A Message From Lucianne  



Now More Than Ever
Get Your Eagles Up!
Lucianne Tees - in
Black or White
Click to Buy


































        
 

 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute
Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password


  Topic: The Feinstein “Assault Weapons”
Ban: What’s It All About?
Change your user profile.
If you are having trouble posting, please take the time to register.
Your User Name :
Your Password
  I forgot my password
Your Reply  :
Preview Reply     Post Reply
The Feinstein “Assault Weapons”
Ban: What’s It All About?

Power Line, by John Hinderaker

Original Article

Posted By:Dreadnought, 1/24/2013 10:46:20 PM

Today Senator Dianne Feinstein unveiled her long-promised legislation to ban “assault weapons.” Since there is no such thing as an assault weapon, we will have to read the text of the law to see what it actually does. So far, I haven’t seen the text anywhere, but Feinstein’s web site has a fairly detailed description of the bill, including a list of the 157 weapons that are specifically banned. News coverage of Feinstein’s proposal has been laughably bad. Feinstein’s bill purports to toughen the 1994 assault weapons ban by reducing the number of “military style” features that make a firearm

  

Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: Bobn.T, 1/24/2013 10:56:00 PM     (No. 9137810)

I just gave the NRA a contribution.
I pray that God will deliver us from this evil destroying the country.

America needs a white knight on a white horse.


Reply 2 - Posted by: ccyr, 1/24/2013 10:59:22 PM     (No. 9137814)

I just figured it was a way to sell more AR-15´s because that´s exactly what it´s doing. While I was waiting for a lane to open up, I saw ten of them jump off the shelf in a little more than an hour this afternoon at $1,600 to $2,300 a piece.


   

 

  


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: thewarden, 1/24/2013 11:10:27 PM     (No. 9137822)

Wake me up when I care what a filthy rich eitist with personal security and an unrestricted concealed carry permit says...


Reply 4 - Posted by: ccyr, 1/24/2013 11:13:17 PM     (No. 9137825)

If we are going to pass a law to keep Sandy Hook from happening again, shouldn´t we pass a law that would have saved a single victim had it been enacted at the time of the shooting rather than a law that wouldn´t have saved a single life had it been enacted before the shooting?


Reply 5 - Posted by: King of all trolls, 1/24/2013 11:29:43 PM     (No. 9137837)

Crime rates have been dropping precipitously over the last 20 years. Some psychopath commits a heinous crime with a stolen weapon and suddenly our Constitutional rights are negotiable.


Reply 6 - Posted by: jl80863, 1/25/2013 12:14:15 AM     (No. 9137869)

If they want to ban "ugly guns" again can we ban ugly legislators?


Reply 7 - Posted by: dvc, 1/25/2013 1:01:34 AM     (No. 9137889)

Feinstein hates military styled weapons, mental illness on her part. She is psychotic, totally illogical.

ALL these bills are OBVIOUSLY infringement on our right to keep and bear arms and are clearly unconstitutional. We need to stop this in the Senate AND in the House, BOTH.

Remember - the "no private sales" push, being sold as the ´gun show loophole´ is equally fictional, but the push is intended to result in registering all guns. Confiscation to follow.


   

 

  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: gator, 1/25/2013 2:31:46 AM     (No. 9137933)

The bill, like the woman, is stupid. But so are many Americans who (if even aware of it) will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.


Reply 9 - Posted by: hoosierblue, 1/25/2013 5:04:42 AM     (No. 9137960)

The Feinstein “Assault Weapons”
Ban: What’s It All About? -------CONTROL !!!!!


Reply 10 - Posted by: Trigger2, 1/25/2013 5:27:10 AM     (No. 9137971)

What´s it about? Removing guns behind every blade of grass so the country is wide open for muslim/chinese/fill in the blank takeover.


Reply 11 - Posted by: Red Jeep, 1/25/2013 7:32:06 AM     (No. 9138077)

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I should be able to own any weapon I want without licensing, registration or a background check.


Reply 12 - Posted by: Janjan, 1/25/2013 7:33:41 AM     (No. 9138080)

Unless Obama can put the full force of the military on the streets, assuming they would obey such an order, no one in the Federal Government is going to disarm Americans. They will just turn us all into criminals.


   

 



 
Reply 13 - Posted by: 4Justice, 1/25/2013 7:46:21 AM     (No. 9138089)

I want to make a bumper sticker for that one #6. Ban ugly and scary legislators!! Totally agree, #11.


Reply 14 - Posted by: Bad Dog, 1/25/2013 7:58:30 AM     (No. 9138118)

Yeah, somebody go tell the thugs in the ghettos that their favorite toys are being banned by their favorite politicians.

And watch them laugh and blast their way into YOUR saferoom.....


Reply 15 - Posted by: stablemoney, 1/25/2013 7:58:32 AM     (No. 9138119)

Did the NRA shoot anybody, Dianne? The NRA was home watching tv at the time of the crime.


Reply 16 - Posted by: miceal, 1/25/2013 8:06:49 AM     (No. 9138142)

She should be impeached, she is attempting to circumvent our Constitution without the required amendment. Articles of Impeachment and at least a LONG prison sentence....


Reply 17 - Posted by: disasterman, 1/25/2013 8:07:10 AM     (No. 9138144)

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
Sigmund Freud

This about sums up most of the liberals/progressives that I know.


   

 

  


 
Reply 18 - Posted by: preciosodrogas, 1/25/2013 8:29:50 AM     (No. 9138200)

Of course it is grandstanding, and look at the attention it has gotten her. But then gun bands are not about preventing violence, it is all about wanting to project the fantasy that all is well in lala land.
Needing a gun for self defense or protection against tyranny exposes the truth and they simply can´t handle the truth. They so want to control all the pieces because they want reality to conform to their beliefs. They are scared and can´t handle the truth so we must sacrifice our liberties so they can live in their pretend world.


Reply 19 - Posted by: Mr. Know-It-All, 1/25/2013 8:32:36 AM     (No. 9138206)

I have seen the supposed list. It specifically bans the Ruger Mini 14 tactical rifle. The only difference between the tactical version and a run of the mill ranch rifle is the stock. Period. All of the important stuff is exactly the same.

You can buy a ranch rifle and make into a tactical by buying an after market folding and adjustable length stock. So I suppose that such stocks should be made illegal so that you cannot do that.

As hildabeast would say, what does it matter? The ranch rifle fires the same rounds, in the same manner, and at the same rate. The only difference is how they look.

Feinstein is obviously driven by some kind of mental aberration against the way a rifle looks. Or to put it another way; she´s a loon.


Reply 20 - Posted by: texaseducator, 1/25/2013 8:37:49 AM     (No. 9138222)

The only thing most of these people know about weapons is what they see on tv and at the movies and Toys R Us. They have no idea how weapons work or why they are designed the way they are or what the real descriptive terms mean. They reveal their ignorance everytime they talk about weapons. The scary thing is they know about the same amount on everything they talk about.


Reply 21 - Posted by: safesword, 1/25/2013 8:50:26 AM     (No. 9138247)

these idiots in congress...every time i read what they are up to,i scream so many four letter words...for hours at a time!!!..they drive me to become so apoplectic!!!!!UGGGHHHH!!! i cant take reading anymore!!


Reply 22 - Posted by: marthaville, 1/25/2013 9:12:06 AM     (No. 9138305)

Waiting for Sen. Feinstein to start crying like Hillary did. That always, always disarms the men.

Don´t you love being told what to do by a wealthy woman who has spent her life working in government jobs? Redistribute your wealth, Dianne.


   

 



 
Reply 23 - Posted by: bob913, 1/25/2013 9:37:14 AM     (No. 9138375)

Whada ya know

Feinstein Gun Control Bill Would Exempt Government Officials...


Reply 24 - Posted by: pete moss, 1/25/2013 10:09:57 AM     (No. 9138463)

"Could Diane Feinstein´s assault on our civil rights actually be a smoke screen to divert attention from this? On the day the
new Congress convened this year she introduced legislation to route $25 billion in tax payer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband´s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms. Her intervention on behalf of the FDIC is unusual since she isn´t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the committee is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments- not direct federal dollars." In other words, she´s a crook.


Reply 25 - Posted by: Mr. Hanky, 1/25/2013 10:12:05 AM     (No. 9138473)

And "government officials" are exempted.


Reply 26 - Posted by: Grambo, 1/25/2013 10:28:19 AM     (No. 9138513)

The Left lives for control, and an armed and obstinate American is problematic to them. So, what to do…oh, I know….


Reply 27 - Posted by: RancherJack, 1/25/2013 10:55:38 AM     (No. 9138583)

Feinstein exempts government employees, contractors.

That´s all we need to know.

It is us v. Them.


Reply 28 - Posted by: capt scurvey, 1/25/2013 11:03:41 AM     (No. 9138613)

Disarm Chicago´s ghettos first as a test run, DiFi, then get back to us when that´s been accomplished...


Reply 29 - Posted by: sdish, 1/25/2013 11:08:54 AM     (No. 9138625)

This is an attempt to ban guns having certain cosmetic features with legislation that’s based on foolish reasoning, promoted by liberal politicians for deceitful purposes.


Reply 30 - Posted by: Marzipan, 1/25/2013 11:16:51 AM     (No. 9138645)

Meanwhile back at the peoples house Mr. pResident is mandating all high schools outfit their sports programs to be totally accessible to the handicapped. Hmmm, not enough money for teaching them, let´s have them spend more to include a special olympics theme. I do think high schools make the sports available already for those kids that are truly motivated.. It´s all about spend spend spend so we the legislative ruling class can continue to eat cake.


Reply 31 - Posted by: bighambone, 1/25/2013 11:20:34 AM     (No. 9138659)

The liberal Democrats can´t stop criminals and crazy people from getting their hands on guns because there are too many guns out there for the liberals to ever effectively control. Banning guns and ammunition magazines will only create new black markets for those items throughout the USA.

What the liberals really want to do is wipe out most of the US small arms and related industries that the liberals consider to be conservative oriented enterprises. Once just about all modern firearms produced and sold in the USA, both rifles and handguns, are banned, there is no way that those industries could survive by bidding on ever diminishing military contracts alone. With those industries gone, all the tens of thousands of well paying American jobs and the technical know how connected to them would also be gone.

The liberal mission there is clear, and at the same time the liberals refer to the mentally ill, a few of who perpetrate the mass shootings, as being victims who they want to help. The liberals also are silent on the movie, TV, and addictive violent video game industries those entertainment products give vulnerable young people with mental disorders, who grow up in places like peaceful small Connecticut towns, ideas completely foreign to those places, like that to gain media attention to themselves the thing to do is to commit criminally insane acts while setting out on their own individual suicide missions. Of course the mental health industry and the makers of violent movie, TV, and video games are all liberal Democrat constituency groups.


Reply 32 - Posted by: Butch59, 1/25/2013 11:21:40 AM     (No. 9138665)

In a quick response to the author, yes, there are, or have been, rifle launched grenades. The old M1 Garand of WWII fame had the capable of firing them. I fired on during basic training the Ft. Polk, La. 1963.

And, if I came up and beat you to a pulp with a wooden club or any other blunt object, whould that also be classified as an assult weapon? After all, I "assulted" you with one.

And in response to poster #12, Obozo won´t turn the military on Americian citizens en mass. He will act piece meal by sending federal agents to individuals or small groups and threaten them with prison if they don´t turn it their guns. Or do what the Russians did in 1917-1918. Just round them up and shoot them.


Reply 33 - Posted by: chicodon, 1/25/2013 11:41:23 AM     (No. 9138722)

We need to have this conversation once and for all. If they want to modify the 2nd Amendment then they can make their case. There´s a mechanism for amending the Constitution. The founders couldn´t envision the day that the citizens would be so unequally outgunned. It began with the National Firearms Act in 1934 and now this. Let´s get it out in the open. Either we have a right to "bear" arms or we don´t.


Reply 34 - Posted by: loveUSA, 1/25/2013 12:17:18 PM     (No. 9138812)

Have you noticed that these so called gun safety laws exempt Congress? This proposed assault weapons bill exempts them.

ObamaCare exempts them. Congress has their own health care. They make laws for the citizens, but these laws don´t apply to them, the ruling class. That´s the definition of an elitist. And the definition of evil.


Reply 35 - Posted by: kctiger, 1/25/2013 1:20:42 PM     (No. 9138973)

It´s not God´s job to deliver us from the evils of this world.

It is our job to keep evil at bay while we are in this world!

We are failing miserably!


Reply 36 - Posted by: jintz, 1/25/2013 1:38:36 PM     (No. 9139006)

Any bets that all Pols will be exempt from the gun bill just as with the health care bill,phonies the whole bunch of them


Reply 37 - Posted by: RKFree2b, 1/25/2013 1:40:23 PM     (No. 9139013)

It´s about taking time trying to control something (guns) that congress and the white house have no constitutional authority to do.

It´s about not taking time to control something(federal government spending) that congress and the white house are constitutionally mandated to do.

It´s about transforming the United States Federal government into a tyrannical government.

C U T T H E S P E N D I N G ! ! !


Reply 38 - Posted by: weejun, 1/25/2013 2:05:14 PM     (No. 9139052)

As a an avid gun owner, the current "debate" is maddening: the misinformation in the press is staggering, and the public is being manipulated like putty by the liberals. Even John Elway - bless his heart - was duped last night by Piers Morgan, who asked him if he could see any reason why a citizen should own a rifle that can spew out "hundreds of rounds" at a time? Poor John´s reply: I don´t personally own a MACHINE GUN and I can´t see why anybody should." There´s a reason, John: except for holders of expensive and hard to get Class III firearm licenses, these weapons have been strictly controlled/registered in the US since 1934. Why can´t the press at least acknowledge that it doesn´t have a clue what it´s talking about when it comes to "assault weapons" (rhetorical question - sorry)? The job to fix this lack of knowledge and our inability to understand the true facts about gun murders in the US is almost too overwhelming to address. We have a long, hard fight ahead of us.


Reply 39 - Posted by: caddyjak, 1/25/2013 2:09:30 PM     (No. 9139058)

Wasn´t it either Feinsteen or Boxer´s husband who sold tech secrets to the Chinese? Combine those two with Piloopsy and California voters should be disenfranchised immediately.


Reply 40 - Posted by: woodsman, 1/25/2013 3:20:58 PM     (No. 9139189)

I noticed that too #19 about the mini 14...This won´t pass and if it does expect a lot of new manufacturers offering retrofit more "hunting" looking wooden stocks for AR´s and AKs....New stock....new gun....easy.


Reply 41 - Posted by: kenecarroll, 1/25/2013 4:06:44 PM     (No. 9139275)

Oh...but wait....we have to pass the gun control bill first before you can see what is in it.


Reply 42 - Posted by: vesicant, 1/25/2013 4:19:44 PM     (No. 9139294)

This guy Hinderaker, whoever he is, needs some education too. For instance, barrels are threaded not just for silencers, but also to accept flash suppressors (which only suppress the flash for the user, not those downrange), muzzle brakes, or thread protectors.


Reply 43 - Posted by: larryp, 1/25/2013 8:55:54 PM     (No. 9139738)

I called a radio station a few yrs ago about the NRA. I said to the answerer onthe Phone "why doesn´t the NRA buy some TV time or News paper space to outline the group´s views ? He said tjat they can´t. I said Why? He said that the newspapersand the TV stations won´t sell any time or space to the NRA!
I don´t know if that is still true but when have you seen a full page ad from the NRA in the Paper or a TV special?


Reply 44 - Posted by: Kennerboy, 1/25/2013 9:44:36 PM     (No. 9139786)

Time to get serious about term limits.



Post Reply   Close thread 720487




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"



Three Cheers for Tesla
Power Line, by John Hinderaker    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 6:26:59 PM     Post Reply
I have always been skeptical of electric vehicles, mostly because of my perception that electric car makers are more interested in subsisting on government subsidies than in competing on a level playing field for my business. So I was intrigued when I got an email this morning from Jeff Evanson, Tesla Motors’ Vice-President of investor relations. Evanson, a long-time Power Line reader, pointed out that the company raised over $1 billion last week, and will use a portion of those proceeds to pay off its loan with the Department of Energy ahead of schedule. This will make Tesla

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like
American Thinker, by Bryce Buchanan    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 10:55:48 AM     Post Reply
Here is a woman we will need to learn much more about in the coming weeks. Sarah Hall Ingram is a highly valued employee at the IRS. In the last three years she has received $103,390 in bonuses for her excellent work. She was the Commissioner of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entitles Division. Under her leadership, groups that expressed a fear of large, out-of-control government were systematically crushed by her branch of our large, out-of-control government. They were specifically singled out for harassment for political reasons. Secret information about the conservative applicants was leaked to leftist

GOP eager to link IRS scandal to
‘Obamacare’ takedown efforts
Washington Times, by Tom Howell Jr.    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 1:27:20 AM     Post Reply
An exasperated Rep. Pat Tiberi on Friday asked the former acting chief of the IRS to explain to Congress why he would move the leader of the division that targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status to a branch that is overseeing one of the most partisan issues of recent memory — President Obama’s health care law. “Because she’s a superb civil servant, sir,” Steven Miller, who resigned under duress last week, told the Ohio Republican at a hearing before the House Committee on Ways and Means. The transfer of Sarah Hall Ingram to the helm

What If the Obama Scandals
Had Surfaced Last Fall?
Power Line, by John Hinderaker    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 1:19:58 AM     Post Reply
I was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last night, talking about the Benghazi talking point emails. Near the end of the segment, Hugh asked whether I thought the presidential election might have turned out differently if Obama and Clinton had not succeeded in covering up the truth about Benghazi. I was skeptical. The story of the election, I said, was the Obama campaign’s ability to turn out, once again, a large majority of the low-information voters who swept Obama into office in 2008. Few of those low-information voters, I said, would either have understood, or cared about, Benghazi

A Breach of Trust
Breitbart´s Big Government, by Susan Combs    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 1:15:18 AM     Post Reply
As tax collector for the nation’s second-largest state, I know it’s a necessary function — from the fire station to the space station, nothing government does is possible without taxes. But it’s sure no path to popularity. Tax collectors have had a rotten reputation since biblical times. For all the services and all the people that depend on it, our work has to be viewed as fair and even-handed. It’s a basic bond of trust, and once that trust is lost, it’s hard to get back. Our entire nation was born when the colonists decided Britain’s taxes were unfair

Durbin Asked IRS’ Shulman
to Probe ‘Several’ Conservative
501(c)(4) Groups in 2010
PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 10:28:31 PM     Post Reply
While many Democrats have joined Republicans in public shaming of the Internal Revenue Service for singling out conservative groups, others say the scandal is just a byproduct of muddied rules about nonprofits and political activity in the wake of the Citizens United ruling — and they’re hoping that they can steer the conversation from outrage over political targeting to fuel for campaign finance reform. But senior Dems may have much more than an opportunity to try to turn scandal to their advantage: they may have a degree of culpability as one especially vocal proponent

Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case
Wall Street Journal, by John D. McKinnon*    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 10:23:18 PM     Post Reply
The Internal Revenue Service´s watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president´s re-election campaign. The disclosure to the Treasury general counsel and the deputy secretary was a cursory one, according to J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. He said he didn´t reveal conclusions of the probe, which was in its early stages, and his disclosure came as part



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



Officials on Benghazi:
"We made mistakes,
but without malice"

50 replie(s)
CBS News, by Sharyl Attkisson    Original Article
Posted By: Drive- 5/17/2013 3:02:24 PM     Post Reply
Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath. The officials spoke to CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments. They do not all agree on the list of mistakes and it's important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect "incompetence rather than malice or cover up.

Raindrops wash away
reeling O’s fake veneer

46 replie(s)
New York Post, by Michael Goodwin    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/17/2013 5:28:00 AM     Post Reply
Watching President Obama trying to dodge raindrops and responsibility yesterday reminded me of the moment when Dorothy pulls back the curtain and discovers that the Wizard of Oz is “just a man.” Stripped of his spell of mystery and power, the wizard is worse than mortal. He’s a fake. So it was with Obama in the Rose Garden. His performance was tired and trite, ordinary to the point of dull. His veneer of passion was so transparent that you could see him trying to summon his old-time magic by pushing the buttons

Obama a new Nixon?
Oh, get serious.

43 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Editorial    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/16/2013 10:54:51 PM     Post Reply
STANDING BEFORE reporters Thursday, President Obama declined an invitation to compare the recent scandals weighing down his administration with those that forced President Nixon to resign in 1974. So allow us to do the work for him: There is no comparison. Nixon, in a series of crimes that collectively came to be known as Watergate, directed from the White House and Justice Department a concerted campaign against those he perceived as political enemies, in the process subverting the FBI, the IRS, other government agencies and the electoral process to his nefarious purposes. Mr. Obama has done nothing of the kind.

Watergate 2.0 -- why the
IRS scandal is far worse

42 replie(s)
Fox News, by Matt Kibbe    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/18/2013 5:59:17 AM     Post Reply
In the wake of one of the worst abuses of government power in recent history, many are rushing to frame the Internal Revenue Service scandal as simply an attack on conservative activists. That view risks creating a partisan political football and misses a fundamentally scarier abuse that exceeds the scandals of Watergate or any other prior government abuse. The IRS has admitted that since May 2010 it targeted grassroots-conservative organizations that had applied for tax-exempt status, unfairly subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny due to their political leanings. Such groups were told they were required to comply with IRS requests,

Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting
Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.

41 replie(s)
New York Times, by Raymond Hernandez    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/17/2013 5:43:54 AM     Post Reply
The State Department, under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department. Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so. The disclosure of the agreement that Ms. Abedin made with the State Department comes as her husband,

Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case
37 replie(s)
Wall Street Journal, by John D. McKinnon*    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 10:23:18 PM     Post Reply
The Internal Revenue Service´s watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president´s re-election campaign. The disclosure to the Treasury general counsel and the deputy secretary was a cursory one, according to J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. He said he didn´t reveal conclusions of the probe, which was in its early stages, and his disclosure came as part

Rep. Issa subpoenas Benghazi
auditor Thomas Pickering

36 replie(s)
The Hill [Washington DC], by Julian Pecquet    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/17/2013 3:53:45 PM     Post Reply
The lawmaker leading the charge to investigate the Benghazi terror attack on Friday subpoenaed the co-author of a report that slammed the State Department but didn´t interview Hillary Clinton. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) formally demanded that retired ambassador Thomas Pickering submit to being deposed by the committee next Thursday. The subpoena comes in the wake of a series of acrimonious public exchanges this week between the two men. Issa didn´t issue a subpoena to former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, who co-authored the Benghazi report with Pickering.


Post Reply   Close thread 720487





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | RSS | Contribute | Logout | Forgot Password


© 2013 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

~~~c~~~