RUTHFULLY YOURS

Assault Weapons, Aschmault Weapons By Charles C. W. Cooke

With the notable exception of Jim Webb, whose many talents seem better suited to another time and place, every single one of the Democratic party’s presidential candidates is in favor of banning at least some of America’s “in common use” firearms. In her recent gun-control missive, Hillary Clinton contended that “military-style assault weapons” are “a danger to law enforcement and to our communities,” and therefore “do not belong on our streets.” On his campaign website, Martin O’Malley boasts that, while he was governor there, “Maryland prohibited the sale of assault weapons and limited the size of magazines,” and proposes that the federal government, should “adopt similar, commonsense reforms.” In 2012, CBS reports, then–Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee “backed a state measure to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” And, although he has stayed pretty quiet on the question this time around, Bernie Sanders voted to ban “assault weapons” during the failed Senate push of 2013, and would, he confirmed last week, happily do so again.

All in all, this focus is a little strange, for, as Lois Beckett explained extremely clearly last year in the pages of the New York Times, there is in fact no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Functionally speaking, the term is entirely meaningless. It does not mean “machine gun”; it does not mean “especially powerful rifle”; it does not mean “child killer” or “cop murderer” or “armor-piercer.” Except insofar as it nods to an aesthetic style that is popular among people who have watched a lot of 24, it means nothing much at all. To draw an analogy, it’s the “organic food” of the self-defense world.

It’s been over seven months since Hillary Clinton’s email scandal broke, but the scandal remains in the news, chipping away at her credibility and trustworthiness every day.

It takes only three to six months for one of Barack Obama’s scandals to be reduced to a “phony scandal,” and dropped by the media. But for some strange reason, the poor woman can not catch a break.

As the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday, the FBI seized four State Department computer servers as part of its probe into Clinton’s “unique email arrangement,” which somehow allowed highly classified material from a secure government network to make it to her private email system.

The State Department uses two separate networks, one for classified information and one for unclassified information. The two networks are kept separate for security reasons. Most classified networks are equipped with audit systems that allow security managers to check who has accessed intelligence or foreign policy secrets.

The FBI is trying to determine the origin of the highly classified information that was found in Clinton emails.

However, the task is said to be complicated because those with authority to create classified information have broad authority to label information in one of three categories: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.

“Vox.com is a general interest news site for the 21st century,” the Vox Media website informs us. “Its mission is simple: Explain the News. Vox is where you go to understand the news and the world around you. It treats serious topics seriously, candidly shepherding people through complex topics.”

By some measures, Vox.com has been a success. A corporate vice president, Jonathan Hunt, “said the company broke even in 2014 and will be profitable this year,” Advertising Age reported in March. And Vox gets attention, as evidenced by this column.

But its “mission” is to be authoritative, and in that it has failed. It’s just another opinion site, albeit one with an unusually earnest tone. Liberals may cite it as an authority, but they are no less apt to cite sources like ThinkProgress, the Puffington Host and even the New York Times. Nonliberals, especially conservatives, don’t view Vox as any more credible than other liberal sources.

Much of Vox’s content consists of strange, contrarian arguments of the sort that could just as easily appear at Slate. A case in point: “Emailgate Is a Political Problem for Hillary Clinton, but It Also Reveals Why She’d Be an Effective President” by Matt Yglesias, a former Slate writer.

This is supposed to be the year when voters want authenticity in a candidate, but Hillary Clinton seems determined to test that proposition. On Wednesday President Obama’s former Secretary of State came out against her former boss’s Pacific trade agreement only two days after it was completed.

Mrs. Clinton was asked on PBS’s NewsHour whether the trade deal is “something you could support?”

Her reply: “What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it. And there is one other element I want to make, because I think it’s important. Trade agreements don’t happen in a vacuum, and in order for us to have a competitive economy in the global marketplace, there are things we need to do here at home that help raise wages. And the Republicans have blocked everything President Obama tried to do on that front. So for the larger issues, and then what I know, and again, I don’t have the text, we don’t yet have all the details, I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.”