I understand why Trump, Republican officials, the far right, Trump supporters and fascists are howling at the moon, upset by Trump getting a legal search warrant authorized by a federal judge because there was probable cause of a crime.  If I had tried to stage an Insurrection coup to overthrow the government and end democracy in the United States, I wouldn’t want the FBI to get a legal search warrant authorized by a federal judge for my home either.  The thing is, I just don’t get the sense that they understand why most others are upset that Trump, Republicans officials, the far right, Trump supporters and fascists tried to stage an Insurrection coup to overthrow the government and end democracy in the United States.
 
One of the howling-at-the-moon cries we’re hearing from Republicans and others on the far right is that “If they can search Trump’s home, they can search YOURS!!!!!  Well – yes, they can.  They always have been able to.  That’s a given, we all know that.  If you commit a crime, they can get a legal search warrant authorized by a judge because of probable cause that a crime was committed at your home.
 
When Hilary Clinton used a personal server to send and receive emails at her home, Trump, Republican officials and the far right howled at the moon that “She put us all at risk” and “Lock her up!  Lock her up!”  But now that Trump has taken boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes of documents from the White House, many of which may be classified, some of which may be highly classified and actually “putting us all at risk,” none of which he has the right to be in possession of because they belong to the Office of the President, and he is not the president, it’s so odd that Trump and all these Republican officials and the far right seem to have no recollection that this is something they’re supposed to be outraged at and howling at the moon over.  Things like when Mike Pence tweeted that “.@realDonaldTrump and I commend the FBI for reopening an investigation into Clinton's personal email server because no one is above the law."   Or when Sarah Huckabee tweeted “When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing.” 
 
Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was howling at the moon that Attorney General Merrick better remember to save all his records and saying he planned to hold a hearing if Republicans take control of the House.  The thing is, not only is Merrick Garland known for being meticulous and doesn’t need a reminder to save material (especially when the McCarthy charge was made on the same day photos were revealed of Trump tearing up documents and flushing them in his toilet), but I think the very last thing Republicans would want is for all the DOJ confidential documents of their investigation into the Republican coup attempt released to the public.  Including any information they have on Mr. McCarthy.  On the other hand, Democrats would probably be thrilled for such a hearing and release of everything the Justice Department has discovered, whether or not it can yet be charged as a crime.
 
It's understandable that Trump is howling at the moon about how unfair this legal search warrant is.  There’s a lot of fundraising you can do off that.  But if it was actually unfair and showed the FBI acting politically and without reason, he has every legal right to release the official government list of everything that was seized from his home.  For some odd reason, though, he hasn’t done that.
 
I get that Republican officials are so deeply upset at a legal search warrant being used by the FBI --  but when you start howling at the moon how you want to defund the FBI and Department of Justice, it starts to make others wonder what you’re trying to hide.  Putting aside for the moment that undermining the FBI and DOJ is a core principle of fascism, and also ignoring that Republicans have long tried to paint themselves as “The Party of Law and Order” (sic), I have to think that “We want to get rid of the Justice Department and FBI, you’re on  your own” is not a great campaign issue.  Okay, in fairness, I understand why Matt Gaetz is pushing this, he’s under FBI investigation, but it’s just weird for other Republicans.  Or anyone in a civilized society.
 
There's something really odd, too, about Republican officials and the fascist right howling at the moon for how politicized the Department of Justice and FBI were in getting this legal search warrant.  Putting aside how much Trump and Attorney General William Barr literally politicized the DOJ, what's so odd here is how totally unaware the howlers all are that the director of the FBI Christopher Wray was appointed by Trump -- and the judge who signed the search warrant, Bruce Reinhardt, was appointed by...okay, let's all say it together -- Trump.

And finally, some of the loudest howling at the moon by Trump, Pence, Republican officials, and the fascist right is how this legal search warrant, authorized by a federal judge appointed by Trump under an FBI director appointed by Trump, issued to a former president is unprecedented -- absolutely unprecedented!!  But somehow, all that howling noise seems to have blocked out the obvious that a president organizing a coup and leading an Insurrection to overthrow the government and end democracy is why the search was unprecedented -- because a coup attempt by a sitting president is what, above all, is unprecedented -- absolutely unprecedented!  By the way, also unprecedented -- absolutely unprecedented is a president who was impeached twice, said he trusted the Russian dictator more than U.S. intelligence services, gave away classified information in the Oval Office to the Russian Foreign Minster, and tried to get his vice-president hanged. 

But why quibble with reality when you can howl at the moon.

On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several gun laws in California, but the one that has gotten the most attention is a bill that lets Californians sue irresponsible gun manufacturers or distributors.  Among other features, it also provides incentives to manufacturers for putting in certain safety features.
 
This particular law sets standards for safety that must be met. As an L.A. Times article notes, "The point is to impose the same sort of liability on the firearms industry that other manufacturers and retailers routinely face."
 
A major issue that the law hopes to address concerns a study done in 2000 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives.  That report found that “almost 90% of the firearms recovered by law enforcement officials were traced back to 7% of gun dealers and pawnbrokers.”  (The reason there isn’t more-recent data is because a 2003 federal law bars the federal government from sharing these statistics with the public.  Guess which party got that passed?  The only clue I’ll give is that it isn’t the Democrats.)
 
As a result of this, one of the most important goals of the law to put in safeguards for manufacturers who supply this very small percentage of dealers responsible for selling almost all the guns used in crimes.
 
For instance, the law sets a new “standards of conduct” for companies who manufacture and guns, ammunition, and accessories in California.  Companies will now have create “reasonable controls” to guard against improper sales, like those to straw purchasers (people who buy a guy for someone else who in unable to legally buy a gun themselves, a federal crime of up to 10 years in prison), gun traffickers and people who present a ‘substantial risk’ of using the product unlawfully.
 
The law also prohibits the manufacture, marketing, importation or sale of guns that are “abnormally dangerous,” which are those so deadly that they go beyond their “inherent capacity to cause injury or lethal harm.” And which have “features that render the product most suitable for assaultive purposes” rather than hunting or self-protection.”   This includes designing or marketing such products targeted towards minors – as well as promote being converted into automatic weapons.
 
I'm sure this law (and the others passed by the state) will be tested in court, but for now it's state law. I'm equally sure they wrote it with this Supreme Court in mind. So, we'll see...

But it's all to create a law that allows people to sue gun manufacturers who behave irresponsibly, just the same as all business who behave irresponsibly can be sued.
 
The article notes that gun-rights advocates “say it would lead manufacturers to stop doing business in California.”

I’m going to guess that in today's society, especially in California, isn’t a great argument against the law.

​On this week’s Al Franken podcast, his guest is former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance who discusses Trump’s many Civil and Criminal vulnerabilities. As Al asks, “Federal prison? Rikers? NY State prison? Georgia State prison? Penury?”

So, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said he's challenging the subpoena to testify in Georgia about the call he mad to Brad Raffensberger and that he won't cooperate. Putting aside that he doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on to quash the subpoena, I almost hope he doesn't testify (or takes the Fifth). After all, Raffensberger has already testified under oath for five hours about the call. So, if Graham doesn't testify, then the Republican Secretary of State's sworn testimony is the only version on the record.

On this week’s Al Franken podcast, his guest is Daniel Goldman, who was Lead Counsel for the House Managers in (the 1st) Trump Impeachment.  He weighs in on the Jan. 6 Select Committee Hearings.