Figures don’t lie. Gun control advocates, though, will always figure a way to manipulate data to mislead the American people, hoping to trick them to support more Second Amendment restrictions.
The most recent and preposterous example comes from researchers at the University of Michigan.
They took liberties with the definition of “child” to proclaim that firearms now cause more deaths than car accidents. The problem with their study is they included adults in their figures to make their argument appear impactful.
It’s just one more example of gun control smoke and mirrors.
Maize and Blue Manipulation
Universities and doctors regularly study events and compile reports for public education. Not all studies are created equal. Sometimes authors have predetermined conclusions and cherry-pick data to support those conclusions.
That is exactly what the doctors at the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention did in a study published in April. “Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States” is a misleading title because the study does not concentrate on groups generally accepted as children and adolescents.
“Regardless, the increasing firearm-related mortality reflects a longer-term trend and shows that we continue to fail to protect our youth from a preventable cause of death,” said the study’s authors Dr. Jason Goldstick, Dr. Rebecca Cunningham and Dr. Patrick Carter.
“The previous analysis…showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.
Since 2016, that gap has narrowed, and in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in that age group.”
The deception starts immediately by designing the parameters for the study to include individuals up to 19 years old. In the U.S., an 18- or 19-year-old is legally considered an adult who can vote, serve in the military and sign legally binding documents.
The study’s scope suggests the focus is on a juvenile demographic when, in reality, it includes those who are nearly the age of 20. Given the conflation between those who are truly children and truly adults in this study, it is difficult to trust the data and conclusions drawn by the authors.
Problematically, the University of Michigan study takes a broad view of these age groups and compares Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mortality data in 2020.
If the University of Michigan researchers were truly confident in their data and the way they interpreted figures from the CDC as the basis for their analysis, why manipulate those numbers?
As the authors point out, total firearm-related deaths for people 1-19, including suicide, homicide, unintentional and undetermined intents, were the leading category at a total of 4,357 deaths, overtaking vehicle-related deaths for the first time.
This is an alarming number for anyone to wrap their head around. Upon further analysis, it is clear why the authors included adults in the study. Almost half of the reported deaths, 47.9 percent, originate from 18 to 19-year-old adult victims.
Including adults in a children mortality study is clearly a ruse to pad the firearm-related death numbers for institutional interests. Correcting the parameters to only include children, aged 1 to 17, the leading mechanism of death switches back from firearms to motor vehicles, the historic leading cause of death for this demographic.
This is a favored play call by national gun control groups and the “scientific researchers” putting out their predetermined studies. Publish junk science that fits their gun control narrative, score numerous headlines about said junk science and push the need for more gun control on law-abiding Americans because of media reports.
This particular study was even published in the home-state paper the Michigan Daily with no examination by reporters. The “news” article did include, however, a quote by gun control group March for Our Lives’ Michigan chapter.
“I’m not surprised,” Zoey Rector-Brooks said. “There were so many guns that were purchased (in 2020) and now we’re seeing the effects of that…Our children are dying because of it.”
Since at least the 1990’s, gun control advocates have used this trick of including adults in the data set to inflate the number of “children” to evoke an emotional reaction from readers of these studies to sway public opinion in favor of their agenda.
Real Data. Real Solutions. Safer Communities.®
It is true – law-abiding Americans have purchased a lot of firearms over the past two years. More than 21 million in 2020 and more than 18.5 million in 2021. That includes more than 14 million first-time firearm buyers. Gun owners are defying gun control groups by seeking training, education and confidence in owning their firearms.
The firearm industry is doing its part to ensure firearms are safely stored and out of the reach of those who should not possess them. Every firearm that ships from a factory includes a locking device in the box.
When that device is properly installed, it renders the firearm inoperable. NSSF further urges all gun owners that firearm should be properly secured when not in use and owners should explore the various options available to best meets their needs.
Industry initiatives like Project ChildSafe® and suicide prevention resources are a part of the industry’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities® campaign and are impactful ways to prevent tragedies, with undeniable results.
Using gun safety and education as primary tools to prevent firearm injury is likely unconscionable to University of Michigan’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention researchers. However, firearm safety is paramount to preventing tragedies, and misleading studies like this one only pander to the intellectually lazy.
One step closer: Durham alerts Sussmann judge that Clinton campaign, DNC paid election law violation fines
WASHINGTON, DC – Special Counsel John Durham this week alerted the judge presiding over the case against a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid fines to settle “probable” violations of election laws.
Durham filed the opinion and conciliation agreements that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had entered into with the Federal Election Commission along with the fines for what the FEC described as probable violations of laws governing the reporting of political entity disbursements.
Special Counsel #JohnDurham alerted the judge presiding over the case against #MichaelSussman of fines the @HillaryClinton campaign and the @DNC paid after the @FEC found probable cause that they violated election laws. https://t.co/mD08IwpBkT
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) May 3, 2022
Each was allowed to pay the fines and enter into the conciliation agreements without admitting wrongdoing.
At issue is the Democrat powerhouses’ ties to Fusion GPS, a firm that specializes in opposition research, which was contracted through the law firm Perkins Coie.
A lengthy investigation led election commission lawyers to conclude that payments reported as legal services had in fact gone to Fusion to look into political rival Donald Trump before the 2016 election, according to documents released on April 28.
The FEC lawyers wrote in a brief that payment invoices:
“. . .demonstrate that Fusion was providing opposition research services related to Trump and Russia, and there is no evidence that Fusion provided services other than this opposition research.”
The campaign, Hillary for America, and the DNC tapped Perkins Coie to assist with legal matters ahead of the 2016 election. The law firm then contracted Fusion GPS, which paid Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the infamous Trump–Russia dossier.
The dossier’s allegations against Trump, which were salacious and unsubstantiated, were promoted heavily by the Clinton campaign and Democrats in their bid to get Clinton elected and, later, to impeach Trump.
Fusion GPS was paid for its services primarily through Perkins Coie.
#HillaryClinton's 2016 presidential campaign, along with the @DNC, have agreed to pay fines issued to them by the #FEC for describing their expenditures improperly in regard to paid research into then-presidential candidate and rival Donald J. #Trump. https://t.co/eoKjqUKpzl pic.twitter.com/PKoup0iLrH
— KATV News (@KATVNews) March 30, 2022
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, is presiding over the case. In the filing, Durham advised Judge Cooper:
“Specifically, the FEC found ‘probable cause to believe’ that the DNC and [the Clinton campaign] improperly reported their payments to Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’s opposition research as ‘legal and compliance consulting.’ ”
The special counsel attached the documents to a motion to compel the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Fusion and Perkins Coie to produce documents being withheld by the parties or which are released in redacted forms based on claims they contain attorney-client communications or other privileged material.
Durham said the FEC’s own findings bolster the argument that Fusion did not provide legal services to the parties and the claims of privilege are thus moot.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC have commented publicly on the FEC’s ruling.
The government investigation started in 2018 after the Coolidge Reagan Foundation and two other parties lodged complaints asserting HFA and the DNC violated federal law that requires political committees to report disbursements of more than $200 per year. The Coolidge Reagan complaint stated:
Dan Backer, who filed the complaint for the Coolidge Reagan organization, told The Epoch Times that the case was:
“. . .the first time that [Clinton] has actually been held accountable for misconduct … so I think it’s a great step for accountability.”
Durham is prosecuting Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represented both the Clinton campaign and the DNC when he brought forth unverified information that was purported to show a secret backchannel between the Trump organization and a Russian bank in the months before the 2016 election.
Durham said when handing the information over, Sussmann lied to an FBI lawyer that he was not presenting the data on behalf of a client.
Sussmann’s lawyers have argued that he did not lie. They have also stated that even if he had lied, it would have been immaterial to the legitimacy of the information, which turned out to be illegitimate.
Sussmann’s trial is set to begin later in May.
The Clinton campaign, Hillary for America, may have just walked into John Durham’s trap – will arrests follow?
April 28, 2022
WASHINGTON, DC – By all appearances, the walls appear to be closing in on Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign committee, Hillary for America, which may have made a fatal mistake, according to RedState. Fusion GPS, which colluded with the Clinton campaign and the DNC also appears to be under the gun.
Last week, Hillary for America, as well as Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that concocted the Russia collusion hoax, may have made a serious mistake.
RedState had previously reported that the Clinton campaign organization is trying to claim “privilege” over communications that Durham is trying to use as evidence in his prosecution of Michael Sussman, an operative for Clinton who was indicted several months ago.
Fusion GPS, retained by slip-and-fall attorney Marc Elias on behalf of the Clinton campaign is also making the same claim.
Already caught Fusion GPS in a lie. 🤷♂️
Fusion GPS tells the Court it was retained by Marc Elias to support his "legal advice".
Compare to Fusion GPS book: Elias told them he needed their political research. pic.twitter.com/xSUoSxTrTF
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 19, 2022
However, the claims of privilege raise a rather significant question. Sussmann claimed that he was acting on “behalf of himself” and not being paid by the Clinton campaign.
Hillary For America now intervenes in the Michael Sussmann case-
Says the Perkins Coie/Fusion GPS communications and work product is "privileged"
In support, Robby Mook swears under penalty of perjury that Fusion GPS was retained to provide "legal services and legal advice"
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 19, 2022
If that in fact is the truth, then why would Hillary for America and Fusion GPS be attempting to assert attorney-client privilege regarding their communications—if in fact Sussmann wasn’t acting on their behalf. How strange!
RedState wrote at the time:
Besides, isn’t this an admission that Sussmann was being paid by the Clinton campaign (via proxies)? If the information between Fusion GPS, Hillary for America, and Perkins Coie (Sussmann’s employer) is supposedly covered under attorney-client privilege, that would logically mean Sussmann was lying when he said he wasn’t working for any client at the time.
Obviously, making that case in court is a fair bit more difficult than typing it out here, but still, it’s illuminating. [emphasis added by author]
Moreover, Hillary for America made an agreement with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to settle violations which run contrary to what they are now claiming before the judge in the Sussmann case. According to Margot Cleveland of The Federalist summarizing a letter sent to Durham which pointed out the conflict:
In Friday’s letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC’s commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations had “falsely reported to their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.”
In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC “are nevertheless asserting materials asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine,” the letter stressed.
“The Government should not permit HFA [Hillary for America] and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the foundation’s letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement “material in ruling on any privilege claims.”
As RedState notes, this presents a bit of a sticky issue for HFA. On the one hand, they’re claiming that Sussmann was giving them legal services.
On the other hand, they’re asserting that those same payments didn’t mean Sussmann was actually being paid for legal services. In other words, their hypocrisy and inconsistency is mind-boggling.
None of this is getting by Special Counsel John Durham, however. Last Saturday, he issued subpoenas before the jury seeking open testimony on the claim of attorney-client privilege. RedState wrote:
Sussmann’s attorneys said they learned Durham had issued the trial subpoenas Tuesday and that the special counsel is “requesting the testimony of witnesses regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.” The Clinton campaign and the DNC advised Sussmann they wanted to fight “this plainly impermissible testimony,” Sussmann’s lawyers said.
“The Special Counsel this week took the astonishing and legally inappropriate step of subpoenaing witnesses for the express purpose of having them testify to the invocation of the attorney-client privilege in front of the jury,” Sussmann’s lawyers contended in a Friday filing.
This is starting to get, shall we say, interesting. Durham is going to get the relevant parties involved under oath and expose the contradiction in their claims. The only outcome can be one of two things—they either lied to the FEC in their prior agreement, or they are lying in the Sussmann case.
The following tweet lays it out pretty clearly:
What did I tell you? 🤣 https://t.co/1wHAVn7uZT
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 25, 2022
In other words, Sussmann and Hillary for America have been backed squarely into a corner by Durham. Either way, they have to admit they lied.
The case seems compelling that Sussmann was not in fact conducting legal services for the Hillary campaign, but rather was being paid to dig up and spread false conspiracy theories about then-candidate Donald Trump.
It also doesn’t appear that he was the only one involved between the entities of Perkins Coie, Hillary for America, and Fusion GPS.
You can believe all you want that the work is legal services, but if it isn’t, it isn’t.
And opposition research . . . isn’t.
Further, hiring lawyers to manage or even do something doesn’t make it legal services if it isn’t. https://t.co/hk5raEa2dz
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 19, 2022
This seems like a pretty easy judgment by the grand jury’s presiding judge. This seems to be a clear-cut case of Fusion GPS and Hillary for America trying to pull a fast one. Hopefully, the judge sees through the charade.
If he does, buckle up…things are going to get verrrrry interesting as Sgt. Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes used to say.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.