Why Presser v Illinois is important to Second Amendment Jurisprudence

Ignoring this from the "Second Amendment Jurisprudence" is totally wrong.  The basic gist of the case:

In Presser v. Illinois, the Court sustained an Illinois state statute prohibiting parading with arms by groups other than the organized militia. Herman Presser, who had been convicted of leading armed members of a fraternal organization in a parade, challenged the statute on the grounds that it violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

If that doesn't set off bells in your head that this is important to "Second Amendment Scholarship", then you need to stop pretending to be a "Second Amendment Scholar".

"The plaintiff in error insists that the act of congress requires absolutely all able-bodied citizens of the state, between certain ages, to be enrolled in the militia; that the act of Illinois makes the enrollment dependent on the necessity for the use of troops to execute the laws and suppress insurrections, and then leaves it discretionary with the governor by proclamation to require such enrollment; that the act of congress requires the entire enrolled militia of the state, with a few exemptions made by it and which may be made by state laws,"

Herman Presser was using the "unorganized militia" argument. Presser argues that Illinois law regarding people associating "themselves together as a military company, or to drill or parade with arms without the license of the governor, and declares that no military company shall leave the state with arms and equipments without his consent" violated his Second Amendment right. Unfortunately, the Court said that argument had no legal bearing.

So, while this didn't go to whether there was "an individual right": the fact that Presser was barred from exercising his "Second Amendment right" outside the context of being a member of the active, organized militia pretty much sits square in the arguments made by "Second Amendment Scholars" that this right is related to the militia duty, not personal purposes. The Presser Court made statements such as:

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

So,like the Heller and McDonald cases, there is "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." And both decisions made it clear that this list was not exhaustive.

New York's Sullivan Act was enacted in 1911. So, there is nothing in the current canon of US gun laws, including Heller and McDonald, which would preclude strong gun laws. In fact, the Heller and McDonald decisions were so narrow that only an "absolute prohibition" on handguns in the home are prohibited under current law. But looking at how strong some states' prohibition on carrying concealed, that means that Heller and McDonald can be safely ignored.

Unless the issue is an absolute prohibition on handguns in the home for self-defence.

Glasgow University and its "programme of restorative justice".

The major problem with talking about reparations, besides the time factor, is what form would they take? Glasgow Univerity found that donations to the 1866-1880 campaign to build the university's current campus at Gilmorehill incluided 23 people who gave money which had some financial links to the New World slave trade. "Some financial links" is an interesting term: especially since the period in question includes the 18th and 19th Centuries.

The Abolition of Slave Trade Act, which made it illegal to trade slaves throughout the British Empire and banned British ships from involvement in the trade, was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807. Britain officially ended trading slaves on 1 March 1808 (the slave trade still went on illegally for some time). Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, with exceptions provided for the East India Company, Ceylon, and Saint Helena. Those exceptions were eliminated in 1843. Slavery was still practised in the United States until the end of the US Civil War in 1865.

While illegal, slavery is still practised in the world, which is something any serious discussion of this topic needs to include. Likewise, slavery took many different forms. Both issues are something that any realistic discussion of this topic needs to address.

Glasgow University isn't the only academic institution in United Kingdom to look into how it profited from the slave economy. Yet Glasgow University also points out that it supported abolition. So, there were two aspects of this. The University "profited" from the slave trade while condemning that trade.

On the other hand, "restorative justice" seems to be looking into the system of forced labour, which I hope includes people who went as "indentured servants" or were transported for "criminal offences".

Anyway, it sounds as if the real outcome of this will indeed be to promote discussion of the topic, which has pretty much been buried in both the US and UK. we could get into a debate about which culture has minimised the role of slavery in its development. Slavery did indeed contribute greatly to the prosperity of those countries, along with western society.

I think the bottom line is that any "reparations" or "restorative justice" is likely to come in the form of an acknowledgement of the role of slavery in Western Society, not monetary. Maybe there might be some social reforms, but I wouldn't be too hopeful about that.

 But addressing this topic in a candid and honest way might indeed be the best course of action for any 'restorative justice".

See also:

• As Glasgow University owns up to slavery wealth, others urged to follow
• Glasgow University's 'bold' move to pay back slave trade profits
• Glasgow University to pay £20m in slave trade reparations

Too much confusion about immigration laws all around.

OK, this is one of the more complex aspects of law and most people have no idea that some things are a lot more complex than they appear. People talk about the "dreamers" as if they were like the people in Britain who were "Windrushed".

I have no sympathy for the Dreamers, but I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of a "Windrush".

But any serious discussion of immigration law requires some explanation. This is highly simplistic, but it gives an idea of how all this works.

First principle is that only citizens of a nation have a right to enter and exit the nation freely under international law. Everybody else enters and exits a foreign nation does so under condition. It is not a right for someone to enter a foreign country: especially unlawfully.

There are two ways to get citizenship: by birth or naturalisation. Birth can work by jus soli or jus sanguinus.The United States uses jus soli, which means someone has citizenship merely by being born inside the US. It is in the Constitution (14th Amendment).

Like most countries, the United States also has jus sanguinus, which means that you can have citizenship through your parents registering your foreign birth. People can inherit citizenship depending on the other countries' laws (e.g, Italy, Ireland, The United Kingdom, etc.).

Most countries have combinations of both jus soli or jus sanguinus. Some do it in such a way so that simply being born in a country does not result in citizenship (Ireland now requires at least one parent is an Irish Citizen or resident alien for citizenship). The US can't do this without changing the Constitution to require some parental connection to the United States. That was something that made sense after emancipation of the slaves, but doesn't make sense now.

The US is one place where the laws are fairly static, for what that is worth. One cannot lose, or renounce, citizenship without some serious consequences. The people who usually lose citizenship are people who became citizens under fraudulent circumstances (e.g, war criminals).

Another thing to explain is that Asylum is regulated by International law.

Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.

Asylum is an incredibly complex topic. I could easily do a very large book on the topic. The bottom line here is that not everyone qualifies as a refugee: no matter how sad their story may be. People escaping Central America's gang violence is a case in point: especially since most of those gangs were formed in the US!

Coming to the US to escape gangs in Central America makes as much sense as going to Sicily to escape the Mafia.

I'll add in that A valid passport is required for entry into most foreign countries. More than 80% of all countries in the world require a passport for entry. Some countries require foreign nationals to have a visa. Even if a passport is not required for entrance into a foreign country, it is required to re-enter the United States in most cases. Additionally, there are visa requirements for entry into the US for some foreign nationals. Not having the proper visa is another violation of immigration law.

Lack of the proper documentation as a foreigner means the person is in violation of immigration laws and unlawfully present in the country.

As I said, this is highly simplistic, but it explains the basics.

The real bottom line is that the law is the law. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with it or not. One must obey the law as is.

Or work to change it.

See also:

• 'I felt like dirt': disabled Canadian woman told to leave UK after 44 years 
• Windrush generation: Who are they and why are they facing problems?
• Windrush: How do you prove you've been living in the UK?

An interesting take on the origins of the United States,

I really like Professor Gerald Horne's stuff.

American English: Racist?

One thing that makes a nation is a common heritage and culture, which is often shown by a common language. After all, communicating is what language is all about. And people can't communicate if they are speaking different languages. Quite a few countries require prospective immigrants to demonstrate proficiency with their language: Canada and France come to mind.

Map of US official language status by state before 2016. Blue: English declared the official language; light-blue: 2 official languages, including English; gray: no official language specified

While English is not an actual official language, there are some who consider it the de facto national language. It is the sole, but unofficial, language of the federal government. the United States federal government has recognized no official language, even though nearly all federal, state and local government business is conducted in English

There have been attempts to make English the official language of the US with the first major one being in 1923 with a bill drafted by Congressman Washington J. McCormick. The U.S. House of Representatives passed English as the official language in 1996, but the Senate did not act on the measure before the conclusion of the 104th Congress. English is the official language of 32 states as of 2019.

Proponents of this movement include US Senator S.I. Hayakawa and Mauro E. Mujica, who is a naturalized citizen, Mujica was born in Antofagasta, Chile, and moved to the United States in 1964. Is someone who speaks multiple languages who berates someone for speaking Spanish really racist or just pointing out that it's rude to speak another language (e.g, Aaron Schlossberg).  Could he have made his point in another way.

Contrary to what is often believed, most of the world's population is bilingual or multilingual. Monolingualism is characteristic only of a minority of the world's peoples. On the other hand, it makes more sense to speak the common language instead of another language (Disclosure: I speak English, French, and German)

Would it take the US making English the official language to end this debate, especially since currently it seems that people who are "Trump supporters" are being accused of the being the crowd who support speaking English.

On the other hand, having a common language would be a factor in a national identity.

Reparation for slavery is not a simple topic.

As I said before it was the Transatlantic Slave trade, which means it goes beyond just the United States: especially if you are discussing the people who traded slaves.

You can listen to this episode here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csynsp. The person in question is Spanish and his family was trading slaves after the trade became illegal.

And now that you are distracted by the concept or reparations...

What exactly is the status of The Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Serious question since this is something which happened recently enough to be in our lifetime. It also has a real impact on current events where as reparations are pretty nebulous.

 Wouldn't it make more sense to be discussing this since it has a very real effect on minorities and US politics?

 Which leads to the next question: WHY isn't it being discussed?

What if capitalism and free market forces worked to regulate firearms in the US?

The Constitution protects you against governmental actions. it doesn't protect you against the actions on non-governmental bodies.

One of the things mentioned in this clip is a landlord's prohibition on gun ownership in the lease not being a violation of the Second Amendment.

Do property rights overrule the Second Amendment?

Let's toss in for good measure that the Heller-McDonald decisions were very limited in their scope (in addition to contradiction prior Supreme Court precedents of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886] and US v Miller, 307 US 174 [1939[).{1}

Anyway, the firearms market is pretty much saturated with companies going bankrupt.

It may not be the librul-progressives that kill this insanity as much as market forces working to limit it.


Footnote
{1} US v Miller States that "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." This is the exact opposite conclusion from that drawn by the Heller-MCDonald decisions.

Wolves in sheepdogs clothing.

Funny how this myth seems to have caught on with the gunloon population (and fans of the military system, which includes cops).

So much is wrong with it.

First off, dogs don't carry weapons.

And the people who thought it would have been funny if I took the real Laci out hunting boar really have no idea of how fearless and selfless dogs are. Which takes us back to the previous point: a dog will protect a pack member. And that is the case no matter how small the dog is.

They don't need guns. They have their teeth, agility, and strength.

Another point with how wacky this trope is comes with the fact that Dogs and Wolves aren't that different. Dogs are a lot more accustomed to being around humans. Dogs also know the human is the boss. But other than that: there isn't that much difference between Lobo and Laci the Powderpuff Chinese Crested in how they act.

Sheepdogs work using their innate characteristics for hunting (herding sheepdogs) or pack protection (pastoral sheepdogs). The pastoral sheepdog is going to hang with the herd of sheep and protect it from preditors: animal or human. You want a good example of a pastoral sheepdog and it would be the Bearnaise Mountain Dog. Nice until you provoke it.

And they are about as different from the wolf, sheepdog, and sheep trope as you can get.

On the other hand,Argus and Fiona were two Bernese mountain dogs that were shot and killed when they entered a neighbor's yard. The dude with the gun was afraid they would kill his sheep. I guess the dogs were pretty scary to someone who has a gun.

And isn't really familiar with dogs: especially Bearnaise Mountain Dogs.

The real bottom line here is that a real sheepdog doesn't need to have a gun, or force, to be effective at protecting sheep.

Also, we need to beware of the sheepdogs who want to keep us in line by using fear.

Sheep..and Sheepdogs

I was going for my shepherd's crook to use it. That brought back memories of growing up on a farm.

With Sheep.

And, sheepdogs as well. After all, I am a total dog lover: especially working dogs.

But there's an irony for me in the right wing trope of the sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves, which shouldn't surprise me it was dreamed up by a Yank. A Yank who probably never spent any time on a farm with sheep and sheepdogs.

Britain is relatively free of wolves, which is also the case with New Zealand. Both places along with the US are where I grew up raising sheep. And having sheepdogs herd the sheep.

Sheepdogs rarely every encounter a wolf, which is good since they are usually border collies, bearded collies, or Old English Sheepdogs. So, they aren't busy keeping the sheep blissfully happy in their ignorance through protecting them from wolves. Sheepdogs are keeping sheep in line through force. Not sure what would be the outcome of an actual sheepdog wolf encounter. I would bet on the wolf.

No, what sheep do is they herd sheep and take them to be sheared. or to the barn. Or slaughtered. A sheep dog makes the sheep go left, go right, stop in place, go too fast, slow down, etc.. The sheepdog says, ‘you do where my master wants you to do.”

Sheepdogs aren't a symbol of liberty: they are the symbol of oppression. Sheepdogs herd the people, telling them what they can or can’t do. They represent fascism, not liberty. They are not the protectors, they are the forces of repression. They are as authoritarian as you can get, which is probably why aggressive people latch onto this.

I have yet to see someone who uses this analogy demonstrate they have spent any time around sheep. Or Sheepdogs. I grew up going to sheepdog trials (and got my start as a lawyer defending them [that was a joke]). Actually, sheepdog trials are where you see sheepdogs in action.

I hope that gives you an idea of how fucked this analogy is.

Anyway, when we herded sheep we had shepherd's crooks and sheepdogs: not to protect them, but to herd the sheep. we had sheep shears when we sheared them. And shovels when we cleaned the pen.

We were keeping them in line. Not protecting them from wolves.

The blog "On Violence" went into this in depth. but I have yet to see another farmer say this is a shit analogy. So, I'll do it: It's a shit analogy.

See also:

A Moment of Science: Sheepdogs and Wolves

On Violence's essays:

“The Surprising History of American Sniper’s “Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs” Speech”

- On V in Other Places: Slate's "The Surprising History of American Sniper’s “Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs” Speech”

- Race, Evil, and Black Wolves: Answering the Critics Part 2

- The Most Insulting Part of the Sheepdog Analogy

- Now Who's Being Naive? When Sheepdogs Kill Sheep

- The Internal Inconsistency of Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves Analogy

- Some Closing Thoughts on Wolves, Sheep and Sheepdogs Analogy
- Wolves, Sheepdogs and the Cops I Know)

Why knowing a second language is a good thing.

In this case, the person should learn American Sign Language (ASL)

Because the gesture he is making is the one for "asshole" in American Sign Language.

We can only hope that he has realised he is an asshole, but I seriously doubt he has the intelligence.

Well, we're having a laugh at you.

Hey, Ta-Nehisi Coates: this is why your argument for reaprations is nonsense.

OK, first off, we are talking about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which goes a lot further than just the 50 US states and Territories. Slavery was international. After all, where did the slaves come from?

Why, Africa, of course. Which is your first hurdle. What was the level of those nations' complicity in the trade? Are you seriously going to ask countries such as Benin to pay its fair share of reparations? 

For over 200 years, powerful kings in what is now the country of Benin captured and sold slaves to Portuguese, French and British merchants. The slaves were usually men, women and children from rival tribes — gagged and jammed into boats bound for Brazil, Haiti and the United States.

Digging into the depths of African complicity in the trade basically rips any pan-Africanist veneer off your argument. You want to make Third World nations pay for your lifestyle? Have you been to any of these countries?

Or just France and Switzerland?

Seriously, dude, you need a reality check if that is the case.

And we don't need to leave Africa to see how this topic will devolve into a case of silly buggers given that Africans were complicit in the slave trade. The African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years back in 1999. Which was made even weirder by the United Nations sponsored World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban South Africa in September 2001. This conference resulted in  a resolution stating that the West owed reparations to Africa due to the "racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance" that the Atlantic slave trade caused.

Go figure!

Next, Slavery helped pay for the industrial revolution, which means most western societies should be footing the bill: not just the US.

As I pointed out in my previous post: the next question is who would qualify. Since Prince Harry's and Meghan Markle's son is descended from slaves: would that mean that someone from one of the richest families in Britain would get reparations? How would that play out if descendants of Caribbean slaves didn't get reparations?

So, who gets and who pays "reparations" is a seriously thorny topic: especially if we toss in the amount of time which has passed since the end of slavery.

Then there is the mechanism for reparations and what form would they take. But the problem is that poverty isn't just limited to inner city blacks, as Fred Hampton was well aware. Urban decay doesn't just effect black people.

The thing which hits me is that this subject is far more complex than the US media is capable of addressing. Toss in that the Democrats are embracing this over more pressing issues, such as the environment (which also relates to race: look into the environmental justice movement). Poor people are more likely to live near environmental degradation.

The real upshot is that many of the manifestations of "reparations" would also have to include people other than those who are descendants of slavery (or indentured servitude, or  transportation). It also needs to be more than just monetary and embrace issues such as education, urban renewal, better housing, the environment, jobs, etcetera.

On the other hand, stirring up division just might help get Trump re-elected along with a republican legislature. Nothing like people wanting a nebulous concept for something which ended 156 years ago.

Two lessons: it is with the best intentions that the worst work is done.

And be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

Would Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor qualify for slavery reparations?

Serious question. Would a member of the British Royal Family who has an African-American heritage qualify for reparations if it was proven he was descended from slaves?

Likewise, would the WHITE descendants of indentured servants qualify since indentured servitude was similar to slavery. Let's toss in the people who were transported to the North American Colonies prior to the War for Independence.

The major problem with reparations for slavery is the time between emancipation and modern time. Sure, there were "extenuating circumstances" in post-slavery discrimination, but how far does that go toward mandating "reparations"?

We can also get into the reparations which were given directly after slavery.

But the most obvious argument to show how ridiculous this proposition happens to be is that a member of the British Royal Family would qualify for reparations.

Yeah, I will concede that there has been discrimination, but maybe we need to have an open discussion about race, economics, and opportunity in the US.

Because the last thing I want to hear is a college drop out telling me he didn't have economic advantages because of race. especially when I look at Coates' accomplishments.

I might respect his argument more if he went to University of Maryland Law school and couldn't find a job worthy of his credentials.

See also:

• The Education of Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Donald Trump IS...

The All-American Id from New York City.

Lie it or not. A hat tip to Arlo Gutherie's "Alice's Restaurant" for this idea.

What really bothers me about Russiagate and the Mueller report

The fact that Trump looked as if he didn't want to be President. That was a common theme from journalists and other outsiders who spent time with his campaign.

Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.

On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!

We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.

The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.

And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).

I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
or
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?

Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.

It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election".  On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.

So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.



See also:

• BuzzFeed’s Controversial Cohen Story Raises Question: Did Trump Want to Be President?
• The Dismissed DNC Fraud Lawsuit Explained
• Vote-Rigging Suit Against DNC Dropped, Mostly Because the DNC Can’t Rig Much of Anything
• Hillary Clinton says she didn't prepare concession speech because she was convinced she would win

THEY JUST WON'T SHUT UP!!!!

Some people need to get the concept of "rights" and "due process".

One of which is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which some people are happy to go by when it's their candidate, but won't let go of when it's Donald Trump.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Donald Trump.

I am also no fan of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular and any rigging was to try and find someone more unpopular than she was.

The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.

Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!

Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.

There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media.  But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al. 

Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.

Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.

At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.

Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.

Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.

Maybe the Mueller report WASN'T a witch hunt: or be careful what you wish for!

While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.

Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.

There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.

Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.

Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.

And it might not turn out the way they want it!

See also:

• With Craig Indictment, Mueller Probe Sends Ripples Through the Swamp
• Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.
• Mueller's report looks bad for Obama
• Is the FBI’s latest probe of the Clinton Foundation a ‘witch hunt’ – or something more?
• Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections
• Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

Noam Chomsky on Russiagate

Russian interference was minimal if it even existed. No one is talking about Israel's interference in US elections.

"There's no interference in elections that begins to compare to campaign funding."

More election rigging

Now if you were an environmentalist group and going to endorse a candidate, which one of these would you choose?

The person with the 100% (or 92%): Bernie Sanders?

Or the person with the 82%: Hillary Clinton?

Bernie Sanders was the highest rated candidate on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard and the Climate Hawks Vote PAC in 2016.

Clinton had the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates using the LCV's standard.

Yet, the LCV chose Clinton.

What the fuck?

LCV's Action Fund took an unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries was cast. That was a big mistake. It was far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to make an endorsement.

Yet they did. And they chose a candidate who was poor by their own standards!
Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure as Secretary of State. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond.

Clinton supported the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders had introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and Martin O’Malley actively supported the climate divestment movement, while Clinton ,  whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists did not taken a position.

This was Clinton's reaction when asked about her connection to the fossil fuel industry by a Greenpeace Volunteer.

Clinton never did the actions necessary to gain the support of the environmentalist movement (other than those establishment groups who are hopeful that change can come through the duopoly regime). On the other hand, climate change had short shrift if it received any attention at all during the campaign.

There are a lot of issues going on here from having a candidate chosen long before the primary process begins, failure to have a serious debate on the issue, and just plain off earning the vote.

The environment is just one of many issues where Clinton just wasn't trustworthy. And she didn't help the situation by antagonising environmental activists. She failed to give straight answers on the issue. I would toss in that she failed to address The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) issue in a meaningful manner.

But this is one of many issues where Clinton demonstrated she wasn't trustworthy.

I really have to question who rigged the election when a group such as LCV essentially declared that there’s no need for any further discussion of the environment or climate by the Democratic candidates before the primary process really began. And they decided that in favour of a candidate who was poor by their own standard.

See also:

• Why the League of Conservation Voters was wrong to endorse Hillary Clinton
• 'What a Crock': Clinton Breaks DAPL Silence With Statement That Says 'Literally Nothing'

It only gets worse from here

A little honest, self-examination would have been a lot more helpful than trying to blame all this on the Russians.

It will be even more amusing when the investigation gets investigated and shown to be a crock of shit.

Seriously people, it would have made a whole lot more sense to examine what REALLY happened than trying to blame the mess on the Russians.