarianesque, survivalist business has been promoting a book ‘not yet in bookstores’, purporting to describe the next financial collapse, and confiscation of bank accounts(!) by the government!!
(Other nations wherein this has begun, or is beginning! – ZeroHedge)
Allegedly, this is to begin MARCH 15! (The Ides of March, for all you Julius Caesar fans.)
Coincidence? Astrology? A soothsayer’s truth?
I’ve no idea. I cannot afford the book, and probably wouldn’t buy it, anyway.
Most of my income is direct deposit disability. I suspect if BIGGOV wanted to take it, they would so do.
WHY? Because they can!
(So, you thought you’d withdraw your cash and hide it in your mattress? Not so fast there, Bucko!)
The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.” In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon along with many others saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority. (Wikipedia)
I believe we have seen the Silent Majority become silent no longer. Not by taking to the streets, blocking freeways, burning buildings and other crimes, but by simply voting.
Making a statement they have had enough of the Fabian, Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive, One-World “it takes a village” crap that The United States has been spoon fed for more than a century.
As posted by Irish (sent in by Murray. (I have no idea if it was correctly attributed to Paul Genova or not)
By Paul Genova—You Created Us
I haven’t said too much about this election since the start, but this is how I feel.
I notice that many of you are not graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact, you seem to be posting ever more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently triggered because you are posting how sick you feel about the results.
How did this happen you may ask? It’s simple
– You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.
– You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.
– You created “us” when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
– You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.
– You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.
– You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
– You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
– You created “us” when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
– You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
– You created “us” when you attacked our flag.
– You created “us” when you took God out of our schools.
– You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.
– You created “us” when you began to emasculate men.
– You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.
– You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
– You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.
– You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
– “You” created “us” the silent majority.
– You created “us” when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
– You created “us” when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn’t remove your hat during our National Anthem.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of “us”.
“YOU” created “US”.
It really is that simple. You democrats have only yourselves to blame.
Now, I may quibble with a couple of the tenets previously expressed, but I ‘get’ the gist. The majority of folks who are simply trying to live their lives, go to work, raise their children, love their family and friends have decided they have had enough of unnecessary governmental overreach and intrusion. And decided to take action.
And the Left doesn’t know how to react – because they didn’t win, as they expected. And they are not big on introspection and correction – they just react.
As spoiled children.
(from Free North Carolina)
In an article entitled “Historic Preservation Still Unites Us” First Lady of Virginia Dorothy McAuliffe touts the worthiness of historic preservation: “May we Virginians, and all Americans, continue to enjoy history through preservation and never take for granted that its lessons are the guideposts to a better future.”
We could not agree more with this statement but recognize that in the Commonwealth of Virginia there exists a hypocritical double-standard regarding historic preservation. Confederate monuments and memorials are currently the lowest hanging fruit – ripe and easy targets for those who view history with tunnel vision. It should not be this way – we as Americans should protect our past instead of shunning it. Existing memorials in our public spaces should not be banished from their long-standing locations based on emotion and divisive politics. The poet John Donne famously wrote “no man is an island,” and these monuments are not islands either – they are connected to the communities in which they reside. And they tell a story, not just about the events and people they depict, but about those who commissioned and sculpted them to vivid life. If historic preservation matters, it should matter for all Registered Historic Landmarks, and not just those deemed “acceptable” by the powers that be.
The attorneys retained to fight Charlottesville City Council’s vote to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument from Lee Park are diligently preparing their case. Rest assured that they do not take this charge lightly and will proceed with filing at the precise and practicable moment.
We appreciate your patience, support and contributions as this issue moves forward. If you have donated, Thank You. We have been touched by the messages we have received and the willingness of people across the country and even overseas to contribute to save history. If you haven’t donated and feel this issue is important, please consider a contribution – no amount is too small to help us win this battle:
Checks payable to: The Monument Fund, Inc., P.O. Box 483, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. All contributions are tax deductible.
The idea such actions to save historical monuments are even necessary is horrific!
First, I’m a believer in this Nation’s history, warts and all.
Second, didn’t the United States Congress pass legislation almost 100 years ago stating that ALL military participants in the Civil War (or the War Between the States, or the recent unpleasantness, if you prefer!) were VETERANS as such deserving of remembrance and monuments as much as the Union soldiers?
And that desecration or removal of military monuments was against federal law?
Sadly, this is not the only location or action taken against Confederate monuments. Politically correct forces are continuing to try to erase American History (and by extension free speech), lest the young learn about the whole cloth of history!
Please help if you can.
(from Free North Carolina)
The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
California has created a travel ban of its own, which prohibits its own public university students from traveling to “anti-LGBT” states.
The law that went into effect Jan. 1 prohibits state-funded travel to states that are not LGBT-friendly, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
The law prevents students of the University of California and California State University from traveling to four states outlined by California attorney general Xavier Becerra, including Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Not LGBT friendly? As defined by the California AG?
I’m not certain what that means, exactly. Rejected ‘gender non-specific’ bathroom legislation? Didn’t give extra rights to persons who are gender confused?
How is banning a student from travel (through the use of State funds) going to teach them anything about freedom? (It does teach them about the abuse of State Power.) And, how many students does this affect, exactly? Sports teams? Band members? Debate clubs?
I think the California Attorney General is tilting at windmills, in the name of political correctness.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.
(in part from TFB)
There are some bold issues being addressed. One of which is point 5, the use of a stabilizing brace.
5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:
Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun
did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the
National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as
an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short – barreled rifle). ATF has not made an other NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.
While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push
the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a
relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms
with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with
future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics
This could change their determination that came out back in 2015 that using a brace could constitute a redesign. As Adam Kraut had explained, misusing a product is not the same as redesigning or manufacturing.
If that got you excited wait until you see what else they got cooking.
Next up is the point about Slencers.
Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This
requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the
silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers
have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges
and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.
At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The
wide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created
substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF
to have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is
now approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer
would be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of
[silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to
the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated
part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed
silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered
by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part
or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be
These two points are huge. There are other great points addressed in the White Paper and I encourage you to read it all.
The conclusion of the White Paper addresses it nicely:
There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.
There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to support
ATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence.
The future looks bright and I hope the ATF accepts these issues and solutions.
I wonder if this ‘reversal’ of some contentious regulations has anything to do with the rumor that the President, in his consolidation and streamlining of government bureaucracy, wants to eliminate the BATFE and create a division of the FBI to handle such matters? (Fast & Furious come to mind?) Are they trying to appear more ‘user friendly’ to their constituency to keep their agency and their jobs?
Naw, not possible…