O'MALLEY: Anderson, I think there's lessons to be learned from Benghazi. And those lessons are that we need to do a much better job as a nation of having human intelligence on the ground so that we know who the emerging next generation leaders are that are coming up to replace a dictator when his time on this planet ends.

And I believe that's what Chris Stevens was trying to do. But he did not have the tools. We have failed as a country to invest in the human intelligence that would allow us to make not only better decisions in Libya, but better decisions in Syria today.

And it's a huge national security failing.

At the first Democratic debate of the 2016 presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for supporting a 2005 law that shields the gun industry from certain lawsuits.

Clinton voted against this law when she was a senator, and she has lambasted it several times on the campaign trail this month.

"Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability," she said in Iowa Oct. 7. "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."

Is Clinton right? Are gun makers and dealers "wholly protected" against any kind of lawsuit, and do no other industries have similar immunities? Short answer: No. The gun industry is susceptible to some lawsuits, and there are federal laws restricting liability for a number of other types of businesses.

As support, Clinton’s staff sent us a public health journal article that argues the gun industry’s "broad immunity" against litigation inhibits safe manufacturing and distribution of firearms, though it does not directly address her claim.
...

In 2006, Martin O’Malley (who’s currently vying to be the Democrats’ nominee for president in 2016) defeated Ehrlich to become governor, but he took an even stricter stance on lifers than his predecessor, failing to act on even a single recommendation of the Parole Commission. Recognizing that the system had broken down, the Maryland legislature changed the law in 2011 so that the commission’s recommendations would automatically be carried out if the governor did not reject them within 180 days. This changed almost nothing. After the law’s passage, O’Malley vetoed nearly every recommendation that reached his desk.

This is not sound policy for fighting crime or protecting citizens. In Maryland, the average lifer who has been recommended for but not granted release is 60 years old. These men and women are past the age of “criminal menopause,” as some put it, and most pose no threat to their community. Even so, the Maryland Parole Commission’s recommendation is not easily attained: Between 2006 and 2014, it recommended only about 80 out of more than 2,100 eligible lifers for release. Almost none of those 80 or so men and women, despite meeting a stringent set of requirements, was granted release by the governor. Though Maryland’s Parole Commission still offers recommendations for lifers, they are disregarded. The choice given to judges to levy sentences for life either with or without parole no longer has any meaning.

The tale of Sanders' chance encounter with Reed-Veal comes via the Rev. Hannah Bonner, who bumped into Sanders at Union Station in Washington last week while she was eating with Reed-Veal, and invited the presidential candidate to join their table.

Bonner wrote in her blog recalling the meeting that she "was completely blown away by the unexpectedness of it all, the sacredness of the moment, and the sincerity of all involved."

Bonner wrote that after they talked:

We asked Senator Sanders if we could take a picture with him and he consented. He did not impose upon Ms. Geneva to ask for a picture of his own. He did not use the moment as an opportunity to promote his campaign. He took no record, he made no statement. He did not try to turn it into a publicity stunt. He simply made space for a sacred moment, and then let it pass without trying to gain anything from it.

For that, I respect him. For that, I am grateful. That choice may not have made him a very good politician, but it made him a better man.

Bonner shared the photo on Twitter on Tuesday as proof of the meeting:

I love the fact he is reaching out
so broadly, that he is engaging electorate. He is causing excitement.
After an election with 72-year low on voter participation, 36 percent of
the people voted. You know, we need somebody who is going to generate some
street heat. Bernie is doing that, and I'm excited to be a part of it.

CLINTON: Well, I've taken responsibility for it. I did say it was a mistake. What I did was allowed by the State Department, but it wasn't the best choice.

AUG. 20, 2015
A federal judge on Thursday said that Hillary Rodham Clinton did not comply with government policies in her exclusive use of a personal email account while she was secretary of state, challenging her longstanding position that she abided by the rules.

COOPER: Secretary (sic) Webb, you served in Vietnam. You're a marine. Once a marine, always a marine. You served as a marine in Vietnam. You're a decorated war hero. You eventually became secretary of the navy.

During the Vietnam War, the man standing next to you, Senator Sanders, applied for status as a conscientious objector. Given his history, can he serve as a credible commander-in-chief?

WEBB: Everybody makes their decisions when the time there is conscription. And as long as they go through the legal process that our country requires, I respect that. And it would be for the voters to decide whether Senator Sanders or anyone else should be president.

Reality check: Hillary Clinton on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Clinton said, "I did say when I was secretary of state three years ago that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week and in looking at it, it did not meet my standards."

Negotiations on the TPP trade agreement began while Clinton was secretary of state, but the significant details were worked out after she left that office.

In fact, Clinton did not say she "hoped" the TPP would be the gold standard, at the time she said the deal set the gold standard.

"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field," Clinton said at an event in Australia in 2012. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."
...

VERDICT: Clinton's claim she said she "hoped" TPP would be the gold standard is false. She said it was the gold standard and fully supported the negotiations.
...