- Threat Watch
- Warrior Tools
- Body Armor
- Long Guns
- Accuracy International
- Desert Tactical Arms
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- Mosin Nagant
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- SIG Sauer
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Wilson Combat
Posts Tagged hillary clinton
From The Wall Street Journal:
Signal, a smartphone app that allows users to send encrypted messages, is gaining popularity in the political world amid rising fears about hacking and surveillance in the wake of a tumultuous election year.
Some say the legion of political types has a singular goal to avoid a repeat of the WikiLeaks scandal, in which the emails of Mrs. Clinton and her closest allies were dumped onto the internet.
From Fox News:
“There are probably 100 FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Mrs. Clinton– hardworking men and women in field who gathered evidence and interviewed witnesses–…and are furious at the decision not to prosecute her,” Napolitano said on The Kelly File.
From The Daily Mail:
The CIA has been accused of political bias by trying to stall publication of an explosive memoir which could damage Hillary Clinton’s chances of reaching the White House.
The book tells the story of CIA contractor Raymond Davis, who was imprisoned in Pakistan in 2011 after shooting two men in self defense before being released in a controversial blood-money deal.
Lawyers for the Justice Department on Monday filed a motion in federal court in Phoenix to drop the case against the arms dealer, an American named Marc Turi, whose lawyers also signed the motion.
The deal averts a trial that threatened to cast additional scrutiny on Hillary Clinton’s private emails as Secretary of State, and to expose reported Central Intelligence Agency attempts to arm rebels fighting Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi.
From Fox News:
From The Washington Examiner:
Under Obama, background checks for guns reached 141.4 million through the end of May, amounting to sales of about 52,600 a day, according to the FBI. Last year, the FBI conducted more than 23 million background checks, which are generally used to figure sales of new and used weapons.
On January 3 Trump responded with: “Hillary said that guns don’t keep you safe. If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!”
From The Daily Beast:
This is the first time the CIA has commented on the upcoming movie. Intelligence officials apparently had particular concerns that certain information in the Mitchell Zuckoff nonfiction book, on which Bay’s film is based, would end up in the final cut of the movie. This would allegedly jeopardize the security and safety of intelligence agency personnel serving in the field, in part because a major Hollywood production could widely disseminate protocol and procedures that the CIA uses to protect its staff in foreign locations, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.
The CIA wanted to make sure that details that are in a published book, are not in the movie? If the details would “jeopardize security and safety” how did they make it past the vetting process and into the book? This has the fingerprints of the White House all over it.
When it comes to gun control, Hillary Clinton said last Friday, “Australia is a good example” for the United States to follow. That comment suggested the leading Democratic presidential candidate’s plans in this area are much more ambitious than she usually lets on—so ambitious that implementing them would require ignoring or repealing the Second Amendment.
By Monday a spokeswoman for the former secretary of state was already backpedaling, saying Clinton did not mean to endorse mass gun confiscation, a central element of Australia’s approach to firearms. But if that was not Clinton’s intent, she has an alarmingly cavalier attitude toward laws that impinge on constitutional rights: The details don’t matter as long as you mean well.
Clinton said “the [Australian] government was able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.” She went on to say, “it would be worth considering doing it on the national level” here in the U.S.
But Monday morning, Palmieri told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that Clinton was not suggesting firearm confiscation.
Mitchell asked: “Was [Clinton] suggesting in her town hall meetings in New Hampshire on Friday, when she said she would look into the Australian system, was she suggesting confiscation of guns?”
Palmieri responded, “Of course not. What she was referring to is places where there have been mass shootings and the countries have done something to act on it. She has put forward a very common-sense proposal that would have background checks for everyone, that would remove the special protections the gun industry has from liability, but it’s all very common-sense measures the majority of the public supports.”
In this case, which is truly unprecedented, no matter what Secretary Clinton would have one believe, she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it—perhaps forever. “Nice work if you can get it,” one might say, especially if your experience during your husband’s presidency gives you good reason (nay, even highly compelling motivation) to relegate unto yourself such control if at all possible.
From The Washington Times:
Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.
Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community for analysis, officials told The Times, the White House trusted Mrs. Clinton’s charge, which was then supported by Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason enough for war.
“The decision to invade [Libya] had already been made, so everything coming out of the State Department at that time was to reinforce that decision,” the official explained, speaking only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.