Democrats: US Should ‘Urgently Engage With Russia’ to Avoid Nuclear Conflict

(ZHE) — During a routine Congressional hearing on Wednesday, US military leaders publicly admonished Russian President Vladimir Putin for unveiling six powerful new weapons during his annual address to lawmakers, including what’s believed to be a modified Iskander ballistic missile capable of defeating US and NATO anti-ballistic missile systems. Using Putin’s escalation as one more justification for asking that all of […]

Flynn Prepared To Testify Against Trump; Gold Spikes, Stocks Crash

Gold is spiking as stocks and the dollar sink after headline reports from ABC that Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians."

JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians." https://t.co/aiagnvr8eS pic.twitter.com/r8u2LWAd0O

— ABC News (@ABC) December 1, 2017

Flynn said in court he was acting under instructions from senior Trump transition officials in his dealings with the Russian ambassador, As the WaPo reports, Prosecutor Brandon L. Van Grack said in court that “a very senior member of the transition team directed” Flynn to contact the Russian ambassador at one point. At another, Flynn “called a senior official of the Trump team at Mar-a-Lago” to discuss a United Nations resolution that Flynn talked about with Kislyak.

Reuters adds some color on what is occurring in the court:

• FEDERAL PROSECUTORS SAY FLYNN SPOKE WITH SENIOR MEMBERS OF TRUMP"S TRANSITION TEAM ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR REGARDING U.S. SANCTIONS


• PROSECUTORS SAY FLYNN SPOKE WITH A "SENIOR OFFICIAL" OF TRUMP"S TRANSITION TEAM WHO WAS AT MAR-A-LAGO RESORT IN DEC 2016 TO DISCUSS WHAT TO COMMUNICATE TO RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR


• PROSECUTORS SAY FLYNN WAS DIRECTED BY "A VERY SENIOR MEMBER" OF TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM TO POLL COUNTRIES AHEAD OF UN VOTE IN DEC 2016


• PROSECUTORS SAY FLYNN WAS TOLD BY THE SENIOR MEMBER OF TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM TO REACH OUT TO OTHER COUNTRIES TO INFLUENCE THE UN VOTE TO DELAY OR DEFEAT THE RESOLUTION  

Flynn admitted making false statements to the FBI about asking the ambassador in late December to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed on Russia that same day.” Flynn also told authorities he did not recall the ambassador “subsequently telling him that Russia has chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request,” according to a court filing. That would suggest there was a second, previously unknown contact between Flynn and Kislyak.

In a statement, Flynn said “it has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of ‘treason’ and other outrageous acts. Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for. But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right."

Full statement below:

After over 33 years of military service to our country, including nearly five years in combat away from my family, and then my decision to continue to serve the United States, it has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of "treason" and other outrageous acts.

 

Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for.

 

But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.

 

My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel"s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.

Separately, authorities say Flynn lied about asking the ambassador to delay a vote on United Nations Security Council resolutions. “Guilty, your honor,” Flynn, dressed in a dark blue suit and blue striped tie, told U.S. District Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras.

In a statement, White House lawyer Ty Cobb responded to the accusations that "the false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn. The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion."

Trump’s lawyers have expected Flynn to plead guilty, particularly after one of Flynn’s lawyers, Robert Kelner, said he could no longer communicate about the probe with Trump’s lawyers.

As part of Flynn’s negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, is not expected to be charged, according to a person with knowledge of the talks, the Wapo adds.

Trump"s Impeachment odds spiked...

The Dollar plunged...

 

Gold spiked and stocks slumped...

 

All major equity indices are tumbling...

And VIX spiked to 4 month highs...

It did not take long for Dianne Feinstein to issue a damning statement:

• *FEINSTEIN SAYS FLYNN GUILTY PLEA ABOUT MORE THAN LYING TO FBI


• *FEINSTEIN: PLEA SHOWS TRUMP ASSOCIATE NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIANS

 

 

‘A+’-Rated John Cornyn Continues to Side with Gun-Grabbers

Informed American gun owners don’t. And pretending this bill will prevent future acts of evil in order to impose forced infringements is nothing short of fraud.

“Americans want background checks for gun sales,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn assured his Twitter followers Friday. He was linking to a San Antonio Express-News editorial board advocacy piece spreading poll summaries showing alternatively that either “95 percent” or “84 percent” of Americans “support universal background checks for gun sales.”

That polls may show that reflects more on the media sound bite “understanding” most being queried have of gun issues in general. When put to the test in the only poll that impacts the real world, Nevada’s Question 1 referendum, the numbers came up different. Despite similar polling and millions of dollars from out-of-state billionaires to fund an Astroturf campaign effort, the measure passed by less than one percent, being rejected in all counties except populous (and Democrat-dominated) Clark County.

The real question here is why is John Cornyn so eager to give the gun-grabbers a victory, teaming with the likes of Chris Murphy and Dianne Feinstein to “Fix NICS”? After all, we’re talking about a politician that the NRA, which gives him an”A+,” says “has always defended our gun rights in Congress!”

And it’s not like there’s any delegated Constitutional authority for the national government to impose prior restraints on firearms transfers in the first place. So why give citizen disarmament leaders something to crow about, especially since no one but a useful idiot believes expanding infringements is aimed at any but the law-abiding?

“John Cornyn knows that the Second Amendment isn’t subject to negotiation, because our right to defend ourselves is the cornerstone of our democracy,” NRA has gushed in the past. “He also knows that the extreme agenda pushed by gun control groups will make us less safe, less free and turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals for simply exercising their rights.”

So why is he helping the anti-gunners in their “baby step” quest to completely end private sales and then move on to the next stop on their “slippery slope”? For that matter, why is NRA supporting giving up any ground to people who want it all, especially since no less a source than the National Institute of Justice has concluded:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

It’s hardly the first time Cornyn — and NRA — have come out in support of citizen disarmament measures. Due process concerns raised in this column have still never been comprehensively addressed about the mental health dragnet they both support, including:

What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.

Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health reason to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

Lest we forget, Cornyn andother “top Congressional Republicans” have also “signaled” to the media they “would be open to banning the firearm accessory that the Las Vegas gunman used to transform his rifles to mimic automatic weapon fire.”

Add to that Cornyn’s abysmal grades on immigration issues from Numbers USA. That’s directly relevant to the right to keep and bear arms – despite NRA’s deliberate indifference to the issue. That’s because all credible polls – plus real world experience in places like California – demonstrate such populations overwhelmingly support “gun control.” Open a “pathway to citizenship” and overwhelmingly anti-gun legislatures will be empowered to pass whatever infringements they want, plus ensure federal judges confirmed by the majority will uphold them.

What will A-rated Republican politicians and the “gun rights” organization that gives the green light to their defections tell us we need to give up then? And what will constituents and members who feel betrayed tell them in return?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post ‘A+’-Rated John Cornyn Continues to Side with Gun-Grabbers appeared first on Oath Keepers.

New Feinstein ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban All ‘Sound and Fury’ — for Now

She knows the bill won’t pass at this time. So the fact that she’s introducing it as an admitted ploy shows this is all just being played for political points. Which means any claim of this being about “gun violence” or “safety” or “common sense” is just a transparent lie by a serial oath-breaker cynically exploiting deaths to her political advantage. .

“Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a number of her colleagues today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, a bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines,” a Nov. 8 press release on her website announced. Cosponsors of the bill are all Democrats.

As an aside, note the term “assault weapon” always appears in quotes herein. You know the reason why.

Among other “provisions” (read “infringements”) of the bill, per a WZTV Fox 17 Nashville summary analysis, it also:

“Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

“Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

“Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.”

It also provides for “prison time for anyone who loans an AR-15 rifle to a friend.” This being the land of the free and all…

“We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote,” Feinstein declared. “This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets.”

That it was “weapons of war” the Founders intended should remain in the hands of the people does not factor into the deceptive manipulations when considering the totalitarian end game goal these oath-breakers are inching toward. But Feinstein does make an interesting admission: the bill is intended for show, for publicity and for political gamesmanship. The signatories are under no illusions it will actually go anywhere. And no, of course it won’t stop any “mass shootings.” That’s never been the intent of gun owner control.

The title of S. 2095, “A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes” might as well have left out the middle clause in its entirety. The mask is off on those “other purposes,” and it’s clear that Democrats are intent on pushing things incrementally down a “slippery slope” they’ve previously ridiculed as paranoid conspiracy theory.

For now, Feinstein’s bill is reminds me of nothing so much as Macbeth’s cynical assessment of life, which if you think about it, is what it represents:

“It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

For now it is. But give it time.

Give corrupt establishment Republicans time to squander a lifetime opportunity and blow the advantage they enjoy in the House, Senate, Supreme Court and White House as they ally with Democrats to sabotage a populist rebellion demanding real change instead of weasel-worded platitudes. And give unchecked immigration and a “pathway to citizenship” (supported by the same Democrats and RINOs) time to create an electorate that will, by all objective measures and experience, result in gun-grabbers passing whatever legislation they want and judges they appoint upholding those laws.

The object is, as Mr. Churchill noted, to “fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed [and] when your victory is sure and not too costly.” That means either get involved with peaceable and productive outreach, educational and political/judicial efforts now, or resign yourself and your posterity to the terrible day when keeping the oath will be put to the test, and we’ll find out how many anonymous “Molon Labe!” comment posters are serious, capable and prepared.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

The post New Feinstein ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban All ‘Sound and Fury’ — for Now appeared first on Oath Keepers.

They Are Coming For Your Guns: Democrats Introduce Bill To Ban ‘Assault’ Weapons

Roughly two dozen Democrats in the Senate have banded together to create a bill that bans “assault” weapons and the bump stock.

The coalition of comrades is being led by (unsurprisingly) Dianne Feinstein of California. “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote,” Feinstein said in a statement.

Isn’t there a similar “tool” already in play? It’s called a ban on murder. But Democrats don’t appear to care. They are concerned only with the destruction of rights. Congress previously enacted an assault weapons ban in 1994, but that legislation expired in 2004. It also failed to stop the Columbine shooting in Colorado, which happened in 1999. So claiming an assault weapons ban will “work” is naive at best, and fundamentally flawed at its core at worst.

The Democratic legislation would ban the sale, production, and transfer of military-style assault weapons, with some exceptions (because the government has to remain armed), though owners of these weapons would be able to keep those they already own. The bill would also ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

It also would require a background check on any future trade or sale of an assault weapon covered by the legislation, require any guns grandfathered under the bill to be securely stored, and prohibit transferring high-capacity magazines.

The main issue here is that it’s only a matter of time before the comrades on the left are successful at disarming the citizenry. For a nation already in the grips of soft tyranny (the United States is ranked 23rd in the world for individual freedom. So much for the land of the free), it won’t take much more for the few freedoms we have left to evaporate. Gun rights may be the only thing left keeping us in the top 50 on that list.

Washington Stomps On Civil Liberty

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The insouciant American electorate is so inattentive that it routinely elects enemies of civil liberty to represent the public in Congress. Last Wednesday Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA), Rep. Trey Gowdy ( R, SC), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA), Sen. Mark Warner (D, VA), Rep. Jackie Speier (D, CA), Sen. Tom Cotton (R , AR ), and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D, TX) tried to intimidate executives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google into blocking all digital dissent to the anti-Trump/Russian line taken by the DNC and military/secrurity complex and to serve as spy agencies for the CIA.

Two of the above - Gowdy and Cotton - are Republicans who have aligned themselves with the attack on Russia and Republican President Trump. What unites the members of the two parties is that they want a police state. Jackie Speier demands to know from Google why Google hasn’t “shut down RT on YouTube.” Joaquin Castro wants messages linked to Russia turned over to the US government. Trey Gowdy wants false statements blocked, which would mean that the entire print and TV media in the US would be shut down along with Congress, John Brennan, Robert Mueller, and James Comey. Gowdy does not know that the First Amendment guarantees free speech and leaves it up to the public to decide what is true and what is false.

You tell me.

What kind of insouciant people are capable of electing representatives who do not respect the Bill of Rights?

Is a country whose government does not respect its own Constitution a democracy? Is such a country an exceptional, indispensable country?

Or is it a completely corrupt entity whose government no longer has the slightest allegience to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution?

What is the quality of an electorate that sends those with a police state mentality to represent them in the government that has power over them?

Are we witnessing the destruction of democracy by the electorate?

Is the failure of the American people staring us in the face?

Are you amazed that it is the executives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and not the members of Congress who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, who point out to US Representatives and Senators that their demands for censorship and spying are unconstitutional?

What is the liberal/progressive/left, which believes that good resides in government and evil in the private sector, to make of this?

Is the hatred of dissent so great that nothing else is important?

Here is a report on Wednesday’s hearings by the House and Senate Intelligence (sic) committees on “extremist” views (via Global Research"s Andre Damon)...

Lawmakers Demand Tech Companies Censor Journalists and Conduct Mass Surveillance

Wednesday’s hearings by the House and Senate Intelligence committees on “extremist” political views served as the occasion for members of Congress to urge technology companies to flagrantly violate the US Constitution by censoring political speech, carrying out mass surveillance, and muzzling journalists in pursuit of the government’s geopolitical aims.

The hearings revolved around allegations, promoted ceaselessly in recent months by the intelligence agencies, leading figures within the Democratic Party, and newspapers such as the New York Times, that social opposition to the political establishment results from “fake news” promoted by Russia.

As Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff put it, “Russia” promoted “discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues” and sought to “mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests.”

The basic problem, however, as Schiff put it, is “not just foreign.” The algorithms used by Facebook and Twitter have the “consequence of widening divisions among our society.” Schiff complained:

“What ends up percolating to the top of our feeds tends to be things we were looking for,” as opposed to US government propaganda disseminated by the establishment media, which he referred to as “true information.”

Congressman Adam Schiff

In line with Schiff’s assessment, members of Congress who participated in the hearings spent the bulk of their time demanding that the companies censor such “fake” news, which they equated with the writings of exiled journalist Julian Assange and other political dissidents.

It is a testament to the decay of American democracy that it was left to the representatives of Facebook and Twitter, who have been broadly accused of violating users’ privacy for their own financial gain, to inform members of Congress about the ABC of constitutional law.

In an exchange that embodied the total contempt for freedom of speech that pervades the ruling elite, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy demanded that Facebook and Twitter block their users from making inaccurate statements about the current day of the week.

“Can I ‘say today is Thursday’,” the South Carolinian demanded. “What are you going to do with that?” Gowdy asked which constitutional amendment protects the right of people to make such statements, totally oblivious that almost all false statements are protected under the First Amendment.

Colin Stretch, Facebook’s general counsel, fighting back a skeptical smile, replied:

“There is Supreme Court precedent on that…”

Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch

Gowdy, befuddled, demanded: “On which side?” Stretch answered:

“That it is, in most cases, protected.” He continued: “On Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false.”

Although the representatives of the technology companies largely played along with the narrative of “Russian meddling” in American politics, their resistance to the most flagrant censorship demanded by the government piqued the ire of the senators leading the witch-hunt.

“I don’t think you get it,” fumed Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said the past year had seen “a cataclysmic change” in American politics. This is “the beginning of cyber warfare,” she declared, and technology companies “have to really take a look at that and what role you play.”

Senator Mark Warner, for his part, complained that his accusations had been “frankly blown off by the leaderships of your companies and dismissed.”

Earlier this month, Google removed Russia Today (RT), a Russian-sponsored TV station and online news outlet that reports stories largely censored by the mainstream press, from its list of “preferred” channels on YouTube. Feinstein took issue with Google’s statement that it revoked RT’s status as a preferred channel for non-political reasons, and demanded to know why Google had not acted against RT earlier.

Google’s general counsel Kent Walker replied:

“We have carefully reviewed the content of RT to see that it complies with the policies that we have against hate speech, violence, etc. So far, we have not found violations.”

California Democratic representative Jackie Speier asserted that RT “seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” She asked:

“Why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? … It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker, the intelligence community says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries.”

The clashes continued. Senator Tom Cotton demanded to know why Twitter refused to turn its platform over to the CIA in order to conduct mass surveillance. He asked:

“Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian intelligence services?”

Sean Edgett, Twitter’s general counsel, replied:

“We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government.”

Cotton likewise demanded that Twitter censor WikiLeaks’ editor Assange.

“The current director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, as well as this committee, has labeled WikiLeaks a non-state hostile intelligence service who aids hostile foreign powers like the Kremlin,” he said. “Yet, to my knowledge, Twitter still allows him to operate uninhibited.”

Receiving a reply from Twitter general counsel Edgett that the company applies its policies “without bias,” Cotton retorted:

“Is it biased to side with America over our adversaries?”

In yet another incitement for technology companies to violate the Constitution, this time the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro asked:

“Are you also intending to turn over to the committee any kind of direct messages” on accounts suspected of being linked to Russia?

When Edgett pushed back that this would be possible only through legal channels, Castro responded:

“Certainly you’re not making the argument that a Russian account, a fakely created account, has some protection of privacy here.”

Edgett replied:

“Some users may end up being fake. Others will be real.”

The most surprising element of the hearings, however, was the extent to which Walker, Google’s general counsel, sought to separate Google’s search tools from the social networks operated by Facebook and Twitter when it comes to “fake news.”

In reference to a question regarding fake news, Walker interjected:

“I think there’s a distinction between say Google search, whose goal is to provide accurate, relevant, comprehensive information and social network concerns,” such as those related to Twitter and Facebook. “We think the heart and soul of the products is to try to provide useful and, to the extent we can, accurate information to users.”

This was in addition to his prepared testimony, where he noted:

“At Google News, we use fact check labels to spot fake news. At Google search, we have updated our quality guidelines and evaluations to help surface more authoritative content from the web.”

Based on the stated goal of fighting “fake news,” Google has implemented sweeping changes to its search algorithm that has led search traffic to 13 leading left-wing, progressive and anti-war sites to plunge 55 percent. Search traffic from Google to the World Socialist Web Site has fallen by 74 percent, and the site has been blocked from Google News.

Wednesday’s testimony makes clear the political motives behind Google’s actions. Rather than seeking, as it publicly claims, to provide “true” and “authentic” content, Google is acting as the proxy of the US government and its agencies to muzzle its critics and political opponents.

Democrats Jump On Gun Control Quickly After Las Vegas Shooting

California Senator Dianne Feinstein is getting some Republicans to show interest in her gun bill, which could signal quick gun control in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting. Although it is claimed that it is newly crafted, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top-ranking Democrat has already offered the bill.

Of course, gun rights activists think Feinstein has several gun control bills lying around, and after a tragedy, she simply dusts one off to exploit. The narrowly written Democratic gun-control bill would ban “bump stock” rifle attachments that enable rapid firing.

“You never let a serious crisis to go to waste,” said Barack Obama’s advisor in 2008.

Since then, we’ve seen many Democrats attempt to destroy gun rights in the aftermath of atrocities. But Democrats say that the bill offered by Senator Feinstein, responds to the revelations that some of the weapons that alleged Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used to commit the worst mass shooting in U.S. modern history Sunday were apparently outfitted with “bump stock devices,” which are legal.

Demcrats describe the bum stock’s legality as a “gap in the current law” which allows shooters with semi-automatic weapons to accelerate the rate of fire by attaching bump stocks, slide fire devices, and other similar accessories. The bump stock automatically forces the trigger to “bump” against the shooter’s finger after each shot.

“Some have said we shouldn’t do this now,” Feinstein said. “Now is not the time. When is the time going to be there? There is no better way to honor the 59 people who were slaughtered than to take action to prevent this from happening again.” But that’s just the problem with Democrats and their line of thinking. You can’t prevent this. You can’t prevent any evil. No amount of laws are needed to keep a good person from hurting others and bad people will always find their way around heaps of laws to commit crimes if they are so inclined.

And Republicans now appear open to gun control. We know Donald Trump hasn’t always been a perfect advocate for gun rights.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said it was “premature” to discuss “legislative solutions, if there are any,” when asked whether he could support a ban on equipment to convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones. That was a pretty wishy-washy response and could mean he will consider gun laws in the near future. Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, shut down talk of limiting bump stocks quickly. “I’m a Second Amendment man, I’m not for any gun control,” Shelby said. But he may be one of the few. Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and a member of Senate leadership, said some of his colleagues are “at least interested” in learning more about “that narrow issue.” Thune added, “I am somebody who I’d like to think is fairly familiar with a lot of firearms, and you know the use of those in that incident out there is something I think we need to take a look at.”

Gun control appears on the surface that it will be more easily accomplished now that Republican is in the White House. Barack Obama attempted big gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting and he failed. He went on to note that gun laws are his “biggest frustration.”

Unfortunately, it’s very likely we will see small bills like this one creep up with some getting passed, while within the next few months, larger bills will surface. And we humbly speculate that security will be heightened at hotels and casinos, and complete with metal detectors at all entrances. There could even be an enormous ramp up in the police state around concerts and gatherings. It could get ugly, but it’s too soon to say just how much, and these are speculations based on the speeches from not only president Trump but other politicians on both sides of the freedom-trampling aisle.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 252 people
Date: October 5th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Trump Jr. Asked To Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee, "Will Subpoena If Necessary"

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) , has invited Donald Trump Jr. to publicly testify about his meeting with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton, with the AP noting that the committee "will subpoena" Trump"s son if it is necessary.

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee chairman says he is asking Donald Trump Jr. to testify; will subpoena if necessary.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 13, 2017

It would mark the first formal, public invitation for President Trump"s eldest son to meet with lawmakers, who have been clamoring to hear from him over the June 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Previously, Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters this week that she wanted Trump Jr. to publicly testify before the committee.

"This is aired on front page newspapers. It should be aired front page [in the] United States Senate. The committee of jurisdiction is clearly the Judiciary Committee," she told reporters. “It’s not an Intelligence matter.” She added to CNN on Thursday that she wanted Trump Jr. to testify as soon as next week.

According to The Hill, members of the Senate and House intelligence committees have also said they want to meet with Trump Jr., though neither have publicly invited him.

Separately, Grassley and Feinstein also said that they are willing to subpoena Paul Manafort to testify before their committee.

John Podesta Hauled In For Closed-Door Questioning By House Intel Committee

Looks like Johnny’s got some ‘splainin to do.

Former Hillary Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta was hauled in front of the House Intelligence Committee during a closed session on Tuesday – ostensibly to answer questions about the Obama administratio"s handling of intelligence that Russia tried to hack state voting systems – and, strangely enough, it’s Democrats who are taking the credit for bringing him in.

As Bloomberg reported, Podesta met behind closed doors with the committee to answer questions about exactly why former President Barack Obama decided to sit on intelligence reports that Russia-backed hackers tried to infiltrate voting systems in 20 states after President Donald Trump took to twitter to point out the obvious hypocrisy in how Congress has aggressively scrutinized him for “collusion” and “obstruction” when it’s becoming increasingly clear that Democrats committed these exact offenses.

And now, Democrats, including Californians Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, are apparently turning on their own.

Feinstein endorsed launching a probe into Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s campaign-era conduct – a probe that will likely center on a suspicious meeting between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton less than a week before former FBI Director James Comey said the bureau had concluded its probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Also, as Comey reminded us during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, Lynch pressured him to soften his language about the Clinton probe and refer to it as a "matter" - the same language the campaign was using.

Schiff questioned Obama’s handling of the hacking disclosures during an appearance on CNN a few days ago.

“I think the Obama administration should’ve done a lot more when it became clear that not only was Russia intervening, but it was being directed at the highest levels at the Kremlin. Senator Feinstein and I repeatedly tried to make that case to the administration."

“He should’ve spoken out to the American people.”

Now we can add to that list Jim Hines, who represents Connecticut"s tony Fairfield County, a stronghold of HRC support.

"I think it’s fair to ask him: What was the campaign’s and administration’s response” to the hacking," said Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat on the Intelligence panel, which is looking into Russian interference in the election.

According to Bloomberg, Democrats said before the meeting that they had some tough questions planned for Podesta.

* * *

Upon exiting the hearing, Podesta was ready with the usual excuses:  

“The president and the entire administration were dealing with an unprecedented incidence of the weaponization” of Russian cyberactivity, Podesta told reporters after emerging from the hearing room. He said they were dealing with the attacks as best as they could "on behalf of the American people."

Asked if he’d be coming back before the House or Senate intelligence committees, Podesta said, "Hope not." He wouldn’t answer when asked if the committee pressed him about the Obama administration’s response to the hacking.”

This last bit begs the question: Is Congress about to launch a full-fledged investigation into Obama’s handling of the Russia disclosures? Media reports already seem to imply that his reasoning for witholding the information was probably political. Though Obama allies have claimed that he didn"t want to play into Trump"s claims that the election was being rigged.

As Trump pointed out in a series of tweets, Obama knew about the attempted hacks for four months, but decided to sit on his hands because he didn’t want to “rock the boat.”
 

The reason that President Obama did NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Clinton would win..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

...and did not want to "rock the boat." He didn"t "choke," he colluded or obstructed, and it did the Dems and Crooked Hillary no good.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

The real story is that President Obama did NOTHING after being informed in August about Russian meddling. With 4 months looking at Russia...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

..under a magnifying glass, they have zero "tapes" of T people colluding. There is no collusion & no obstruction. I should be given apology!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

* * *

Scrutiny of Obama’s handling of the disclosures intensified after the Washington Post published a report detailing Obama’s “secret struggle” to retaliate against Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a hearing last week, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee that it wasn’t until Oct. 7 that he co-authored an administration statement regarding the Russian intrusions.

"We were were concerned by making a statement might be, in and of itself, might be challenging the integrity of the election process," Johnson said at the time.

As Bloomberg unnecessarily reminds us (because who could ever forget that risotto recipe?), Podesta’s email account was hacked, as was the Democratic National Committee’s. Many of those emails were then leaked, producing a steady, negative and sometimes embarrassing stream of news about Clinton’s campaign…but the Democrats didn’t cooperate fully with US investigators.

So, let’s do a quick recap: Lynch is being investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bernie Sanders’ wife Jane – and possibly Bernie himself – are being investigated by the FBI.

Who knows - maybe Clinton or Obama will be asked to appear next?
 

Senator Hints That Trump May Resign: "I Think He Is Going To Get Himself Out"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

It’s no secret that there is a concerted effort underway to do everything possible to remove President Donald Trump from office.

From Russian ties to business conflicts of interests, both Democrats and Republicans are actively working to find chinks in the President’s armor.

But for those with hope of change in their hearts, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein says there is a possibility that Trump will eventually remove himself from office by filing his own resignation.

Speaking to a crowd during a town hall-style Questions and Answers session, Feinstein was asked how Congress is going to deal with Trump’s alleged illegal activities:

Journalist: We don’t know what’s happening but we know that he is breaking laws every day, he’s making money at Mar-a-lago, he’s getting copyrights in China, he has obvious dealings with Russia, the Dakota pipeline… there’s some many things that he’s doing that are unconstitutional… how are we going to get him out?

Feinstein: We have a lot of people looking at this… Technical people… I think he’s going to get himself out… I think sending sons to another country to make a financial deal for his company and then have that covered with government expenses… I think those government expenses should not be allowed.. we are working on a bill that will deal with conflict of interest… it’s difficult…

Videos of Feinstein speaking to what appears to be a local press pool of reporters and protesters appear below. You can jump to 1:30 in the first video to listen to Feinstein discuss Trump’s conflicts of interests, or watch from the beginning to hear Feinstein’s response to how her husband’s firm directly benefited from bills she voted into law, proving once again that the hypocrisy of socialist Congressional representatives from California has no bounds…

Part 1:

Part 4 of Q&A. A protester asked "how do we get Trump out" @SenFeinstein responds: "I think he is going to get himself out." pic.twitter.com/VJ9TK0K0cF

— Javier Panzar (@jpanzar) March 17, 2017

Part2:

Part 5 of @SenFeinstein Q&A pic.twitter.com/odxi1iFFeu

— Javier Panzar (@jpanzar) March 17, 2017