House Republican Investigative Failure

Image result for broken congress

Congressional Republicans conducted a biased and half-baked attempt at an investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. A draft of their findings should be available soon.

House Democrats released a status report on the Russian investigation and it shows numerous gaps in the Republican investigation. I want to itemize some of these missing elements in order to demonstrate the depth of deficiency in the Republican’s investigation. Republicans failed to investigate the following areas:

Key Lines of Inquiry (pgs. 4-7)

1. Hacking and dissemination of campaign emails.
2. Campaign knowledge of email hack.
3. Russia’s intermediaries.
4. Elections security
5. Social media campaign
6. Financial leverage
7. Money-laundering and foreign payments
8. Post-election effects and Obstruction of Justice

Key Witnesses the Majority Refused to Interview (pgs. 8-13)

1. Reince Priebus
2. Stephen Miller
3. Kathleen (KT) McFarland
4. Sean Spicer
5. Kellyanne Conway
6. Tera Dahl
7. Daniel Scavino Jr.
8. Joseph “Keith” Kellogg Jr.
9. Joseph E. Schmitz
10. Sam Nunberg
11. George Nader
12. Marshall Billingslea
13. Dimitri Simes
14. Cleta Mitchell
15. Paul Erickson
16. Maria Butina
17. Johnny Yenason
18. Sergei Millian
19. Natalia Veselnitskaya
20. Roman Beniaminov
21. Bijan Kian
22. Simona Mangiante
23. John Szobocsan
24. Allen Garten
25. Alan Weisselberg
26. Mark Corallo
27. Deutsche Bank
28. Trump Campaign Digital Operation: The Committee ought to interview all relevant persons involved or associated with the Trump campaign’s digital operation to determine whether the campaign coordinated in any way with Russia in its digital program.
29. Cambridge Analytica
30. Darren Blanton
31. Jon Iadonisi
32. Aaron Nevins
33. National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS): The Department of Homeland Security reported on September 22, 2016 that it had notified 21 states affected by the Russian hack of elections systems during the 2016 election. The Committee should engage the NASS and interview relevant individuals from their Executive Board and/or Elections Committee to understand how each state was affected by the 2016 attack, and to better understand how they are preparing for elections in 2018 and beyond.
34. CrowdStrike: The Committee needs to speak with two CrowdStrike employees who provided direct support to the DNC and interfaced with the FBI. These additional witnesses may be able to provide first-hand, technical insight into CrowdStrike’s forensic examination of the DNC’s servers and activity by Russian hackers.

This is only a small sample of the gaps in the Republican investigation. House Republicans performed disgracefully in this matter.


Religion and Politics Evangelical Style

Image result for hugh hefner

Evangelical James Dobson once said:

As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible.

Franklin Graham once said if he “will lie to or mislead his wife, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”

Both comments were made in response to Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs. Graham and Dobson’s comments seem reasonable enough, so how can religious leaders support Donald Trump?

FOX News political analyst Juan Williams gets it right here:

Let’s not forget that according to exit polls, 80 percent of white, born-again evangelical Christians supported Trump in the last election. Hillary Clinton only received 16 percent support. Voters from this demographic cast 26 percent of all votes for president in 2016.

For a group that regularly preaches about the “sanctity of marriage” and inveighs against the evils of divorce, it was a major political puzzle to me when evangelicals first backed the thrice-married, adulterous Trump over Hillary Clinton.

…And now the puzzling behavior of evangelicals is pushed to the limit by their support for Trump despite the slimy facts of the Stormy Daniels story.

Imagine for one moment if President Obama’s personal lawyer had paid six figures in hush money to a porn star.

The same evangelicals would have condemned him as not being Christian and possibly believing in Muslim law that allows multiple wives. They would have said he was a bad example to the nation’s youth.

Imagine if Obama had endorsed a candidate despite credible allegations that he sexually molested young girls.

Well, there is no denying that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R), who faced just such allegations, got Trump’s full endorsement.

Again, evangelicals continued to support Trump.

Hypocrisy that deep can’t be excused by Trump’s convenient switch from supporting abortion rights to opposing abortion.

What we are seeing is a hollow core in evangelical faith as practiced by its leaders.
Tony Perkins, head of a Christian conservative evangelical group, The Family Research Council, said recently that his supporters give Trump a “mulligan” on sex with the porn star.

Evangelical leader Franklin Graham, the son of the nation’s most famous evangelical preacher, Billy Graham, also defended Trump.

“That was a long time ago,” Graham told CNN’s Don Lemon in dismissing the porn star story. “I’m more interested in who a person is today. I believe he’s a changed person.”

Graham saves his fiery condemnations for what he calls the “godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

Robert Jeffress, a leading Trump supporter among evangelicals and senior pastor of First Baptist Dallas, told The New York Times earlier this month he “can’t look into the president’s heart.”

Jeffress said he doesn’t “care” if Trump is a religious phony but only that Trump has “embraced and enacted” policies favored by Jeffress and other evangelicals.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton. She is her own species of disaster. I included this quote because it accurately drives home my point. What kind of hypocrisy is this?

Williams continues:

…When it comes to Trump, the nation’s political, social and historical norms do not matter anymore. Now the acid of the Trump presidency is eating away at the integrity of leading evangelists and their supporters.

God help us.

How can these prominent evangelicals continue to serve as moral authorities? Does this mean a person like Playboy mogul Hugh Hefner can get the endorsement of American evangelicals?

Ron Jeremy is a pornstar who has made at least 2,000 pornographic films. Jeremy now faces multiple allegations of sexual misconduct including “indecent exposure, nonconsensual digital penetration and rape.” Perhaps he should reject gay marriage and abortion, repeat Republican economic slogans and run for president. I don’t see why he wouldn’t receive unwavering praise and support from evangelical leaders.

So, Ron Jeremy or Hugh Hefner for president anyone?

Mass Shootings, Violent Video Games, and the facts about Guns (Part 6)

Image result for a man in fear

Wounded Masculinity

A much-neglected topic in the gun debate is wounded masculinity. We need to devote an entire blog post to this issue in order to drive home its significance.

Researchers Tristan Bridges PhD and Tara Leigh Tober PhD wrote:

Research shows that when an identity someone cares about is called into question, they are likely to react by over-demonstrating qualities associated with that identity. As this relates to gender, some sociologists call this “masculinity threat.” And while mass shootings are not common, research suggests that mass shooters experience masculinity threats from their peers and, sometimes, simply from an inability to live up to societal expectations associated with masculinity (like holding down a steady job, being able to obtain sexual access to women’s bodies, etc.) – some certainly more toxic than others.

The research on this topic is primarily experimental. Men who are brought into labs and have their masculinity experimentally “threatened” react in patterned ways: they are more supportive of violence, less likely to identify sexual coercion, more likely to support statements about the inherent superiority of males, and more.

This research provides important evidence of what men perceive as masculine in the first place (resources they rely on in a crisis) and a new kind evidence regarding the relationship between masculinity and violence. The research does not suggest that men are somehow inherently more violent than women. Rather, it suggests that men are likely to turn to violence when they perceive themselves to be otherwise unable to stake a claim to a masculine gender identity.

I didn’t know masculinity factored so much in mass shootings.

Bridges and Tober’s conclusion is supported by another paper written by John L. Oliffe et al. titled, “Men, Masculinities, and Murder-Suicide.” Oliffe et al. offer the following recommendation to curb this factor:

In the context of gender, guns have been linked to masculine identities ranging from law enforcement officers to gangsters—and such “good guy”–“bad guy” binaries continue to feature whereby the central character(s) (villains and heroes) are men using guns (Combe & Boyle, 2013). One central challenge here is to distance, and ideally dislocate masculinity from the reactive and fatal use of guns by modeling and affirming alternatives to wielding power and asserting dominance with such aggression and tragedy.

Image result for mental illness

Mental Illness and Violence

I want to return to a point made in part 4 of this series because it points to mental illness as a factor in mass shootings. It is important to bring absolute clarity this issue. We covered research on people with serious mental illness in part 3. That post was limited to people with severe mental disorders who engage in mass shootings. Here, we will expand our study to mental illness and violence in general.

Interlocutors in this debate fail to make crucial distinctions and this failure is distorting political discourse on all levels. The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment study is one of the most rigorous studies on mental illness and violence. A distinction was made between those who had both a substance abuse disorder and a psychiatric disorder (a “dual diagnosis”) and people with a psychiatric disorder alone. Here is how Harvard University’s Mental Health Letter puts it:

The study found that 31% of people who had both a substance abuse disorder and a psychiatric disorder (a “dual diagnosis”) committed at least one act of violence in a year, compared with 18% of people with a psychiatric disorder alone. This confirmed other research that substance abuse is a key contributor to violent behavior. But when the investigators probed further, comparing rates of violence in one area in Pittsburgh in order to control for environmental factors as well as substance use, they found no significant difference in the rates of violence among people with mental illness and other people living in the same neighborhood. In other words, after controlling for substance use, rates of violence reported in the study may reflect factors common to a particular neighborhood rather than the symptoms of a psychiatric disorder.

To put it bluntly, people with mental illness are not committing most of the crimes. A few more studies should be sufficient to clear the air.

Jeffrey Swanson is a medical sociologist and professor of psychiatry at Duke University. The New Yorker:

When Swanson first analyzed the ostensible connection between violence and mental illness, looking at more than ten thousand individuals (both mentally ill and healthy) during the course of one year, he found that serious mental illness alone was a risk factor for violence—from minor incidents, like shoving, to armed assault—in only four percent of cases. That is, if you took all of the incidents of violence reported among the people in the survey, mental illness alone could explain only four percent of the incidents. When Swanson broke the samples down by demographics, he found that the occurrence of violence was more closely associated with whether someone was male, poor, and abusing either alcohol or drugs—and that those three factors alone could predict violent behavior with or without any sign of mental illness. If someone fit all three of those categories, the likelihood of them committing a violent act was high, even if they weren’t also mentally ill. If someone fit none, then mental illness was highly unlikely to be predictive of violence. “That study debunked two myths,” Swanson said. “One: people with mental illness are all dangerous. Well, the vast majority are not. And the other myth: that there’s no connection at all. There is one. It’s quite small, but it’s not completely nonexistent.”

Mental Illness is a small factor in predicting violence. We would expect mental health professionals to be able to pick out people who are more prone to commit violent acts if mental illness was a major fact, but this is not the case:

Psychiatrists also have a very hard time predicting which of their patients will go on to commit a violent act. In one study, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist Charles Lidz and his colleagues had doctors at a psychiatric emergency department evaluate admitted patients and predict whether or not they would commit violence against others. They found that, over the next six months, fifty-three percent of those patients who doctors predicted would commit a violent act actually did. Thirty-six percent of the patients thought not to be violent in fact went on to commit a violent act. For female patients, the prediction rates were no better than chance. A 2012 meta-analysis of data from close to twenty-five thousand participants, from thirteen countries, led by the Oxford University psychiatrist Seena Fazel, found that the nine assessment tools most commonly used to predict violence—from actuarial ones like the Psychopathy Checklist to clinical judgment tools like the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth—had only “low to moderate” predictive value.

Let’s stop turning people with mental illnesses into the enemy and muster the moral fortitude and political will to implement effective legislative measures like the ones listed in part 5 of this blog series.

Mass Shootings, Violent Video Games, and the facts about Guns (Part 5)

Image result for media attention

Effective Measures

A multipronged approach is necessary to reduce mass shootings. The following measures should be taken to reduce mass shootings:

I. Adoption of a community-based interrupters program as proposed by epidemiologist Gary Slutkin: You can see this program in action here.

II. Adopt effective federal gun laws:

A. Barring sales to all violent criminals
B. High-capacity magazine ban
C. Universal checks for gun buyers
D. Universal checks for ammo buyers
E. Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health providers
F. Bar sales to convicted stalkers
G. Make all serious domestic violence offenders surrender firearms
H. The Sandy Hook Promise Group Recommends: Research – funding for research to identify evidence-based policy and non-policy programs that help stop individuals who may want to hurt themselves or be violent toward others
I. Implement Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law

The efficacy of measures A-F is attested to in an article in a New York Times article titled, “How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws.” Research shows “that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths” so, we recommend a simultaneous multipronged approached.

III. Containment of Media Contagion: Jennifer B. Johnston is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Western New Mexico University and she finds “that a cross-cutting trait among many profiles of mass shooters is desire for fame.” Her paper, “Mass Shootings and the Media Contagion Effect,” recommends these measures:

A. Do not name the killers once they are dead or are captured
B. “Another recommendation to the media is to refrain from sharing photos, writings, “manifestos,” personal likes and dislikes, family, work, and school history, or weapon preference of mass shooters with the public, especially given that many would-be killers identify in themselves similarities with the troubles of past killers, are inspired by their “bravery” and fame, are fascinated with the weapons and planning they did, and may even feel a competitive desire to surpass fatality counts of their homicidal idols.”
C. Spend the same amount of time sharing the victim’s “names, likenesses, personal writings or histories, families, etc., as they now spend on killers.”
D. Media should spend more time talking about the heroic efforts of bystanders and first responders

There is an additional proposal that is far from the mainstream debate that is worthy of discussion. Thom Hartmann argues that we should regulate guns the way we regulate cars. He says three aspects of car regulation is relevant to gun regulation:

1. Establish ownership. In order to be able to manage all the cars coming onto the roads, both as valuable pieces of theft-worthy hardware and to track liability issues, all cars were required to have a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which was stamped onto the car during manufacture and followed it until the day it was destroyed or decommissioned. Similarly, the owner of that car and its VIN had to present himself to state authorities and sign a title of ownership, which had to be recorded with the state whenever title was transferred to a new owner.
2. Prove competence. By the years around 1915 there had been so many fatalities and serious injuries attributable to cars that the states decided they only wanted people driving on public roads who actually knew how to handle a car properly. This meant defining rules for the road, having people learn those rules, and testing them – both in writing and practically in person – to show they truly could drive safely. When people passed the tests, they were given a license to drive.
3. Require liability insurance. Because virtually all car accidents were just that – accidents – most people who “caused” accidents were at both financial and legal risk. Many were fine, upstanding citizens (in fact, because cars were expensive, most car owners fell into this broad category). And they wanted some defense against the chance of making a mistake and ending up in jail or broke because of lawsuits or the liability costs of caring for people they’d injured. What came out of this was the development of automobile liability insurance, and the establishment of a requirement for it to be carried by all owners/drivers. While most states adopted this requirement substantially later than 1915, it’s now established as a fundamental part of the three steps necessary to drive a car.

This line of thought is fleshed out further by Hartmann:

1. Registration and title – as a requirement rather than an option – would establish a clear chain of custody and responsibility, so when people behave irresponsibly with their guns they can be held to account.
2. Having a shooter’s license be conditional on passing both a written and a shooting-range test would demonstrate competence and also insert a trained person into the process who could spot “off-kilter” people like the Parkland shooter. Taking a cue from most other countries, we could also require people to prove a need or sporting/safety use for a weapon.
3. Today, if a car had run down mass-shooting victims, their families would be getting millions from Geico, et al. Because a gun killed them, they get nothing. This is bizarre in the extreme; we all end up paying the costs of gun violence.

I’m interested to receive feedback from readers about these measures.

We will pick up the other factors in our next post.

Mass Shootings, Violent Video Games, and the facts about Guns (Part 4)

Image result for contributing factors

Factors that Contribute to Mass Shootings  

Michael Roque is an Assistant Professor at Bates College and his areas of expertise include criminological theory and desistance from crime. Grant Duwe is a research director at the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Both men wrote an article and listed the following contributing factors to mass shootings:

Access to Firearms: Clearly a mass shooting requires that the perpetrators have guns. Gun access is a necessary but perhaps not sufficient causal factor. However, the evidence tends to suggest that the greater availability of guns per capita is correlated with heightened violence.
Wounded masculinity: Nearly all mass shooters past and present are men. Shooters often have recently suffered some sort of threat to their identity or self-esteem. To the extent that masculinity is tied up with dominance and aggression, cultural issues could be at play.
Media: Since the wave of school shootings in the 1990s, the media has been blamed for influencing these events. In fact, horror writer Stephen King pulled from publishing his book, Rage – which describes a school shooting – because he was worried that there could be copy-cat cases. Much like the research on guns, however, research linking media portrayals to real-world violence is not conclusive.
Mental Illness: Perhaps the strongest evidence is that mass shooters often have suffered from some sort of psychiatric condition. Studies of mass shooters have found that they suffer from mental illnesses at three times the rate of the general population.

The solution to the problem of mass shootings should take into consideration these relevant factors.

Mass Shootings, Violent Video Games, and the facts about Guns (Part 3)


Image result for mental cogs

Many politicians point to mental illness as the primary culprit for mass shootings. Will we see a significant reduction in mass shootings if we shift our focus to mental illness?

Research: Mental Illness Doesn’t seem to be the Cause of Mass Shootings

Less than 5% of shootings are committed by people with a diagnosable mental illness. Suppose we shift the discussion to those who suffer from serious mental illness. In a paper titled, “Mass Shootings and Mental Illness,” James L. Knoll and George D. Annas explore the relationship between serious mental illness and mass shootings. The paper shows the following beliefs are false:

• Mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent the most significant relationship between gun violence and mental illness.
• People with serious mental illness should be considered dangerous.
• Gun laws focusing on people with mental illness or with a psychiatric diagnosis can effectively prevent mass shootings.
• Gun laws focusing on people with mental illness or a psychiatric diagnosis are reasonable, even if they add to the stigma already associated with mental illness.

Less than 1% of all yearly gun-related homicides are committed by people with serious mental illness, according to this paper. Suppose we asked how much do those with serious mental illness contribute to overall violent crimes. The number only increases to 3%, that is, 3% of violent crimes are committed by people with serious mental crimes. Therefore, focus on serious mental illness is not key to a reduction in mass shootings.

Mass Shootings, Violent Video Games, and the facts about Guns (Part 2)

Image result for academic journal

Many people think they see a causal link between violent video games and mass shooters. Will regulating violent video games reduce the number of mass shootings in America?

Research: Regulating Violent Video Games is Not Very Helpful

Christopher J. Ferguson is a Professor of Psychology at Stetson University. He has studied violent video games for nearly 15 years. His academic article, “Violent Video Games, Mass Shootings, and the Supreme Court,” appeared in the law journal New Criminal Law Review. Ferguson concluded that “current evidence does not support the regulation of violent video games, and legal policy attempts to connect video game violence to specific crimes are unlikely to survive careful scrutiny.”

To be sure, there are studies that affirm a causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. A meta-analysis by Craig A. Anderson et al. titled, “Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries,” was published in 2010. The paper ended by saying “we believe that debates can and should finally move beyond the simple question of whether violent video game play is a causal risk factor for aggressive behavior; the scientific literature has effectively and clearly shown the answer to be “yes.””

The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the aforementioned meta-study into consideration, but they still conclude:

Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological Association task force report.

“The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression,” says the report of the APA Task Force on Violent Media.

So, the meta-study cannot be considered a definitive study that demonstrates a causal link between criminal violence or delinquency.

The APA came to this conclusion in a 2015 report titled, “Technical Report on the Review of the Violent Video Game Literature.” The task force consisted of the prominent practitioners and theoreticians. Members of the task force included: Mark Appelbaum, Ph.D.; Sandra Calvert, Ph.D.; Kenneth Dodge, Ph.D.; Sandra Graham, Ph.D.; Gordon Nagayama Hall, Ph.D.; Sherry Hamby, Ph.D.; and Lawewnce Hedges, Ph.D.

Researchers at the University of York found no evidence to support the belief that violent video games ‘prime’ players to act in certain ways even if you increase the realism of the violent video game. The study by David Zendle et al. shows that an increase in realism in violent video games do not increase activation of aggressive concepts resulting in antisocial effects in players. They say, “When taken together, the results of these two experiments seem to suggest that greater behavioural realism simply does not seem to lead to greater activation of aggressive concepts in VVGs. The strength of this conclusion is further bolstered by the methodology used in these experiments.”

The research seems mixed, but the overall evidence suggests that regulating violent video games will do little to reduce the number of mass shootings in America.

Mass Shootings, Violent Video Games, and the facts about Guns (Part 1)

Image result for mass shooting stoneman

America continues to mourn the deaths of 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Students who survived the shooting are speaking out against Congressional inaction on gun control. The texture of the clarity and depth of the student’s ire is a unique feature of this school shooting. Once again, we find ourselves embroiled in a debate about gun control. This blog series will be devoted to sifting through the contours of the debate. My goal is to raise the level of discourse by engaging with relevant scholarly data and offering an evenhanded assessment.

Kicking the Disabled in the Face

Image result for kicking a person with cerebral palsy

My readers will notice that I have turned by attention to scrutinizing the Republican party. I have undertaken this venture simply because they are the party in power.

Thursday, February 15th, saw the passage of a particularly unsavory and immoral bill. House Republicans passed the “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017,” yesterday. Details of the bill and the changes it makes are a bit convoluted, so we will quote Newsweek to help explain the relevant facts:

In a 225-192 vote Thursday, most House Republicans and a dozen Democrats passed a bill that makes it harder for disabled persons to sue for discrimination, in an effort to prevent opportunistic attorneys from taking advantage of business owners.

But many disability and civil rights groups fear the bill will weaken incentives for businesses to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which mandates equal access to public accommodations.

Proponents argue that the bill, the ADA Education and Reform Act, or H.R. 620, is necessary to stem the flow of “drive-by lawsuits” brought by lawyers who only wish to line their pockets. The bill would require those filing suit in federal court against businesses for not complying with the ADA to first give that business 60 days to devise a plan to fix the problem. They then have another 120 days to implement the changes.

“There is now a whole industry made up of people who prey on small business owners and file unnecessary and abusive lawsuits,” Representative Ted Poe of Texas, who co-sponsored the bill, said after introducing the measure in 2017. “This bill will change that by requiring that the business owners have time to fix what is allegedly broken.”

The bill would effectively gut the ADA, detractors argue. Without a fear of being sued, businesses might be inclined to ignore ADA compliance rules. Critics of the bill also believe people with disabilities should not bear the responsibility of making sure businesses are compliant with the law.

To be sure, some Democrats are culpable in the passage of this bill.

Who thinks it’s morally acceptable to place the onus on a disabled person to make sure a business complies with federal law? Lawsuits are expensive and difficult for anyone to bring and we are now requiring, nay burdening, disabled people with the task of ensuring compliance after they have been wronged by noncompliance. This law makes disabled people’s lives more difficult.

The Pacific Standard explains how this happens:

H.R. 620, the “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017,” restructures the enforcement mechanism for the ADA. The means of enforcement have always been unusual. Most regulations that affect commerce are enforced by local, state, and federal agencies. While there is a small division in the Department of Justice (DOJ) doing some oversight, the ADA generally depends on private citizens bringing complaints through damages-free lawsuits (though with legal fees attached) in order to command technical compliance in commercial spaces. Think about how this differs from most other regulatory situations. You aren’t required to check whether the local restaurant complies with health codes, labor standards, or other safety features; the government does that for you. When it comes to disability, though, most enforcement starts with a personal lawsuit.

We all know, where there’s a bill there’s a lobbyist The International Council of Shopping Centers is a lobbying group that represents shopping malls and they are behind this bill.

You probably didn’t hear about this bill, that’s because the Republican party used the Florida school massacre as cover for the passage of this bill.

Sinister bill under a sinister cloak.

Senate Testimony Transcript

Image result for fusion gps testimony transcripts

In case you didn’t read it, Dianne Feinstein released the 312-page transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The transcript shows the circumstances that led to the hiring of Christopher Steele and it also reveals some troubling details surrounding Donald Trump’s business dealings.

Read and be enlightened.