A federal judge ruled on Wednesday in favor of one more search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department to search its servers for emails related to the 2012 Benghazi attack. In particular, they are tasked with looking for anything Clinton sent to aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, or Jake Sullivan at their state.gov addresses.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state,” Judge Mehta noted in his ruling. “[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The ruling comes after the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit calling for a renewed search. The group argued that the State Department had only searched outside sources, such as Clinton’s private server.

Lawyers for the department countered that an additional search is unlikely to turn up anything else. In addition, it would set a poor precedent for any future requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judge Mehta responded that “this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case” and that the email scandal was “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

He then ordered the department to give him a status report by September 22.

Previously, Clinton and her three aides surrendered more than 30,000 emails to the agency in 2014. The investigation found 348 emails relating to Benghazi sent to or from the then-Secretary of State.

Any emails she deleted off her private server, however, may not have a backup and are likely gone forever.

In contrast, as a government agency, the State Department would have server backups in place. Department officials, though, have admitted that there was no automated archiving system in place during Clinton’s tenure.

The State Department did not comment on the ruling. Tom Fitton, president of the Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal–and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it–as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary.”

Clinton cites the “emailgate“controversy and then-FBI director James Comey’s subsequent investigation as major reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders New Search for Clinton Emails appeared first on Law Street.

Two parents of Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack are blaming Hillary Clinton for the deaths of their sons in a new lawsuit filed Monday. As Clinton prepares to face further scrutiny over her email scandal, here are some fast facts about the case you need to know:

Who Filed the Lawsuit?

The lawsuit was filed by Patricia Smith, the mother of American U.S. Foreign Service member Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, father of American Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods. Both of their sons were killed during the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack. You may remember Smith, who goes by Pat, from last month’s Republican National Convention, where she delivered a harsh critique of Clinton during her speech, declaring, ” I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”

Pat Smith at RNC: “I Blame Hillary Personally for the Death of My Son” in Benghazi https://t.co/0N4nKXcOug

— David Lee O’Connor (@retmilarm92) July 19, 2016

What Are They Suing HRC For?

Smith and Woods are suing Clinton for defamation and the wrongful deaths of their sons, claiming their deaths were “directly and proximately caused by the negligent and reckless actions” of Clinton and her private email server. They claim Clinton went on a “defamatory smear campaign” against them, painting them as liars for claiming Clinton told them that the Benghazi Attack was caused by an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

The lawsuit also accuses Clinton of false light, negligence, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

How Did Clinton Respond?

In a statement provided to The New York Times, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said of the lawsuit:

While no one can imagine the pain of the families of the brave Americans we lost at Benghazi, there have been nine different investigations into this attack and none found any evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton.

Will This Effect the Election?

Clinton has faced criticism over her private email server throughout the entirety of presidential campaign, surviving nine separate investigations into the attack and constant criticism from the Trump campaign on the issue. But should this new lawsuit cause her to worry? Legally, Clinton can probably rest easy, as none of the previous  inquiries found evidence of wrongdoing on her part. However, from a political standpoint it’s hard to know for certain whether or not this case will pull votes away from the current presidential frontrunner.

Read the Full Benghazi Lawsuit Here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the New Hillary Clinton Benghazi Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

In contrasting reports released Monday and Tuesday by House Democrats and Republicans, respectively, the harrowing events at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 have been poked and prodded, with the two sides reaching opposite conclusions.

“None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines,” the Republicans, headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), concluded in its 800-page report. “Nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began.” The report is the result a two year, $7 million investigation into the deaths of four Americans–including U.S. Ambassador to Libya  Christopher Stevens–in Benghazi. 

The Democratic minority faction of the House Select Committee on Benghazi concluded in its report, which was led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and released on Monday in an effort to pre-empt the Republican findings, that the Department of Defense “could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of the four brave Americans killed in Benghazi.”

They added that while the security at the compound–which was the site of two separate terrorist bombings a mile away from each other, and hours apart–was “woefully inadequate,” “Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.”

Hillary Clinton has been a political flashpoint over the nearly four years since the attacks and throughout the seven total investigations into the events of September 11, 2012. She was secretary of state at the time of the attacks, and her name has been wielded by Republicans as a key implicit character in its confusing aftermath.

She testified before the committee last October. Immediately following the tragic episode, the State Department portrayed the attacks as a response to an anti-Muslim video. In the subsequent months, the attack was found to have been premeditated by Islamic militants, unrelated to any such video.

And while Republicans have at least partially blamed Clinton in previous investigations–one of which led to a separate FBI investigation into her use of a private email server, an issue that is still present as she campaigns to be the next president–into the attacks, the latest report does not focus on her, but on the miscommunication and failings of the Department’s larger security apparatus. The Democrats called the Republican report “a conspiracy theory on steroids” and said it was the “opposite” of bipartisan.

For their part, the Republican side dismissed the Democrats’ report as being full of  “rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president,” alluding to Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

In their statement responding to the Democrats’ 339-page report, the Republicans highlighted a few key terms and the frequency with which they appeared in the Democrats’ “so-called ‘report'”: “Clinton” appears 334 times, and “Stevens,” the surname of the U.S. ambassador killed during the attack, appeared 85 times. This, according to the Republicans, reinforces the Democrats’ fixation on Clinton in regards to Benghazi.

Regardless of the political theatre and partisan ammunition the Benghazi attacks have provided, the one agreed upon point from both sides–the lax security at the diplomatic compound–has resulted in some good news. “We have made great progress towards making our posts safer since 2012,” the State Department said in a statement Monday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dueling Benghazi Reports Released by House Democrats and Republicans appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and current Democratic Presidential frontrunner, took a day off from the campaign trail to testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She testified for a grueling 11 hours about the security present at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the controversy over the email accounts she used while at the State Department. As an inquiry that has been mired with controversy, both sides had something to prove with the hearing. Clinton had to prove that she could be a strong and ethical world leader; House Republicans had to prove that this wasn’t just a partisan witch hunt. While the 11-hour hearing was certainly grueling, for the most part Clinton came out on top–possibly in ways that will boost her seemingly tired campaign.

Clinton did exactly what she needed to do at the hearing yesterday–she appeared calm, collected, and a strong leader during the 11 hours of probing questions. Her testimony was littered with strong sound bytes. For example, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) questioned her on why the Obama administration had originally attributed the attack on the embassy in Benghazi to an anti-Muslim video. Clinton explained that after the attack, what exactly had happened was unclear, and she did her best to update the American people as more information was obtained. After a back and forth, Clinton eventually responded: “I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were.” It’s a quotable moment that will make her sound strong and ethical when push comes to shove in this campaign.

The press has, by and large, declared her the clear winner. This even includes certain facets of conservative media. The Atlantic collected a number of conservative writers, pundits, and thinkers complimenting Clinton on her performance–although to be fair, some of those mentions condemn House Republicans more than they applaud Clinton.

Clinton is also reaping financial benefits from the hearing. After the much-lauded marathon performance yesterday, her donations have been increasing. Jennifer Palmieri, her director of Communications, stated that from 9 PM to 10 PM last night, Clinton’s campaign had the best hour of online donations yet. She stated that those donations appear attributable to the Benghazi hearing, stating: “My point isn’t ‘wow, we brought in a lot of money.’ The point is that it moved people.”

Clinton’s campaign has had a shockingly slow start in many ways, but she’s had a damn good couple weeks. She gave a strong performance in the first Democratic debate. Then, this week Vice President Joe Biden, who many thought was going to jump into the race, elected not to. Given that he probably would have siphoned off her supporters, this was good news for Clinton. She wrapped this week up with a strong performance in the Benghazi hearing. Clinton certainly isn’t guaranteed the nomination yet, as there’s still a lot of buzz about Senator Bernie Sanders. But if Clinton keeps moving the way she is now, Sanders may not be able to catch up.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Benghazi Hearing: Just the Latest Win for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Like the United States, many European nations increasingly face an illegal immigration problem. As the sinking of a boat carrying migrants last week showed, this problem is also very deadly. But what is inspiring these migrants to risk everything and head for Europe? Read on to learn about the immigrants coming into Europe, the groups facilitating that process, and the issues with which Europe needs to contend in light of the influx of illegal immigration.

The Sinking and Legacy

On April 19, 2015, a boat on its way to Italy carrying illegal immigrants from places as far and wide as Eritrea and Bangladesh, capsized off the coast of Libya. The overcrowded boat overturned after ramming a Portuguese cargo ship, the King Jacob. A full count of the deceased is still unknown.

A Recurring Problem

While the recent wreck was a tragedy, it certainly was not the first and likely not the last boat filled with illegal migrants headed for Europe to sink. In fact, such incidents have happened frequently and speak to a much larger trend. In 2014 for example, as many as 218,000 migrants were estimated to have crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. This year, 35,000 have already been suspected of crossing from Northern Africa into Europe.

Those who have made the crossing must be considered the lucky ones. Attempted crossings lead to a substantial number of deaths at sea. Last year 3,500 people were believed to have perished during the attempted crossing. That number sits at around 1,600 this year, with the most recent sinking taken into account. Unfortunately these numbers are only likely to increase. Prior to this incident, since October 2013, there have been at least four other occurrences in which a boat carrying migrants had sunk while carrying at least 300 people.

Human Trafficking

These trips tend to be organized by human traffickers. The traffickers are predominantly Libyan bandits, militia, and tribesmen. There are two main routes these smugglers take to get their human cargo through Africa and into Europe. The eastern route stretches as far as Somalia, while the western one reaches Senegal. Regardless of the routes’ starting points, migrants are funneled to Libya where they are then launched from either Benghazi or Tripoli in overcrowded and rickety boats toward the coast of Italy.

Unfortunately, traffickers’ tactics have recently began to change, making them even more nefarious and hard to prevent. Many traffickers have begun abandoning their ships en route to Europe–literally leaving the ships without steering of any kind. The smugglers obtain a large cargo ship, then during the trip advise their migrant-manned crews to call for help while they abandon the ship. The reason why the smugglers do this is two fold: First they are paid up front so it does not matter to them whether these migrants actually make it to Europe or not; secondly, by abandoning the boat they reduce their own chances of being arrested and can then smuggle more people and further profit. This practice has extended the smuggling season from spring and summer to all year round, but has made the crossing even more dangerous.

The industry has become especially appealing for traffickers in the last few years as traditional sources of income have disappeared as a result of government upheaval. Additionally, those doing the actual trafficking in many cases are would-be migrants themselves, which makes stopping the practice extremely difficult. The video below briefly explains the harrowing journey from Libya to Europe and all its difficulties.

Why do migrants cross the Mediterranean?

With all these dangers in mind, why do migrants risk crossing the Mediterranean? The answer varies for each individual, yet some reoccurring themes present themselves. Many of these themes are similar to the reasons why people attempt to migrate to the United States. First, many of the migrants are escaping danger back home. This ranges from country to country as well–for example, there has been an increase in migrants from Syria due to the civil war in that country.

Along with danger, another major impetus is economic. Most of the migrants attempting the journey are young men looking for opportunities. The goals of these men naturally vary, but often the promise of success and the ability to send earnings back to their families is a common desire.

While migration to Europe has become popular, it was not always the top destination for migrants. In the past, migrants had also attempted to go to places such as Israel and Saudi Arabia; however, with Israel increasing security and with Saudi Arabia engaged in a military conflict in Yemen, these routes have dried up. Whichever route the migrants take, they risk abuse ranging from robbery to rape and murder. In response to these dangers and the increasing deterioration of Libya, some migrants have tried crossing through Morocco instead, a much more difficult route.

Impact on Europe

When migrants successfully make the journey to Europe, the onus shifts from their handlers to European authorities. Since many migrants arrive in Europe without identification of any kind, it can make it much more difficult to send them back. This, in effect, makes migrants asylum seekers who are then held in refugee camps. Once in these camps, migrants may continue onward in Europe where travel restrictions have been reduced as part of the open-border aspect of the European Union.

Migrants are sometimes also allowed to move throughout Europe due simply to the cost of supporting them. Italy, the destination for many migrants, was spending as much as $12 million dollars a month on its search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean. Another popular hub, Greece, spent $63 million in 2013 fighting illegal immigration. The problem both these countries, and other southern-European countries, face is that while they are part of the EU, the costs of their efforts have been almost entirely their own burdens to bear. These costs can be especially painful, considering the same countries that serve as these initial destinations for migrants are the ones also currently dealing with recessions. The video below highlights the issues each country in the EU deals with in regards to immigration.

The reason why countries such as Italy and Greece are footing the majority of these bills is due to their immigration laws. According to something referred to as the Dublin Regulation, a migrant must be processed as an asylum seeker upon entering a country. Once the person has been processed in that country, they become the responsibility of that particular nation. The following video shows the strategic routes immigrants take into Europe and reiterates how asylum status is achieved.

The design of this system naturally leads to problems, chief among which are accusations by richer northern-European countries that their southern neighbors are letting migrants pass north in an effort to reduce costs for themselves. In response to these allegations and as a result of bearing what it perceives to be an unfair burden, Italy cancelled its search and rescue mission last year. In its place the EU created the Triton Mission, a program similar to Italy’s, which focuses on rescuing migrants. Moreover, as part of a proposed ten-point plan in response to the most recent ship sinking, the mission is slated to increase in size. Another aspect of that plan is a program that is supposed to be implemented to return refugees to their countries. Nonetheless, even if the EU goes forward with its goal to expand the Triton mission, it will still be smaller than the one Italy disbanded last year.

Conclusion

Despite being described by several sources as modern day slavery, the practice of illegally ferrying immigrants from Africa and elsewhere to Europe is unlikely to stop or even slow down any time soon. This is the result of many things that are not likely to change in the immediate future, such as relatively high standards of living in the EU, crisis in the Middle East and Africa, EU laws regarding migrants, and the lucrative trafficking operations. But if Europe wants to fix its broken immigration system and prevent future tragedies on the scale of last week’s ship sinking it must do more than simply increase patrols.

Resources

ABC News: Libya Migrant Boat Sinking

Wall Street Journal: Rich Smuggling Trade Fuels Deadly Migration Across Mediterranean

BBC News: Mediterranean Migrants: Hundreds Feared Dead After Boat Capsizes

Atlantic: Human Traffickers Are Abandoning Ships Full of Migrants

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to the Mediterranean

Human Events: Illegal Immigration is Europe Losing Control of Its Borders

Economist: Europe’s Huddled Masses

EUbusiness: Commission Proposes Ten-Point Migrant Crisis Plan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illegal Immigration in Europe: Latest Shipwreck Sheds Light on Trend appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.