Advertisements
Home

Report: House Democrat Shielded Chief Of Staff Accused Of Hitting Woman, Threatening To Kill Her

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

How can this be as only Republicans are supposed to be female abusers?

Democratic Conn. Rep. Elizabeth Esty (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

Democratic Connecticut Rep. Elizabeth Esty kept her chief of staff on the job for three months after he was accused of punching and threatening to kill a female staffer, and then recommended him for his next job, according to several new reports.

Esty’s former chief of staff, Tony Baker, allegedly abused and sexually harassed the female staffer over a period of several years, culminating in a May 2016 threat to kill the female staffer, whom the Washington Post identified as Anna Kain.

“You better fucking reply to me or I will fucking kill you,” Baker said in a May 5, 2016 voicemail, a copy of which Kain provided to the Post. Esty found out about the incident within a week, but chose to keep Baker in his paid position for another three months, the Post reported. Esty admitted on Thursday that she “failed to protect” the female staffer from Baker.

Esty’s office gave Baker a $5,000 severance payment when she eventually fired him in July 2016 and she later recommended him for a position at Sandy Hook Promise, the Hartford Courant reported. Baker was dismissed from his position at the nonprofit last week, according to the Post.

The Republican Party’s Connecticut state chair, J.R. Romano, is calling on Esty to resign for keeping Baker in his position and then vouching for him.

“She wrote [Baker] a glowing recommendation and helped him get another job after he was known to be abusive,” Romano told the Courant. “The Democratic Party in this state needs to join me in calling for Elizabeth Esty to resign.”

 

Advertisements

Democrats Brag About Gun Control – In Baltimore!

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

  Baltimore is the most dangerous city in America, according to a new study by USA Today because of gun control.               

The honest residents of Baltimore are unarmed while the thugs are armed to the teeth.

Baltimore is the most dangerous city in America, according to a new study by USA Today, with 55.8 murders per 100,000 residents. In spite of that fact, the Maryland Democratic Party is touting the “assault weapons ban” the party implemented in 2013 as a way to raise money. “Will USA follow MD’s lead?” asks a fundraising email from Maryland Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathleen Matthews.

The fundraising email from Matthews, wife of MSNBC personality Chris Matthews, reads, “Following the tragic Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Democrats in Maryland passed one of the toughest assault weapons bans in the country.”

“Now, as young people in Parkland are leading the Never Again movement against gun violence, all of Maryland’s Democratic members of Congress are united against the NRA and their Republican cronies in the fight to pass an assault weapons ban to protect all Americans.”

It then contained a picture with a link to the state party’s fundraising page:

Screen capture from Maryland Democratic Party fundraising email.

Matthews continues, “Help us ensure they can continue their work in Washington and Annapolis by making a contribution of $25, $50, or even $100 today. We have great Democratic representation here in Maryland. Let’s keep it that way.”

In 2013, then-Governor Martin O’Malley, signed the Firearms Safety Act into law, which was billed at the time as “among the nation’s most restrictive gun-control measures.” In the years following the law’s passage, the City of Baltimore — that largest city in Maryland — has seen an escalation of its murder rate, jumping from 211 murders in 2014 to 343 in 2017.

In addition to Maryland’s restrictive gun laws, the city of Baltimore has very restrictive laws regarding gun ownership and is a “may issue” state, not a “shall issue” state in regards to the ability to carry a concealed firearm.

 

BOMBSHELL: Comey Held Secret Obama White House Meeting Before The Inauguration

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

Comey has been caught in one lie and he has lied about many more things it is time to investigate his perjury then bring charges as need be.

FBI Director James Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama two weeks before Trump’s inauguration and may have deliberately misled Congress about it, according to an email sent by National Security Advisor Susan Rice that GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham partially unclassified.

The meeting — which Comey never previously disclosed to Congress — occurred in the White House on Jan. 5, 2017. It included Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Comey. The topic of the meeting was potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

By failing to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the meeting in his June 8, 2017, testimony, Comey may have deliberately and intentionally misled Congress about his interactions with the former president, especially a meeting so close to Trump entering the White House.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice wrote in an email written the day before the inauguration.

The National Archives gave Grassley and Graham “classified and unclassified emails” about the meeting.

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.

Grassley and Graham stated on their websites they “were struck by the context and timing of this email, and sent a follow up letter to Ambassador Rice.”

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation,” the two senators told Rice.

“In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book,’” they continued.

Rice is scheduled to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Feb. 22.

Grassley co-authored the letter to Rice as chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Graham as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Bruce Ohr Hid Wife’s Fusion GPS Payments From Ethics Officials

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

It is time for a Special Prosecutor investigate this whole mess with Fusion GPS, the DNC,the Clintons,Bruce Ohr,Nellie Ohr and Bathhouse Barry Obama.

  • Justice Department official Bruce Ohr did not disclose Fusion GPS was paying his wife
  • Ohr was demoted from his post after the information emerged
  • Willfully falsifying government ethics documents can result in jail time

Bruce Ohr, the Department of Justice official who brought opposition research on President Donald Trump to the FBI, did not disclose that Fusion GPS, which performed that research at the Democratic National Committee’s behest, was paying his wife, and did not obtain a conflict of interest waiver from his superiors at the Justice Department, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The omission may explain why Ohr was demoted from his post as associate deputy attorney general after the relationship between Fusion GPS and his wife emerged and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson acknowledged meeting with Ohr. Willfully falsifying government ethics forms can carry a penalty of jail time, if convicted.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired Fusion GPS to gather and disseminate damning info about Trump, and they in turn paid Nellie Ohr, a former CIA employee with expertise in Russia, for an unknown role related to the “dossier.” Bruce Ohr then brought the information to the FBI, kicking off a probe and a media firestorm.

The DOJ used it to obtain a warrant to wiretap a Trump adviser, but didn’t disclose to the judge that the DNC and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign had funded the research and that Ohr had a financial relationship with the firm that performed it — which could be, it turns out, because Ohr doesn’t appear to have told his supervisors. Some have suggested that the financial payments motivated Bruce Ohr to actively push the case.

For 2014 and 2015, Bruce Ohr disclosed on ethics forms that his wife was an “independent contractor” earning consulting fees. In 2016, she added a new employer who paid her a “salary,” but listed it vaguely as “cyberthreat analyst,” and did not say the name of the company.

The instructions require officials to “Provide the name of your spouse’s employer. In addition, if your spouse’s employer is a privately held business, provide the employer’s line of business.” As examples, it gives “Xylophone Technologies Corporation” and “DSLK Financial Techniques, Inc. (financial services).” The dollar amount does not need to be disclosed. “Report each source, whether a natural person or an organization or entity, that provided your spouse more than $1,000 of earned income during the reporting period,” they say.

The DOJ says, “Financial disclosure reports are used to identify potential or actual conflicts of interest. If the person charged with reviewing an employee’s report finds a conflict, he should impose a remedy immediately.” Its guidance says, “Employees should always seek the advice of an ethics official when contemplating any action that may be covered by the rules.”

Paul Kamenar, a Washington, D.C., public policy lawyer experienced in executive branch ethics and disclosure laws, said, “Based on my reading of the regulations and disclosure guide accompanying the form, he failed to disclose the source of his wife’s income on line 4 by not including the ‘name of the employer.’”

“The law provides that whoever ‘knowingly and willfully’ fails to file information required to be filed on this report faces civil penalties up to $50,000 and possible criminal penalties up to one year in prison under the disclosure law and possibly up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001,” he said. “Since he lists her income type as ‘salary’ as opposed to line 1 where he describes her other income as ‘consulting fees’ as an ‘independent contractor’ it’s clear that she was employed by a company that should have been identified by name.”

“And even with respect to her ‘independent contractor’ listing, it appears incomplete by not describing what kind of services were provided. Both these omissions do not give the reviewing official sufficient information to determine whether there is a conflict,” Kamenar added.

Bruce Ohr spouse financial disclosure (DOJ)

Bruce Ohr spouse financial disclosure (DOJ)

Ohr also did not get a conflict of interest waiver from his supervisors, suggesting that he may not have explained to anyone the true source of the income and how it intersected with his official involvement in the case, nor did he have approval.

If a potential conflict is disclosed and explained to supervisors, a government agency can grant a conflict of interest waiver, known as a 208(b) waiver. In response to a records request, officials told TheDCNF, “There are no … waivers for this filer.”

Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, said “he couldn’t get a waiver for that. That would have required outright recusal.” Making it potentially even worse than failing to recuse, Ohr’s pressing the Trump case appears to be something he decided to do on his own, rather than something assigned to him.

Bruce Ohr was demoted from his DOJ position shortly after the company’s founder acknowledged in a Nov. 14, 2017, interview with the House Intelligence Committee that he had met with him. Fox News reported in December that Ohr had concealed his meetings with the firm from his supervisors.

The form says, “[F]alsification of information required to be filed by section 102 of the [Ethics in Government Act of 1978] may also subject you to criminal prosecution” as well as “civil monetary penalty and to disciplinary action by your employing agency.”

The lack of disclosure is the latest of several examples of people apparently trying to conceal the financial relationship that Fusion GPS, which was funded by the DNC, had with the family of the DOJ official.

In Fusion GPS founder Simpson’s November House interview, he conspicuously omitted his relationship with Nellie Ohr, painting Bruce Ohr as someone who he was connected to independently. Investigators said, “You’ve never heard from anyone in the U.S. Government in relation to those matters, either the FBI or the Department of Justice?”

“I was asked to provide some information … by a prosecutor named Bruce Ohr,” he said.

Investigators said, “Did Mr. Ohr reach out to you?”

“It was someone that Chris Steele knows … and I met Bruce too through organized crime conferences or something like that … Chris told me that he had been talking to Bruce … and that Bruce wanted more information, and suggested that I speak with Bruce,” Simpson said.

Simpson also said his firm was not affiliated with any Russian speakers, even though Nellie Ohr appears to speak the language.

In addition to meeting with Simpson, Ohr also met with Steele before the election.

In an earlier Aug. 22, 2017, interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson didn’t mention either of the Ohrs by name. He said he had not met with any FBI officials about the matter, without noting his contact with the DOJ official.

Simpson suggested in court records on Dec. 12, 2017, that the only way government investigators could have found out about Nellie Ohr’s relationship with the company was through its bank records. “Bank records reflect that Fusion contracted with Nellie Ohr, a former government official expert in Russian matters, to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump. I am not aware of any other sources from which the committee or the media could have learned of this information,” he said.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has been critical of the department’s handling of the Trump investigation, said, “This document ought to trigger an immediate criminal investigation if one isn’t already ongoing.”

Kathleen Clark, an ethics expert and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said beyond the disclosure issue, as far as the legal definition of conflict of interest requiring a recusal, it could depend on whether Ohr’s actions would have had a “direct and predictable” effect on his wife’s income from Fusion GPS.

Kamenar said what is known as the frequently used “catch-all” provision clearly applies, saying “Circumstances… would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee’s impartiality” require recusal.

Amey said, “As a lawyer and a top Justice official, Ohr should know that he can’t participate in anything related to his wife’s work … Ohr should have been upfront about his wife’s employment and not touched anything related to Steele, the dossier, and Fusion GPS.” The DOJ’s judgment is only as good as the information volunteered to them by Ohr, he said, and because he didn’t list the name of his wife’s employer, they likely had no reason to suspect it might have impacted his work.

Walter Schaub, a former government ethics czar who is an expert on the forms and resigned after offering sharp criticisms of Trump, declined repeated requests to weigh in on Ohr.

Bruce Ohr did not return a request for comment, nor did the DOJ.

BOMBSHELL: Comey Held Secret Obama White House Meeting Before The Inauguration

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

The stench from the swamp is getting worse day by day.

FBI Director James Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama two weeks before Trump’s inauguration and may have deliberately misled Congress about it, according to an email sent by National Security Advisor Susan Rice that GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham partially unclassified.

The meeting — which Comey never previously disclosed to Congress — occurred in the White House on Jan. 5, 2017. It included Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Comey. The topic of the meeting was potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

By failing to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the meeting in his June 8, 2017, testimony, Comey may have deliberately and intentionally misled Congress about his interactions with the former president, especially a meeting so close to Trump entering the White House.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice wrote in an email written the day before the inauguration.

The National Archives gave Grassley and Graham “classified and unclassified emails” about the meeting.

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.

Grassley and Graham stated on their websites they “were struck by the context and timing of this email, and sent a follow up letter to Ambassador Rice.”

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation,” the two senators told Rice.

“In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book,’” they continued.

Rice is scheduled to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Feb. 22.

Grassley co-authored the letter to Rice as chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Graham as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.

Adam Schiff Confirms Democratic Memo Contains ‘Sources and Methods’

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

Little Pencil Neck Adam Full Of Schiff wanted this memo to be a gotcha for President rump instead it has backfired on him.

  • California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff confirmed that his party’s memo needed to be scrubbed for sources and methods
  • This directly contradicts House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the delay was President Donald Trump attempting a cover-up
  • Schiff criticized former President Barack Obama’s lack of response to cyber warfare

White House problems with the Democrats’ “rebuttal memo” on the surveillance of Trump associates are genuine and the document could disclose “sources and methods,” California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed.

“We need to go through that and identify that which remains classified and would implicate sources and methods or investigative interests,” he said at a newsmaker’s breakfast meeting on Wednesday sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

His comments constituted a direct rebuke to his party’s top boss in the House of Representatives, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

White House counsel Don McGahn said in a statement Friday that Trump was “inclined” but “unable” to declassify the Democrat’s 10-page memo because it “contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages,” according to Politico.

Schiff’s conciliatory statement could embarrass Pelosi. In a stinging commentfollowing the McGahn statement, Pelosi said, “President Trump’s refusal to release Intelligence Committee Democrats’ memo is a stunningly brazen attempt to cover up the truth about the Trump-Russia scandal from the American people.”

The Democratic memo is an attempt to counter a four-page memo released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a California Republican.

The Nunes memo asserts the FBI relied on the use of the salacious and unverified Trump dossier in an application before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Based on the document, the FISA court issued a warrant to spy on Carter Page, an unpaid advisor to the Trump campaign.

Schiff said “we hope to resolve this soon” and noted the Democrats were working with the FBI.

He also somewhat backtracked on the Trump-Russia collusion issue, saying the Democrats’ definition of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was much lower than potential criminal acts being reviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller. Collusion is not a crime under the federal statutes.

“I’ve never said there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt” about collusion, the California Democrat told reporters. “Our responsibility is not determining what can be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Our responsibility is to tell the country as much as we’ve been able to learn.”

Schiff also broadly criticized former President Barack Obama for his failure to impose a “deterrent” against hostile nations whose intent was to launch cyber attacks against the private sector and during the 2016 elections.

“I think the Obama administration should have done more to establish a deterrent when it had the opportunity,” he said.

“I was urging back when the North Koreans hacked Sony that we establish a deterrent then. I feared if we didn’t, not only would the North Koreans be back, but others would take a lesson from this that cyber-hacking and attacking is a freebie. There’s no consequence,” he said.

In the 2014 Sony hack, a North Korean group that called itself “Guardians of Peace” hacked Sony Pictures and eventually released Sony staff emails, personal information about Sony employees, executive salaries and even copies of several unreleased Sony films.

“In the North Korean situation, what I had urged was not necessarily a cyber-response to a cyber-attack, but to respond in a way that gets the North Korean’s attention.” He said the lack of deterrence encouraged other countries to launch cyber attacks, culminating with Russian cyber attacks.

“In the case of Russia, I think we should have named them a lot earlier, call them out on it. It’s not enough for members of Congress to do so. We need an administration to do it. The administration did it through a written statement in October, which I don’t think was enough,” he said.

“Of course the biggest way to get the attention of Russia is through sanctions. I had urged that the administration, before the election, begin negotiations with our European allies over sanctions that ought to be imposed over Russia’s interference,” Schiff said.

He also confirmed the hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee were authentic. “As far as we can tell, the documents that they dumped were largely or completely authentic. That is, they weren’t fakes.”

He said his “deepest concern” was that in the future a foreign power might add fabricated information in legitimate documents.

“I was concerned when that was happening in real-time was that among the real documents, they would dump fake documents. Or even more pernicious, they would take a real document, they would add a paragraph to it suggesting illegality and dump that,” Schiff said.

“So you would have a document where let’s say, two-thirds were accurate, one-third was document. You would have no way for the campaign in the final weeks to demonstrate that the document had been altered,” the Democrat said.

Democrats Blame Republicans Demand Gun Control After Florida School Shooting

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

There is not a single gun law on the books or that could be added that would stopped this piece of garbage from shooting up this school.

This piece of human excrement is a Latino Communist Antifa supporter with interests in Islam and ISIS.

 

Democrats immediately politicized the Florida school shooting that left at least 17 people dead on Wednesday and demanded gun control legislation, even before it was known how the shooter got his gun and whether any proposed legislation would have stopped it.

Some Democrats blamed Republicans for Wednesday’s tragedy, without citing any evidence whatsoever.

“Republicans should pray for forgiveness, for not only their complacency and dereliction of duty, but in contrition for the men, women and children we continue to lay to rest because of senseless gun violence and the cowardly inaction from Congress,” Democratic New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman wrote on Twitter.

“How many more moments of silence must we hold before Republicans in Congress act? We are not powerless. There are measures we can and must take to make our communities safer,” Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly said in a statement.

Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton took a shot at President Trump after the president expressed his condolences to the victims’ families. “I agree with every word @realDonaldTrump said here,” Moulton wrote on Twitter. “I invite him to get off his ass and join me in trying to do something about it.

Even before the suspected shooter was in custody, Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy took the Senate floor to blame the shooting on a lack of gun control.

“Turn on your television right now, you’re going to see scenes of children running for their lives. What looks to be the 19th school shooting in this country and we have not even hit March,” Murphy said, citing a misleading statistic put out by gun control proponents.

“This epidemic of mass slaughter, this scourge of school shooting after school shooting. It only happens here not because of coincidence, not because of bad luck, but as a consequence of our inaction,” Murphy said.

Murphy later claimed on Twitter that “If you’re a political leader doing nothing about this slaughter, you’re an accomplice.”

“I, too, offer thoughts & prayers…” Democratic  New Jersey Rep. Donald Norcross wrote on Twitter. “… I also offer my support to bring #gunsafety measures up for a vote.”

“Another senseless tragedy at an American school. My heart is with the victims and their families. When will we wake up? When will we take action to prevent these shootings from occurring? These tragedies are the new normal, and that should make all of us sick,” said Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

“Absolutely horrific. The victims are weighing heavy in my heart. It’s time for senseless violence to end. Enough is enough. We need common sense gun safety reform,” said Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna.

“Prayers for students, teachers and parents at #DouglasHighSchool…Congress needs to finally find the courage to #EndGunViolence by passing #universalbackgroundchecks and renewing the #assaultweaponsban,” Rep. Lacy Clay wrote on Twitter.

“Once again, gun violence shatters lives with another school shooting. We need sensible gun control, like background checks and tracing of weapons. My heart breaks for the families affected & my thanks to the first responders in Florida,” said Rep. Nydia Velazquez.

“Horrific. Thoughts and prayers from the president are not enough – we need common-sense gun reform NOW!” wrote New York Rep. Nita Lowey.

“Heartbroken over another school shooting. Schools must be a safe space for all students & teachers, not the scenes of tragedy. Monitoring the situation. When will my @GOP colleagues finally agree #EnoughIsEnough & act on #gunsafety? Thoughts & prayers are meaningless w/o action,” wrote New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

This article has been updated with additional information.

 

 

Waivers Of Gun Rights: A New Shot At Gun Repression

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

Getting on this list would by like being in the Hotel California You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave in other words you will always be on this list.

Lawmakers in California must have temporarily exhausted their store of ideas for legislating against law-abiding gun enthusiasts. After years of padding the bureaucracy with ever more complicated rules, restrictions and bans for people who legally own and enjoy guns, lawmakers are now considering a measure to strike a preemptive declaration against gun ownership.

The California bill, AB 1927, introduced by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, directs the state’s Department of Justice to “develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add his or her own name to the California Do Not Sell List.” This list would be uploaded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), meaning the system would affect a person’s ability to acquire a firearm not just in California, but anywhere in the country.

On registering, a person has the option of providing the state with the names and email addresses of up to five contacts, who have the right to be notified as soon as the registrant seeks a restoration of the right to acquire guns. The bill makes it a crime to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to a person on the list (and a licensed gun dealer is liable to lose their dealer’s license, too). “Receipt” of a firearm is “unlawful” for anyone on the list, although the bill specifies that mere possession is not prohibited (“possession after the moment of receipt is not unlawful and the fact of possession may not be relied upon to prove a violation” of the law).

While getting on the Do Not Sell List may be as simple as a few clicks of a mouse, getting off the list is challenging different matter entirely. The registrant must file a petition with a court to have his or her name removed. All persons on the registrant’s contact list are entitled to advance notice of the date, time, and location of the court hearing. And although a person may register on the list for any reason (or no reason at all), a court is authorized to remove a registrant off the list only after he or she establishes, by a “preponderance of the evidence that he or she is not at elevated risk of suicide.” The evidence needed to satisfy this standard isn’t specified, but it’s safe to assume that a mental health evaluation and testimony from a mental health professional will be required. Once a court grants the order, the state must remove the person from the NICS Index and expunge all records related to the person’s registration on the list.

A similarly inspired bill to allow a “voluntary waiver of firearm rights” is pending in Washington State.  S.B. 5553 allows anyone to file a waiver document with the court, and to include the name of a “person to be contacted” if a voluntary waiver is later revoked. All waivers are fed into a state police database used to determine eligibility to purchase a handgun. The person is free to revoke the waiver at a later date, but the waiver must stay in effect for a minimum of two weeks (seven days, plus another week in which the police must delete the waiver from the database). The bill makes it a felony to provide a gun to a person where there is reasonable cause to believe the person is subject to an active waiver, and a licensed dealer is prohibited from selling or transferring a gun to such persons.

The apparent rationale behind these bills is to provide those at risk of suicide with a way to declare themselves “prohibited persons” for the purposes of future gun purchases. Assemblyman Bonta describes his bill as giving “people the power to create a potentially life-saving barrier,” and the summary on the Washington proposal claims it will prevent suicide by helping “people in crisis maintain their autonomy while saving their lives.”

Overlooking several practical issues, the bills’ effectiveness isn’t likely to match the declared sentiment of advocates.

The California bill requires that the “Internet-based platform” for the list “credibly verif[y]” the identity of those who sign up online. Neither bill, though, has a corrective procedure to remove anyone included because they share a name and birthdate with someone properly listed, or because of some other error. The only way the bill provides for getting de-listed on California’s registry is convincing a court not that there’s been a mistake, but that the registrant has a non-elevated risk of suicide.

Waivers of constitutional rights “must be voluntary and must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” In Washington State, persons contemplating a waiver should be aware that the waiver remains effective even after it is revoked because the police have a week to process the revocation, with ensuing legal consequences. Because of the time lag between actual revocation and the update to the police database, a person who seeks to obtain a gun after revocation but during that period is liable to be reported to a separate police database of people who attempt to acquire guns while prohibited under state or federal law.

The most distressing thing about these bills is the focus on the method while bypassing the underlying, core problem of the person’s suicidal impulses, depression, or other mental health emergency. Experts estimate that the vast majority of persons who commit suicide suffer from a mental illness at the time of their death. The same mindset impelled “gun violence restraining order” laws in California and Washington State, aimed specifically at disarming persons at risk of harming themselves (but only with a gun). Regardless, Assemblyman Bonta, resorting to the favorite catchphrase of the gun control movement, describes his bill as “a common-sense measure” to allow people to “self-restrict their ability to purchase a firearm.”

While lawmakers continue to look for new ways to restrict gun rights, people seeking help may find there’s a lot of talk about promoting health through “innovative” prevention strategies for at-risk individuals, without much in the way of actual help.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Fusion GPS Could Have Been Trying To Buy Access To DOJ With Payments To Official’s Wife

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

I think beyond any doubt Fusion GPS was trying to buy DOJ access with their payments to Nellie Ohr.

  • Key DoJ official’s wife gathered opposition research on Donald Trump for Fusion GPS
  • Nellie Ohr was on Fusion GPS staff
  • Her husband, Bruce Ohr works at the DoJ and presented that info to FBI officials

Under a contract from the Clinton campaign, the Fusion GPS research firm was paying the wife of a senior Department of Justice official as part of its efforts to gather opposition research on Trump, and the same official then brought that research to the FBI.

Knowledge of the relationship has raised questions about the extent to which the firm may have paid for heightened access to the criminal justice system, and whether they would have hired Nellie Ohr absent her spousal connection to the DoJ.

A declassified memo said Bruce “Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the” court when it was used to obtain a surveillance warrant.

Bruce Ohr was deputy associate attorney general until December. House investigators determined that he met personally with Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS’ founder.

The FBI has limited resources to deal with a firehose of information, so people seeking the FBI’s attention could potentially benefit from greasing the wheels in order to get info to the front of the queue and to a high level.

“The money sweetened the pot for the Ohrs, and it certainly made it easier for Fusion to get the dossier to be used before the court if they made that payment to Bruce Ohr’s wife,” former judge and Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert told The Daily Caller News Foundation,

“Fusion had to have known that because of the relationship between Bruce Ohr and his wife, they were bringing Fusion, the DOJ and the DNC together under one roof to work for the same goal, which was to stop Donald Trump from becoming president,” he said.

Ohr’s wife, Nellie, is a Russia expert, but it is not known what her specific contribution to the dossier was.

“The financial arrangement between Mrs. Ohr and Fusion GPS gives the appearance of government-for-hire,” said Tom Anderson, an ethics expert at the conservative-leaning watchdog group the National Legal and Policy Center. It “appears to be a sophisticated scheme to get access to the highest levels of our government … ensuring the use of government resources in an attempt to influence an election.”

Parties seeking to hide ethically questionable payments often write the checks to a family member. Since spouses generally share assets, payments to one benefit the other, and paying the spouse can make the payments less obvious or harder to trace.

Nellie did not return a message left on a number listed as her home phone number asking what contribution she made to the dossier.

Getting information into the hands of law enforcement through the family member of an official could have potentially also limited the paper trail showing how it wound up in FBI hands, and fingerprints tying it back to Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Gohmert, who is a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said he believes that Ohr and other officials already harbored anti-Trump inclinations, but the money could have helped push him over the edge to take a leading role. “It was a way to reward people that thought like them. They enriched themselves and their friends.”

Voter registration data shows Nellie has been a registered Democrat in the past.

Pelosi Acknowledged People Are Angry Over ‘Crumbs’ Comments — So Said It Again

Leave a comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

To paraphrase Will Rogers “She was born ignorant and has been going downhill ever since.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi again referred to worker bonuses as “crumbs,” even while acknowledging that people have been mocking her for her out-of-touch comments.

WATCH:

Pelosi spoke at another tax-reform town hall in Massachusetts on Thursday, and made sure to remind everyone that she thinks the $1,000 bonuses companies are handing out in the wake of Trump’s tax cuts are “crumbs.

Her comments were relatively incoherent, but she essentially argued that the bonuses are nothing when compared to what the corporations get in tax cuts. She also admitted that she’s seen the ads mocking her for calling them “crumbs.

“There is a tax advantage in the beginning for workers and that’s their enticement,” Pelosi said. “While they give banquets to… the high end, to corporate America, and I say ‘crumbs,’ they mock me in ads for saying that, compared to what they get at the high end.”

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: