Archive for Eric Holder

What’s That I Hear…?

It sounds like…no, it couldn’t be… is it…?

Another conversation on race?

Attorney General Eric Holder blamed racial attitudes for the killing.

“We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies, and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too-common incidents,” Holder told the long-scheduled meeting of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority.

“I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honesty about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised,” Holder said, while pointing his finger for emphasis.

Ah, the pointed finger for emphasis. Sounds more like a lecture on race than a conversation. But don’t let me judge!

“We must not, as we have too often in the past, let this opportunity pass,” he said, reminding listeners of the episode in 2009 when he called Americans “a national of cowards” for not talking about race in the way he wished.

Holder did [not] use the speech as an opportunity to explain beliefs that he believes are mistaken, nor to offer data that shows suspect attitudes and stereotypes are either commonplace or incorrect.

Then let me start: we are a nation of cowards. We have been afraid to hold some black people accountable for their words, beliefs, actions. That goes for white and black Americans. We pay millions to musicians and actors who drop the n-word like a Klansman with Tourette’s, yet a cooking show host confesses that the word has passed her lips and she’s a social leper. What a chicken[bleep] double-standard that is.

That’s a comment on words. How about beliefs? Why is black America so enraged about Trayvon Martin, whom every acknowledges at least started the violent nature of the confrontation, and so unenthused about the late Hadiya Pendleton?

It can’t be because Hadiya wasn’t a lovely young girl:

And Trayvon was a sweet innocent:

I confess those are biased choices of photos. But Hadiya never took a bad photo—Trayvon took about half bad photos.

Their silence wouldn’t be because Hadiya was killed in a gang-related case of mistaken identity, would it? Blown away by a couple of gang members of color, her tragic, wasteful, incomprehensible death doesn’t fit convenient patterns.

Those are beliefs. Actions?

Oh my, I don’t have the energy. Murders in Chicago, abortions in New York, the dissolution of the family everywhere, over decades. If you want a conversation, please take a seat. It’s going to take a while.

Comments

DOJ Sent People To Florida To Gin Up Racial Tension

Tax dollars spent to support anti-Zimmerman demonstrations

DOJ sends secret “peacekeepers” where Trayvon Martin was killed
Last Updated: July 10, 2013

Synopsis

Judicial Watch, Inc. on April 24, 2012 launched an investigation into the Trayvon Martin case based on reports that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had sent a secret team of “peacekeepers” to Sanflord, Florida, where Martin was shot on February 26, 2012 after wandering in a gated community after dark. George Zimmerman, a resident of the community and its neighborhood watch captain, is currently on trial for Martin’s death though he maintains he acted in self-defense.

Records obtained by Judicial Watch in response to local, state and federal public records requests show that the so-called peacekeepers are part of a large and growing division within DOJ called the Community Relations Service (CRS). Though CRS purports to spot and quell racial tensions nationwide before they arise, the documents obtained by Judicial Watch show the group actively worked to foment unrest, spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on travel and hotel rooms to train protestors throughout Florida. The peacekeepers also met with officials of the Republican National Convention, scheduled for several months later in Tampa, to warn them to expect protests in connection with Martin’s death.

CRS employee spent $1,142.84 to travel to Sanford, Florida from March 25-28, 2012 “to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies”;
CRS employee spent $751.60 to travel to Sanford, Florida from March 30-April 1, 2012 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31”;
CRS employee spent $1,307.40 to travel to Sanford, Florida from April 3-12, 2012 “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford”;
CRS employee spent $672.24 to travel to Tampa, Florida from April 18-20, 2012 “to meet with RNC official related to possible protests and demonstrations during the RNC”
In response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which opens with a gospel hymn and organ music, is reported to have led to the official ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee. A week earlier, a group calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” had barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding he be fired for failing to file murder charges against Zimmerman. The church meeting produced a nine-point plan, the main demand being the firing of Chief Lee.

In some ways, this is the most sickening abuse of power we’ve seen from the Obama administration. The Community-Organizer-in-Chief is continuing to sow racial hatred. The DOJ has taken the power of the government and used it to ruin a career and to incite racial hatred and to convict a man without a trial. I am so ashamed of our country.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Forget it Jake, it’s Cincinnati

Except that it’s not, or not just:

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.

“We’ve dealt with 15 agents, including tax law specialists — that’s lawyers — from four different offices, including (the) Treasury (Department) in Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “So the idea that this is a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati is not correct.”

Where does Cincinnati go to get its reputation back?

Where does Israel go?

A Pennsylvania pro-Israel group called Z Street says it filed for 501(c)(3) status in December 2009, intending to operate purely as an educational group. Founder Lori Lowenthal Marcus says that its tax counsel called the IRS in July 2010 to check on the slow pace of approval, and the IRS acknowledged its targeted enforcement.

Asked about the slow pace of approval, the IRS auditor on the case, Diane Gentry, said the application was taking so long because auditors were supposed to give special scrutiny to groups “connected with Israel.” Ms. Marcus says Ms. Gentry further explained that many applications related to Israel had to be sent to “a special unit in D.C. to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.” Z Street filed suit in August 2010 in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging “viewpoint discrimination,” and its case has since been moved to Washington, D.C. Ms. Gentry did not return our phone calls.

Why the special scrutiny for pro-Israel groups? A New York Times article in July 2010 provided a clue: Tax-exempt groups were donating to West Bank settlers, and State Department officials wanted the settlers out. “As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank,” the Times wrote, “the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.”

Did the T-men take their political cues from such stories, or did Administration officials give them orders? Either explanation would be a violation of public trust.

No wonder Obama hates Netanyahu so much. He’s got whole branches of government working to make certain areas of Judea and Samaria judenrein, and this putz keeps building new homes for a growing population. Who does he think he is?

Hassling Jewish charities for being too pro-Israel (and getting cheered for it in the New York Times): I thought I’d heard everything. This criminal regime keeps surprising me—as with Eric Holder’s bald face lie about press intimidation. Tomorrow is another day!

Comments (2)

Whoopsie!

Did Eric Holder perjure himself?

Last week, and while under oath, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a House committee that when it comes to “try[ing] to prosecute the press for the publication of material” he has “never been involved in, heard of” such a thing.

Thursday, however, we learned that it was Holder who signed off on the application for a warrant to gain access to the private emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen. In doing so, Holder labeled Rosen a co-conspirator to obtain classified material under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Out of one side of his mouth, and while under oath, Holder says he has never heard of anyone trying to prosecute the press for publishing material. Out of the other side of his mouth, Holder is accusing reporters of espionage on applications for subpoenas.
That statement and that action are awfully hard to reconcile.

So I doubt if anything will happen to him no matter what he says or does, because I believe the Constitution has been rendered null and void. But it is interesting to consider how dumb he apparently is.

– Aggie

Comments

Abdulrahman, Samir, and Jude

Has anyone here seen my old friend Anwar?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
I just turned around, and he was gone:

Four American citizens have been killed in counter-terrorism drone strikes since 2009, the Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday.

Attorney General Eric Holder disclosed the previously classified information in a letter to a top senator that also included the names of those killed and the revelation that only one was directly targeted in the strikes that began in 2009. He did not specifically call them drone strikes – rather, he referred to “counterterrorism operations” – but most of the individuals he mentioned are known to have died in drone strikes.

The targeted individual, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a radical Muslim cleric whom U.S. officials said was involved in planning Al Qaeda operations and terror attacks. He was killed in September 2011 in Yemen.

The acknowledgement came ahead of a major counterterrorism policy speech by President Obama scheduled for Thursday.

Holder said in the letter that the Obama administration is “aware” of three other U.S. citizens killed in such counter-terrorism operations besides al-Awlaki: Samir Khan, Jude Kennan Mohammed and Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, Holder said.

However, Holder wrote, “these individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

I believe we used to call that “collateral damage” in the old days. I don’t want our readers to think I’m unmoved by the extrajudicial killings of American citizens. But if I’m to be honest, I can’t condemn President Obama for that which I did not condemn President Bush: namely, prosecuting the war on terror.

But where’s Code Pink?

Again with the bloody hands (see post below)! Aggie, it never occurred to me that the radical left shared this, too, with Arab terrorists. Ideology, sure, but imagery… how did I miss it?

Anyway, our condolences to the Khan, Mohammed, and al-Awlaki families.

Comments

If You’re Not Too Busy…

May I trouble you with another Obama Administration scandal?

The former U.S. Attorney for Arizona could be disbarred, after an investigation found he lied to the Justice Department about his role in trying to discredit the federal whistle-blower who exposed the botched gun-running scheme known as Fast and Furious.

An Office of Inspector General report showed that Dennis Burke – the former chief of staff for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed as U.S. Attorney for Arizona by President Obama in September 2009 – lied when asked if he leaked sensitive documents to the press meant to undermine the credibility of ATF whistle-blower John Dodson.

The IG report also said Burke likely leaked the memo in retaliation for Dodson’s whistle-blowing, and challenged the credibility of statements he made to congressional investigators. Dodson first went to Congress in 2010 after his own agency and the Justice Department refused to investigate his complaints that Operation Fast and Furious, an anti-gun-trafficking effort, was out of control.

So, one outrageous Justice Department scandal, Fast and Furious, leads to another, leaking sensitive documents and lying to investigators. Is there something in the water?

Maybe in the air:

Ok, we’ve learned our lesson. Last week we tried to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt over its far-reaching secret subpoenas to the Associated Press, and now we learn that was the least of its offenses against a free press. No attempt to be generous to this crowd goes unpunished.

The latest news, disclosed by the Washington Post on Monday, is that the Justice Department targeted a Fox News reporter as a potential “co-conspirator” in a leak probe. The feds have charged intelligence analyst Stephen Jin-Woo Kim with disclosing classified information to Fox reporter James Rosen. That’s not a surprise considering that this Administration has prosecuted more national-security cases than any in recent history. [More than all administrations combined, if our data yesterday was correct. ed.]

The shock is that as part of its probe the Administration sought and obtained a warrant to search Mr. Rosen’s personal email account. And it justified such a sweeping secret search by telling the judge that Mr. Rosen was part of the conspiracy merely because he acted like a journalist.

Mr. Reyes is far exceeding his brief here, but the larger fault lies with higher-ups. U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen, who is conducting the AP and Kim leak investigations, clearly has little regard for normal Justice standards and protocol for dealing with the media. Such a sweeping probe should also have been approved by senior Justice officials, at least by the Deputy Attorney General.

With the Fox News search following the AP subpoenas, we now have evidence of a pattern of anti-media behavior. The suspicion has to be that maybe these “leak” investigations are less about deterring leakers and more about intimidating the press. We trust our liberal friends in the press corps won’t mute their dismay merely because this time the target is a network they love to hate.

A rhetorical statement if there ever was one. In America today, politics trumps all other identity. If you’re gay, Dick Cheney is more “evolved” on gay marriage than Barack Obama—yet how many gay people support Cheney over Obama? Reporters can no longer deny (as they’ve managed against mounting evidence) that this administration is the most hostile to the press since Nixon’s (including Nixon’s?), yet they’re still in the bag for Obama like you can’t believe. (You can’t—believe them, that is.)

I almost don’t blame the politicians—power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If a free press has the exalted status of an “estate” of the realm, it needs to do its job and hold accountable those who would oppress us and them.

Funny, I know.

Comments

The Truth is in There

Sometimes the truth is known, but not acknowledged. It needs to be repeated, confirmed, lived with for a few days.

I first heard days ago that the reason the “Justice” Department hunted down AP reporters’ phone records was because the Obama regime was PO’d it got scooped. No national security risk—just resentment.

That’s its story, and the truth is sticking with it:

Americans were in danger.

That was the chief argument Attorney General Eric Holder tried to make this week for why Justice Department officials seized two months’ worth of phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press.

But the AP has strongly refuted from the start claims that it put the country in danger. The accusation that the news organization risked national security isn’t sitting so well with other journalists and lawmakers who have started pushing back on the claims.

“We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed,” AP President Gary Pruitt said in a written response to the Justice Department’s claims.

A report from The Washington Post appeared to give more weight to the AP’s claims.

According to the Post, the AP had been sitting on a scoop about a failed Al Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials for five days. The morning they were supposed to release the story, journalists were asked by government officials to wait another day, citing safety concerns.

However, the CIA officials who first cited the security concerns said they no longer had the same worries. Rather, the Obama administration was planning to announce the success of the counterterrorism project the following day, according to The Post report.

There was no longer any threat. It’s just that the regime wanted to maximize its PR. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

In Benghazi, there was a threat, indeed a very dire threat. But they denied it—buried it, even, under a cover story—for the very same reason: PR.

That ties those two stories together.

I heard an interesting theory about the IRS scandal: namely that as Hillary had been implicated by Benghazi, she (with the help and counsel of her husband) exacted revenge on the administration that has hung her out to dry. It’s a little sketchy as conspiracies go, but live with it for a few days. See if it grows into truth.

Comments (1)

Know Nothing

Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, doesn’t know:

If it takes a wise man to acknowledge what he doesn’t know, Eric “The Red” Holder is a freakin’ Solomon!

Comments

Most Transparent Thuggish Administration Evah!

Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot.

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

And AP couldn’t be more of a cheerleader if you stuck it in a pleated skirt and gave it pom-poms! What the hell…?

Here’s some background:

The government would not say why it sought the records. Officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an “unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.”

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. “The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made … when someone informed The Associated Press that the U.S. government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it,” he wrote.

He also defended the White House decision to discuss the plot afterward. “Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qaida plot,” Brennan told senators.

I’m all for not getting blown up by another underwear bomber, but “seizing” phone records? That’s so… Bushian! Actually, while Bush did subpoena a reporter for his sources, I can’t recall anything on the scale of this.

And what are we to make of that aside, highlighted above, that “the White House previously had told the public it had ‘no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.'”

Were they motivated to intimidate the media because they looked bad? Isn’t that also what motivated them to spin the bogus video cover story after the Benghazi massacre?

One crucial detail about the “seizing”:

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption’s wording, might “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

Wow.

I was going to combine this story with the latest from the IRS, but this stands alone. Wow.

PS: From Aggie on the road:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

(Then they came for the journalists, and what a glorious day it was!)

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Look, Up in the Sky! It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! It’s KABOOM!!!

This is why I use Bing.

The FBI used National Security Letters — a form of surveillance that privacy watchdogs call “frightening and invasive” — to surreptitiously seek information on Google users, the web giant has just revealed.

Google’s disclosure is “an unprecedented win for transparency,” privacy experts said Wednesday. But it’s just one small step forward.

“Serious concerns and questions remain about the use of NSLs,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Dan Auerbach and Eva Galperin wrote. For one thing, the agency issued 16,511 National Security Letters in 2011, the last year for which data was available. But Google was gagged from saying just how many letters it received — leaving key questions unanswered.

“Of all the dangerous government surveillance powers that were expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, the National Security Letter (NSL) power … is one of the most frightening and invasive,” the EFF wrote. “These letters … allow the FBI to secretly demand data about ordinary American citizens’ private communications and Internet activity without any meaningful oversight or prior judicial review.”

Just so you understand, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice—Eric Holder’s DOJ.

This Eric Holder:

I haven’t seen dancing like that since Michael Jackson moon-walked off this mortal coil.

But then, his boss calls the tune:

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be “convicted” and had “the death penalty applied to him” . . . and then said he wasn’t “pre-judging” the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC’s Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president’s interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn’t his intention. I’m sure it wasn’t — he’s trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision — but that won’t matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.

And the press secretary sings harmony:

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told John King on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning.

“He’s likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed,” he added.

Do I think the Obama administration is soon to start vaporizing on US soil elements it considers hostile to the US? Pr-r-r-r-obably not. But given their attitudes and behavior, it’s more a leap of faith than a logical certainty. If the act of governing and the media can be co-opted by the “permanent campaign, why not justice?

Worst of all, where’s the outrage on the Left? You’ve allowed Obama to become your worst nightmare of Bush (who wouldn’t try half the crap your guy pulls), and you say nothing. Crickets. Do you see why it’s hard sometimes not to hate you? You are our friends, family, colleagues, yet your brazen hypocrisy is such an offense, is so dangerous, you make it very hard to relate to, much less be civil to.

Comments (1)

The Most Dangerous Administration Evuh!

It’s not bad enough that President Obama and AG Holder think nothing of holding show trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his gang before executing them. (I support the executions, not the perversion of justice.)

No, that was plenty bad, but evidently not bad enough.

Because they’re at it again—and this time Americans are in their (drone) sites:

In a Bloomberg commentary, Noah Feldman, a Harvard constitutional law professor, points to an additional complication: the possibility that in partly yielding to its civil-libertarian instincts, the Obama administration may actually endanger civil liberties.

Feldman argues that in justifying drone strikes against U.S. citizens, the administration undertook a “revolutionary and shocking transformation of the meaning of due process”:

Despite claiming that the Awlaki killing was justified because he was an operational leader of al-Qaeda, and thus in some sense an enemy on the battlefield, the white paper still assumes that due process applies to U.S. citizens abroad who adhere to the enemy. . . .

Applying due process analysis to Awlaki produces a legal disaster. The problem is, once you consider due process, you have to give it some meaning–and the meaning you choose will cast a long shadow over what the term means everywhere else.

Feldman argues that Awlaki received “none of the components of traditional due process.” That isn’t the problem, in Feldman’s view (or ours): The administration “should have said that due process doesn’t apply on the battlefield.”

By instead conceding that Awlaki was entitled to due process, then construing due process as “a rubber stamp,” the administration is “subverting the idea of the rule of law.” By pretending to treat terrorists as if they were ordinary criminal suspects, the government makes it more likely that ordinary suspects will be treated as if they were terrorists.

It’s the same argument! Because of their asinine refusal to treat the war on terror as a, you know, war, they pervert our system of justice by trying to prosecute it as a criminal case.

A criminal case in which they can pronounce not only the guilt but the sentence in advance. And a criminal case in which they can launch a preemptive hit from the skies. You can do that in war. You can’t do that in court. By their perverse mangling of justice they have revealed themselves as the monsters they are. Ugly, nasty, vile, pus-encrusted monsters.

Comments

Fast and Furious: Deliberate and Intentional

Red and handed:

The latest congressional report on Operation Fast and Furious found that the gunwalking-program-turned-scandal was the result of a “deliberate strategy created at the highest levels of the Justice Department aimed at identifying the leaders of a major gun trafficking ring.”

The report is the second installment in a three-part series from Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley and House oversight committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa.

That “deliberate strategy,” congressional investigators argue, sprang from “a series of speeches about combating violence along the Southwest border” that Attorney General Eric Holder delivered shortly after taking office.

A laudable, even noble, goal. But as with so much of this administration, you have to wonder whether their disasters are out of intent or ignorance. As Rahm Emanuel noted, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Let the guns walk; wait for people to die; decry gun violence.

You can’t say the Department of Justice isn’t politicized. We’re only haggling over how much.

Comments

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »