PDA

View Full Version : Obama Campaign trying to muzzle criticism


GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 01:50 PM
His campaign has threatened a few groups with lawsuits, among other things. This is occurring in the state of Missouri and a few other states, and quite frankly it kinda proves my point about Obama. This is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Consitution.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308

A team of Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri is preparing to pursue legal challenges to any presidential campaign ads deemed to be false or misleading.

KMOV-TV in St. Louis reports District Attorney Robert McCulloch, a past president of the National District Attorneys Association, said that whether the ads could be attributed to an opponent's campaign itself, or another organization, "If they're not going to tell the truth, somebody's got to step up and say, 'That's not the truth. This is the truth.'"

The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent "threatening" letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama's gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association.


http://www.dequalss.com/wp/2008/09/missouri-citizens-criticize-obama-go-to-jail/

http://www.petetheelder.com/?p=1150

And another source: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/09/no-one-is-free-to-criticize-obama-here-in-missouri%E2%80%9D/

“If they’re not going to tell the truth, somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘That’s not the truth. This is the truth,’” McCullogh told KMOV-TV in St. Louis.

The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent “threatening” letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama’s gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson,” said Blunt. “I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.”


http://technorati.com/posts/nkjkOnTZ74LG7u6behbQj1SdsAwE5uyFkjvd%2BxWXcd4%3D

http://texasholdemblogger.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-messiahs-apostles-in-action/

Yar-El
10-08-2008, 02:00 PM
I cannot remember where I read this, but Obama wants to ban certain radio talkshow hosts. I will have to get the original article, so people don't think I'm full of fluff. He stated that we are listening to the wrong shows and reading the wrong newspapers. His belief is that they just cause confussion, so he wants to ban those shows for having an alternative stance on politics. I will be back with the link.

Related to the topic, ---
Obama trying to ban NRA Ads by threatening television and radio stations
(http://partisanreport.com/blog/2008/09/27/obama-trying-to-ban-nra-ads-by-threatening-television-and-radio-stations/)

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 02:01 PM
It doesn't surprise me, but I actually stumbled on this by accident, and the governor of Missouri is accusing Obama of thuggish tactics, this is scary.

Q
10-08-2008, 02:02 PM
Let me guess whose shows he wants to ban. ;)

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 02:10 PM
It's against the constitution to try and prevent people from committing libel and slander? Fascinating...:dozey:

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 02:12 PM
It's against the constitution to try and prevent people from committing libel and slander? Fascinating...:dozey:

Dude it's against the law to do something like this to stiffle the truth. Obama's told lie after lie about McCain and you don't see McCain pulling this stunt.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
-- Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/breaking-gov-matt-blunt-releases.html

Personally I think Obama's campaign is finished.

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 02:22 PM
Dude it's against the law to do something like this to stiffle the truth.But it's not against the law if you're trying to stop people from spreading lies which is what they're doing.

Obama's told lie after lie about McCain and you don't see McCain pulling this stunt.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/

Non-partisan site that sums up the number of truthful and less than truthful statements by both candidates. Who is telling lie after lie?

Personally I think Obama's campaign is finished.
It seems the majority of the country (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) disagrees.

Yar-El
10-08-2008, 02:24 PM
Fact Check: Obama and Guns (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html)

Obama did say small-town Americans could be "bitter," and that they "cling to guns" and religion and other traditions. He actually said that those feelings were tied to being disappointed by politicians' empty economic promises. I'm trying to stay on topic. We have the First and Second Amendment being connected in the articles.

The Freedom of Speech
The Right to Bare Arms

Ravnas
10-08-2008, 02:26 PM
Fact Check: Obama and Guns (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html)

:rolleyes: How many months ago was that quote?

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 02:27 PM
Fact Check: Obama and guns (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html)
:dozey:

Yar-El
10-08-2008, 02:32 PM
:rolleyes: How many months ago was that quote?

Obama (April 6): You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Fact Check: Obama and Guns (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html)

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 02:34 PM
If you repeat the exact same thing twice it does not make it any more relevant.

Take a minute and actually read the article I linked.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 02:35 PM
Fact Check: Obama and guns (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html)
:dozey:

I quite frankly don't care what Fact Check says at this point, because that isn't the topic at hand.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/obamas_voting_record_complicat.html

And fact is he's voted present on bills for gun control that he's sponsored.


Back to topic:
Missouri Government confirms their government said what I posted earlier.
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 02:37 PM
And you will continue to ignore the fact that they seem to simply be trying to stop people from spreading lies and falsehoods, which is certainly within their right to do so.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 02:42 PM
And you will continue to ignore the fact that they seem to simply be trying to stop people from spreading lies and falsehoods, which is certainly within their right to do so.

So you're saying it's perfectly okay for Senator Obama to use tactics that would be seen in a dictatorship?

Arguing about his record isn't the issue, the issue is him using thuggery and intimidation to silence criticism.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 02:52 PM
So you're saying it's perfectly okay for Senator Obama to use tactics that would be seen in a dictatorship?

It alright for anyone to use any legal means to protect oneself from defamation, it should not matter if the person is a Presidential candidate or not. In case you need to know what Defamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation)is.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 02:56 PM
It alright for anyone to use any legal means to protect oneself from defamation, it should not matter if the person is a Presidential candidate or not. In case you need to know what Defamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation)is.

I know what Defamation is, I will point out that this is politics, something like this is extremely hard for a public figure to prove, but it is very expensive to defend.

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 02:57 PM
Obama can take whoever he wants to court anytime--that's his right. Whether he wins or not is another story. I think some of his people are over-reacting to some slights when their efforts could be put to better use, but if it's something truly defamatory, then Obama and his team have every right to get the defamation stopped, just like any other American.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 03:07 PM
Obama can take whoever he wants to court anytime--that's his right. Whether he wins or not is another story. I think some of his people are over-reacting to some slights when their efforts could be put to better use, but if it's something truly defamatory, then Obama and his team have every right to get the defamation stopped, just like any other American.

Pulling licenses of television stations that refuse to pull down ads that criticize him?

Threatening letters, police thuggery, excuse me but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

And his record on the issues being brought up in the advertisements are not cut and dry.

Example is an attempt to ban semi-automatic weapons, to be blunt nearly all handguns, rifles, etc. today are semi-automatic, only ones that are not are single shot weapons.

So in this case, this is stiffling free speech, not slander.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 03:23 PM
Obama is Superman. As nothing more than a U.S. Senator he has the power to pull TV stations licenses and control the Police. If only we had a President with that type of power, maybe something could get done in Washington. :D

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 03:27 PM
Obama is Superman. As nothing more than a U.S. Senator he has the power to pull TV stations licenses and control the Police. If only we had a President with that type of power, maybe something could get done in Washington. :D

Actually it's called Chicago Style Politics, Obama has a whole litney of lawyers, radicals, etc. trying to get him elected. Quite frankly, President Bush is more free speech than Obama.


Fact is this is a violation of free speech, and is the kind of tactics we see with Chavez.

Astor
10-08-2008, 03:35 PM
If McCain were the one being lied about, would you be so opposed to him stopping the lies being spread?

mimartin
10-08-2008, 03:38 PM
Actually it's called Chicago Style Politics, Obama has a whole litney of lawyers, radicals, etc. trying to get him elected. Quite frankly, President Bush is more free speech than Obama. Don't give me the free speech stuff. I remember your feelings towards freedom of the press. Considering we're at war at the moment, I'd argue that the military and the President should have the power to decide what is allowed to be reported concerning what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blabbing it on the public airwaves, boosts the morale of our enemy and disheartens the American people. That is why the media wasn't allowed to report a lot of things during World War 2.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 03:40 PM
If McCain were the one being lied about, would you be so opposed to him stopping the lies being spread?

If he were doing it in the manner Obama was, I actually would be opposed to it.

Remember McCain had an incident with the New York Times printing false stories about him having an affair with a lobbyist, he didn't sue the New York Times, he took them to task over it, but he didn't sue them.

SW01
10-08-2008, 03:43 PM
Obama is trying to win the biggest popularity contest on earth - it would be absurd for him to allow any untrue accusations against him to go unanswered. To do that would possibly be as bad for his campaign as saying they are true. Remember that defamation, slander and libel are unlawful, too.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 03:49 PM
Obama is trying to win the biggest popularity contest on earth - it would be absurd for him to allow any untrue accusations against him to go unanswered. To do that would possibly be as bad for his campaign as saying they are true. Remember that defamation, slander and libel are unlawful, too.

Are the untrue though? That's the thing you can argue that the ads are true based on the information they use. However the method Obama is using is to threaten people with lawsuits that they can't even afford to defend themselves, that is thuggery.

Astor
10-08-2008, 03:52 PM
that is thuggery.

Is it? Maybe they should think twice about saying libelous and possibly untrue things, then.

He's not doing anything illegal by defending himself.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 03:55 PM
Well my definition of thuggery is threading to beat the crap out of someone. Using a legal means is not what I would call thuggery. Thuggery –violent or brutal acts of thugs

SW01
10-08-2008, 03:56 PM
Is it? Maybe they should think twice about saying libelous and possibly untrue things, then.

He's not doing anything illegal by defending himself.

Correct. The cost of court actions is part of the deterrent from making libelous accusations. I know that I would be doing the same thing if it was my campaign.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 03:57 PM
Is it? Maybe they should think twice about saying libelous and possibly untrue things, then.

He's not doing anything illegal by defending himself.

Uh huh, actually he's breaking the law because he's targetting people that are telling the truth.

He has to prove that the person knew that it was untrue, which is very difficult to do, and there is evidence to suggest the ads are true.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/26/gloves-off-now-obama-calls-for-prosecuting-gop-donor/

Astor
10-08-2008, 04:00 PM
Uh huh, actually he's breaking the law because he's targetting people that are telling the truth.

Proof? And it's still not illegal to pursue a court case. If Obama's wrong, then the case is thrown out. Simple as that.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 04:04 PM
He has to prove that the person knew that it was untrue.
And this has what to do with Obama going after the NRA ads?

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 04:05 PM
Proof? And it's still not illegal to pursue a court case. If Obama's wrong, then the case is thrown out. Simple as that.

But thing is Obama has lawyers that are volunteering for him, do you know how much it costs to defend a court case like this.

Now if Obama would be held financially responsible if the case ruled against him that's one thing, but he won't be.


What Obama is trying to do is use the threats of a lawsuit and the costs involved to make it so that people are afraid to speak out against him.

If these cases were legit though, why is the Governor speaking out against it?

And this has what to do with Obama going after the NRA ads?

As I said the NRA dug up information that supports the claims made in their ad, hence Obama has to prove that information isn't true, which he can't possibly do. He instead is threatening to sue television stations so they get taken off the air, if they run the ads.

If the ads weren't true it would be grounds for sueing the NRA, so he's going after anyone that airs the ads instead.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 04:10 PM
Why is Missouri’s REBUBLICAN Governor speaking out against it? I don’t know why a McCain supporter would be speaking out about such a thing. I just wonder.

If the ads weren't true it would be grounds for sueing the NRA, so he's going after anyone that airs the ads instead. He may go after the NRA too. Right now he just wants to get these lies removed from the airwaves as quickly as possible.

Astor
10-08-2008, 04:10 PM
What Obama is trying to do is use the threats of a lawsuit and the costs involved to make it so that people are afraid to speak out against him.

Again, proof?

If these cases were legit though, why is the Governor speaking out against it?


Because Matt Blunt is a Republican. Go figure.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 04:11 PM
Why is Missouri’s REBUBLICAN Governor speaking out against it? I don’t know why a McCain supporter would be speaking out about such a thing. I just wonder.

And everyone that is doing the threats and the prosecutions are DEMOCRATS, seems to me, these threats are political stunts.


The Governor made some very serious accusations, and the facts appear to back the Governor up.

In the History of the United States, look up President Adams, our second president I believe and the sedition acts.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 04:18 PM
The Governor made some very serious accusations, and the facts appear to back the Governor up. Let us see what is the civilized way to settle such a dispute? Should the governor and Obama step outside and settle it like men? No, no that is not civilized. How about a court of law where these types of disputes should be settled. After all, running to the courts got the last President into the office.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 04:22 PM
Let see what is the civilized way to settle such a dispute? Should the governor and Obama step outside and settle it like men? No, no that is not civilized. How about a court of law where these types of disputes should be settled. After all, running to the courts got the last President into the office.

Okay if someone sued you for liable, do you have enough money to hire a whole team of lawyers.


Also even if charge of liable isn't legit, could you risk being convicted anyways due to a biased jury.


Do you have the money to go through appeal after appeal?

Obama is sueing people that don't have the money to defend themselves in court, if he sued the NRA he'd lose and Obama knows it, so he sues groups that don't have the money to defend themselves.

That is legal thuggery.

Astor
10-08-2008, 04:24 PM
Also even if charge of liable isn't legit, could you risk being convicted anyways due to a biased jury.

Even the juries are biased now? :¬:

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 04:29 PM
Even the juries are biased now? :¬:

I'm giving an example, by posting a hypothetical.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 04:37 PM
Okay if someone sued you for liable, do you have enough money to hire a whole team of lawyers. Your talking to a business owner and a insurance agent. No, I do not, but I do have an insurance policy for just such an event. Also even if charge of liable isn't legit, could you risk being convicted anyways due to a biased jury. If it is not true, then it means my lawyer sucked, because my legal team helped pick the jury. Do you have the money to go through appeal after appeal? Yes. See above. Obama is sueing people that don't have the money to defend themselves in court You were wrong about me, why would you be correct about these companies? You don't think they have insurance? You don't believe a TV station has insurance? :rolleyes: The guy that mows my yard has business insurance. He is not suing my grandmother he would be suing business.if he sued the NRA he'd lose and Obama knows it, so he sues groups that don't have the money to defend themselves. He knows it would take too much time and the election would be over long before it got to court. He does not want money. He just does not want them spreading half truths and lies about him.
That is legal thuggery.What is violet or brutal about it?

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 04:41 PM
liable (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:liable)
libel (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:libel)

And you've yet to prove anything illegal or immoral that's going on. You have a lot of conjecture and use words like thuggery and police state tactics without actually showing anything other than the Obama campaign threatening lawsuits against people who are lying to the public about Obama which, as has been mentioned by a half a dozen different people in this thread is well within his legal right.

If they can afford TV ads to defame Obama then they can certainly afford lawyers to defend themselves in court if they feel like they can prove that they're not spreading conjecture and lies.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 04:43 PM
Don't give me the free speech stuff. I remember your feelings towards freedom of the press.

Obama isn't the President of the United States, he is a person campaigning to be President in the middle of an election year.


You're saying he has power that he doesn't have.


@ ET Warrior

Quite frankly Obama doesn't have a case, so he's sueing the people that are airing the ads not the people who made them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

See the election of 1800.

Astor
10-08-2008, 04:45 PM
@ ET Warrior

Quite frankly Obama doesn't have a case, so he's sueing the people that are airing the ads not the people who made them.

Makes sense - they should be responsible for what they air, after all.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 04:48 PM
You're saying he has power that he doesn't have.
I only said Obama only has the same right you or I have. The power to defend himself. Are you saying he does not?

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 04:51 PM
Quite frankly Obama doesn't have a case, so he's sueing the people that are airing the ads not the people who made them.
Suing the people who create the ads does not get them pulled from the airwaves. As has been pointed out (multiple times) the point here is not monetary, but to get the lies from reaching the ears of voters who don't take time to check the facts (Or only get their information from Faux News).

To do that, you inform TV and Radio stations that the ads they are airing are slanderous and need to be pulled or legal action will be taken.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 04:53 PM
Makes sense - they should be responsible for what they air, after all.

I'm saying the small television news stations don't have the money to fight Obama's army of lawyers. It would be like you being sued by Microsoft for liable.

I only said Obama only has the same right you or I have. The power to defend himself. Are you saying he does not?

Problem is the ads are using factual information, so he is using intimidation to get his way. That's where it is police-state style. This isn't a civil suit, this is State Prosecutors and State Police charging people who speak out against Obama.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/29/missouri-sheriffs-prosecutors-obama-truth-squad-getting-old-media-silenc

mimartin
10-08-2008, 04:59 PM
I'm saying the small television news stations don't have the money to fight Obama's army of lawyers.As I pointed out above. You are wrong. They have insurance policies that provide for legal defense.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:04 PM
As I pointed out above. You are wrong. They have insurance policies that provide for legal defense.

Those Insurance policies only go so far.

All the while, in St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2MxMWJlNzcwMDU3ZTJkYjRmZjU3N2U0OGNlZmE1ZDg=&w=MA==

This isn't lawsuits for slander they are lawsuits to silence any opposition, I'm calling it for what it is.

Article goes on to say:
The federal Hatch Act (codified in Title 5 of the U.S. Code) prohibits executive officials (such as prosecutors and police) from using their offices to interfere with federal elections. The statute may be of limited utility in St. Louis since it principally targets federal officials. Still, state and local government may come within its ambit if their activities are funded in part by the national Leviathan — as many arms of municipal government are these days.


In short the Obama Campaign and their supporters are breaking the law.

Astor
10-08-2008, 05:10 PM
Those Insurance policies only go so far.

Quite frankly, if a TV station doesn't have insurance guarding against defamation/libel lawsuits then they deserve to lose.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 05:10 PM
Those Insurance policies only go so far.
Mine on a small business defends me up to $1,000,000 and will pay up to $5,000,000. The guy who mows my lawn is $1,000,000/1,000,000. I would hope a television station would have more than me or the man that mows my lawn. I’m talking General Liability Policies here, not legal defense policies.

Before you go on about cost of the policies, the cost is based on income. The less you make the less you pay for insurance. They can also be based on payroll, but again payroll is based on income. You shouldn’t pay employees more than you make.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:12 PM
Mine on a small business defends me up to $1,000,000 and will pay up to $5,000,000. The guy who mows my lawn is $1,000,000/1,000,000. I would hope a television station would have more than me or the man that mows my lawn. I’m talking General Liability Policies here, not legal defense policies.

Before you go on about cost of the policies, the cost is based on income. The less you make the less you pay for insurance. They can also be based on payroll, but again payroll is based on income. You shouldn’t pay employees more than you make.

Again though the Obama supporters are in violation of the Hatch Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

In other words they are breaking the law.

Astor
10-08-2008, 05:15 PM
Hobbs Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

Strange. I don't see any robbery, extortion or racketeering going on here.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 05:18 PM
Again though the Obama supporters are in violation of the Hatch Act and the Hobbs Act.

I'm not a prosecutor; if the supporters are charged with a crime (by a legal entity and not Fox News) then I will finally believe one of you accusations. I was merely replying to your statement that Insurance Policies only go so far.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:20 PM
Strange. I don't see any robbery, extortion or racketeering going on here.

Look at the Hatch Act, not the Hobbs Act, Hobbs Act does apply but the real killer is the Hatch Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

The most restrictive measure was brought about by Republicans in the Senate. It dictates that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns.

An amendment on July 19, 1940 extended coverage to state and local employees whose salaries include any federal funds. This amendment also set an annual ceiling of $3 million for political parties' campaign expenditures and $5,000 for individual campaign contributions.

Astor
10-08-2008, 05:23 PM
Look at the Hatch Act, not the Hobbs Act, Hobbs Act does apply but the real killer is the Hatch Act.

How does it apply? Please tell us how they're robbing and extorting people.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:26 PM
How does it apply? Please tell us how they're robbing and extorting people.

You're talking about the Hobbs act, which I put down by accident and corrected, I'm talking about the Hatch act.
http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm



be candidates for public office in a partisan election
use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate



So the Obama Prosecutors and Sheriffs have broken the law, because they are actively supporting a political campaign to try to influence the election.

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 05:28 PM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2MxMWJlNzcwMDU3ZTJkYjRmZjU3N2U0OGNlZmE1ZDg=&w=MA==I read that article, and don't see anything other than threats to sue for libel and slander. We've been over this.

And I still don't see anything illegal. Even your Hatch act accusation falls short because defending yourself from libel and slander isn't partisan. It is a legal defense against attacks on your character. You have provided nothing more in this thread than your continued unsubstantiated and desperate attempts to classify Obama as some kind of villain.

jrrtoken
10-08-2008, 05:29 PM
You're not answering the question. Does the Hatch Act mention anything about extortion, racketeering, sodomy, etc. that even applies to the Obama campaign?

Astor
10-08-2008, 05:30 PM
You're talking about the Hobbs act, which I put down by accident and corrected, I'm talking about the Hatch act.

Then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to fling accusations around.

If it can be proved that they are in contradiction of the law, then i'm sure it will be brought to light, and that it will dealt with in due process.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 05:32 PM
You have provided nothing more in this thread than your continued unsubstantiated and desperate attempts to classify Obama as some kind of villain.
Not true ET, GarfieldJL got me off my butt and made me donate $120.00 more dollars to Obama's campaign. I figured he may need help with that team of lawyers and I know insurance does not cover that. :D

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:34 PM
I read that article, and don't see anything other than threats to sue for libel and slander. We've been over this.

And I still don't see anything illegal. Even your Hatch act accusation falls short because defending yourself from libel and slander isn't partisan. It is a legal defense against attacks on your character. You have provided nothing more in this thread than your continued unsubstantiated and desperate attempts to classify Obama as some kind of villain.

Oh but it is, they're sueing on behalf of the Obama Campaign in an attempt to arguably throw the election, hence they're breaking the law.

It would be like you being a governor in a state and I'm running against you and you have your prosecutor sue me and other to take down my advertisements or advertisements that criticize you. Under Federal Law that is illegal, because it's abusing your powers as governor.

The Prosecutors and Sheriffs in this case are Obama supporters, and are employees of the executive branch (on state and local levels but the law still applies). They are using their position to influence the Presidential Election in an attempt to silence opposition against Obama. Therefore, they are in violation of Federal Law, and the Obama Campaign encouraging them to do so makes them accessories to the crime.

You're not answering the question. Does the Hatch Act mention anything about extortion, racketeering, sodomy, etc. that even applies to the Obama campaign?

PastramiX, it is illegal for a member of the executive branch to use their powers in the executive branch to throw an election.
http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm

jrrtoken
10-08-2008, 05:37 PM
If you're not going to answer any other question in this thread, then answer this: Do you think that Obama is evil?

Astor
10-08-2008, 05:38 PM
because it's abusing your powers as governor.

Like Palin using her powers for personal reasons?

the Obama Campaign encouraging them to do so makes them accessories to the crime.

Again, can you prove this?

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Like Palin using her powers for personal reasons?


There is a difference because you can argue the investigator is a member of the Obama Campaign, and in all honesty any decision that man makes could be thrown out easily due to his publically promising an October surprise, and being dumb enough to pose for a Photo Op in the Obama Campaign.


Again, can you prove this?
Prosecutors are members of the executive branch as is law enforcement, they are the ones threatening the lawsuits and other stuff over campaign advertisements. Therefore, they are in violation of the Hatch Act.

It's really an open and shut case.

If you're not going to answer any other question in this thread, then answer this: Do you think that Obama is evil?

I think a lot of the things he's done here make me question his judgement and are a major cause of concern. As far as him being evil goes, there isn't enough information that has come to my attention to say he's evil, but there is enough to give me a major cause of concern, to the point I'd vote for Hillary Clinton in the General Election over Obama.

And for the Record I don't like Hillary Clinton putting it mildly.

Astor
10-08-2008, 05:50 PM
There is a difference because you can argue the investigator is a member of the Obama Campaign, and in all honesty any decision that man makes could be thrown out easily due to his publically promising an October surprise, and being dumb enough to pose for a Photo Op in the Obama Campaign.

So, once again, it's all down to Obama?

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:52 PM
So, once again, it's all down to Obama?

Not my fault he posed in the camera in one of Obama's campaign sites and said he could guarentee an "October Surprise."

If you were running for office and being investigated by someone that was working for your opponent's campaign on the side wouldn't you be worried about fairness.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-08-2008, 05:52 PM
It's really an open and shut case.well, let me know if they're prosecuted then maybe i'll take your legal expertise seriously instead of theirs

there isn't enough information that has come to my attention to say he's evilheh

So, once again, it's all down to Obama?i see an opening man quick pull the race card

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 05:53 PM
They are not doing it to throw an election. They are doing it to prevent people from committing slander and libel, and until you can actually prove that it is anything other than that all you are doing is perpetuating more of the falsehoods.

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 05:58 PM
Obama is suing groups that are not associated with a political party because the ads in question are not official RNC or McCain ads, so Hatch wouldn't apply anyway. Those ads were done by groups unaffiliated to the political parties themselves. Furthermore, officials like sheriffs are required to uphold the law, regardless of any political affiliation of a defendant or plaintiff, and if the ads are slanderous/libelous, then the ads must be removed if the court directs them to do so.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 05:58 PM
They are not doing it to throw an election. They are doing it to prevent people from committing slander and libel, and until you can actually prove that it is anything other than that all you are doing is perpetuating more of the falsehoods.

Actually according to the law they are acting illegally. As I've already posted they are forbidden to use their office in the capacity to support a particular candidate. They are actively going out and forcing people to pull ads criticizing Obama, therefore they're in violation of the law.

http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm

Obama is suing groups that are not associated with a political party because the ads in question are not official RNC or McCain ads, so Hatch wouldn't apply anyway. Those ads were done by groups unaffiliated to the political parties themselves. Furthermore, officials like sheriffs are required to uphold the law, regardless of any political affiliation of a defendant or plaintiff.


Oh but it does, since it is State Employees of the Executive Branch that are doing the actual lawsuits, that means they are using their position to support a political candidate.

The Hatch Law protects private citizens in this situation as well.

Rogue Nine
10-08-2008, 06:03 PM
Prosecutors are members of the executive branch
Actually, they're members of the judiciary, kthnx.

It's really an open and shut case.
Then why hasn't anything been done about it?

They are actively going out and forcing people to pull ads criticizing Obama, therefore they're in violation of the law.
Can you please show me sources as to where they've actually pulled ads down? I can't find any on my own. Thanks.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 06:08 PM
Actually, they're members of the judiciary, kthnx.

Judges are members of the Judiciary, Prosecutors are members of the executive branch. Remember the Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President.


Then why hasn't anything been done about it?


The media is trying to cover it up, also how do we know something isn't being done.


Can you please show me sources as to where they've actually pulled ads down? I can't find any on my own. Thanks.

Considering, they were Television ads, I don't think you'll find them online to begin with. Also why would the Missouri Governor take the time to make a speech if this wasn't happening. I think the burden of proof is on your end not mine.

Astor
10-08-2008, 06:11 PM
I think the burden of proof is on your end not mine.

We're not the ones mudslinging and making wild accusations.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 06:29 PM
We're not the ones mudslinging and making wild accusations.


See page 1 where another member posted a link:
http://partisanreport.com/blog/2008/09/27/obama-trying-to-ban-nra-ads-by-threatening-television-and-radio-stations/

I posted this link Earlier:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/breaking-gov-matt-blunt-releases.html

And the Missouri Governor has spoken out about this:
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj

Are you making an accusation that the Governor of Missouri is lieing?

Astor
10-08-2008, 06:33 PM
Are you making an accusation that the Governor of Missouri is lieing?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

You started the thread, with a point (supposedly) to prove, so the burden is on you to prove this point - you can't shift it to others.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

You started the thread, with a point (supposedly) to prove, so the burden is on you to prove this point - you can't shift it to others.

No, I've pointed out that the Governor of Missouri has issued a statement over this, the fact they are television ads, and Yar'El posted one of the ads that Obama's cronies are going after using their government positions.

The Governor wouldn't be out there speaking just to be speaking for the fun of it.

So I think I've proven my case, and your implying that there is nothing going on is quite frankly calling the Governor of Missouri a liar.

Astor
10-08-2008, 06:41 PM
So I think I've proven my case, and your implying that there is nothing going on is quite frankly calling the Governor of Missouri a liar.

I'll ring him and apologise, then.

I haven't said there's nothing going on, but i'm not going to blindly believe what i'm told.

Also, we've already pointed out that the Governor, by virtue of being in an opposing party, isn't exactly going to be on the best of terms with Sen. Obama in the first place.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 06:42 PM
As we've also pointed out that the Prosecutors and Sheriffs in question are Democrats, hence also raising the issue that the entire situation is political in nature.

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 07:15 PM
As we've also pointed out that the Prosecutors and Sheriffs in question are Democrats, hence also raising the issue that the entire situation is political in nature.

Their political affiliation is irrelevant--if Obama's team brings a suit, these guys are required to do their jobs according to the law, regardless of whether Obama is the same party or not.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 07:25 PM
Their political affiliation is irrelevant--if Obama's team brings a suit, these guys are required to do their jobs according to the law, regardless of whether Obama is the same party or not.

Obama is having them use their political positions to sue in a manner that Obama doesn't have to pay a dime for the lawsuit. In order for a lawsuit of that nature to go forward it has to be by a warrant issued by a Judge. Otherwise, it's a civil case in which the Prosecutors and Sheriffs have absolutely no jurisdiction. Since we're looking at neither, they are overstepping their authority.

Inyri
10-08-2008, 07:36 PM
I assume you have an unbiased source claiming Obama put them up to this. :)

mimartin
10-08-2008, 07:37 PM
Cease and Desist Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist)
Can only be issued by a judge!

In Texas it is delivered by Sherriff’s department in the same matter as any other suit including divorce.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 07:41 PM
Cease and Desist Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist)
Can only be issued by a judge!

In Texas it is delivered by Sherriff’s department in the same matter as any other suit including divorce.

However it can be prone to abuse as well like it is in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic.


Anyways I've just seen another story:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/wgnam_again_target_of_obama_ca.html?rfdid=4855739

http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-thugs-threatening-free-speech.html

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/024910.php

Seriously this reminds me of tactics used by a dictatorship to style opposition.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2069398/posts

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/29791094.html

El Sitherino
10-08-2008, 08:32 PM
A team of Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri is preparing to pursue legal challenges to any presidential campaign ads deemed to be false or misleading.


Ever hear of the Truth in Advertising Act? That's right.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 08:34 PM
Ever hear of the Truth in Advertising Act? That's right.

Yup, problem with that argument is that in this case there is enough information to back up the advertisements.

Additionally you ever hear of the Hatch Act, that's what this situation falls under.

El Sitherino
10-08-2008, 08:39 PM
Yup, problem with that argument is that in this case there is enough information to back up the advertisements.

l didn't really pay attention, what are these politico ads proclaiming?

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 08:41 PM
l didn't really pay attention, what are these politico ads proclaiming?

It's basically any ads going after Obama on his statements, voting records, associations, etc. It's any bumper sticker etc.

You speak out against Obama in Missouri, basically if you speak out against Obama in Missouri and some other states you get arrested or sued.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 08:48 PM
It's basically any ads going after Obama on his statements, voting records, associations, etc. It's any bumper sticker etc.

You speak out against Obama in Missouri, basically if you speak out against Obama in Missouri and some other states you get arrested or sued.

Stretching the facts again? :rolleyes:

El Sitherino check out ET Warriors post for the unbiased details.
Fact Check: Obama and guns (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html)
:dozey:

El Sitherino
10-08-2008, 08:48 PM
It's basically any ads going after Obama on his statements, voting records, associations, etc. It's any bumper sticker etc.

You speak out against Obama in Missouri, basically if you speak out against Obama in Missouri and some other states you get arrested or sued.

Or is that just the summary in a highly spun fashion? As far as I can tell (which isn't much considering A. I don't care B. All your sources are ridiculous and biggoted), the Obama campaign is removing ads that spread untruths about Obama's stance (which has been shown not to be his stance) on guns and people who threaten the integrity of the entire situation.

And yeah, McCain tried to have those swiftboat ads removed when he was running for the Republican nominee in 2000. Lately I don't know, but then again Obama has well cited ads that protest McCain's policy and ideals.

But you can continue to believe FoxNews and what not are the underdog news service. But considering NewsCorp owns half the media of the western hemisphere I'm willing to bet Fox News is quite possibly the mainstreamiest of mainstream news. On top of that I'm fairly certain they own stock in MSNBC which you also seem to have a thing against.


And before it comes up, I don't like CNN or any of that ****. CSpan represent.:spinnaz:

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 09:01 PM
Foxnews isn't the underdog anymore--they have more market share than CNBC and MSNBC, and I think CNN.

jrrtoken
10-08-2008, 09:07 PM
Foxnews isn't the underdog anymore--they have more market share than CNBC and MSNBC, and I think CNN.Unfortunately, you're probably right. Fox News is now Emperor Murdoch's Death Star.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 11:21 PM
Foxnews isn't the underdog anymore--they have more market share than CNBC and MSNBC, and I think CNN.

They stopped being the underdog when everyone else lost all credibility. That and the Democrat Primary hurt the other networks badly.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Fox News is now Emperor Murdoch's Death Star.

Fox News is the perfect cross between the Ebon Hawk and the Millenium Falcon.



Or is that just the summary in a highly spun fashion? As far as I can tell (which isn't much considering A. I don't care B. All your sources are ridiculous and biggoted), the Obama campaign is removing ads that spread untruths about Obama's stance (which has been shown not to be his stance) on guns and people who threaten the integrity of the entire situation.

Don't give me that song and dance routine, the Missouri government's own webpage isn't bigoted. And calling everyone that is a conservative a bigot and/or untruthful is quite frankly insulting.

Tommycat
10-09-2008, 12:36 AM
Actually Garfield has a point(kindof). The stations are not responsible for the truthfulness of the ads. It is not their place to fact check advertisements. Advertisements are paid for by an outside source, and in fact the station could get in trouble for NOT airing an ad that has been paid for. Look at how many ads there are for "Make a man larger" or "Make huge gobs of cash in minutes" and you may start to understand that the legality of suing the stations is questionable. If I had huge gobs of money available, I could blanket the airways with thousands of ads claiming that Obama rapes goats, and the station would have to air it. I would of course open myself up to legal action.

Inyri
10-09-2008, 12:55 AM
Fox News is the perfect cross between the Ebon Hawk and the Millenium Falcon.Fox News was designed for dealing in contraband? :xp:

Tommycat
10-09-2008, 01:07 AM
Fox News was designed for dealing in contraband? :xp:

OR you could say it's fast, but has a tendancy to not work very well.

Corinthian
10-09-2008, 03:00 AM
It looks bad, but it's actually a pretty good ship?

Seriously, Garfield, this is hardly unreasonable action. Do I like what he's doing? Not really, but it's perfectly reasonable and legal. Let it go.

Jae Onasi
10-09-2008, 03:49 AM
Actually Garfield has a point(kindof). The stations are not responsible for the truthfulness of the ads. It is not their place to fact check advertisements. Advertisements are paid for by an outside source, and in fact the station could get in trouble for NOT airing an ad that has been paid for. Radio stations can choose not to air certain ads like the bigger-better-faster types, but I heard on WISN this afternoon that if a political candidate pays for advertising in a campaign, they're required to air those ads, regardless of whether they agree with those ads or not. I don't know if that's a Fed law or only WI and radio only or all media--I'm thinking it's a Fed and all-media thing.

Tommycat
10-09-2008, 04:04 AM
Radio stations can choose not to air certain ads like the bigger-better-faster types, but I heard on WISN this afternoon that if a political candidate pays for advertising in a campaign, they're required to air those ads, regardless of whether they agree with those ads or not. I don't know if that's a Fed law or only WI and radio only or all media--I'm thinking it's a Fed and all-media thing.

Well I'm not sure, but from what I understand political ads are governed by different rules. My ex worked for a radio station for a while, and I got a chance to grill their ad sales guy. If they sell time to an advertiser, they are required to play that ad. They also can't play a competing company's ad right after(can't play a Wendy's ad after McDonalds for example), or they get in big trouble. There are all kinds of regulations regarding political ads too. But they aren't allowed NOT to play a political ad, once they have sold them that ad space. It's in some FCC rules, so yeah it's federal. Something about publicly transmitted air signals. I didn't get into the deep down specifics like what part or section(I was making small talk) but that's what I had gathered from them.

Obama may not even be trying to get the ads pulled. He may be doing this to have it known that he disagreed with the ad without being too specific about what in the ad was not true. That way it is assumed the whole ad is false rather than specific parts.

GarfieldJL
10-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Radio stations can choose not to air certain ads like the bigger-better-faster types, but I heard on WISN this afternoon that if a political candidate pays for advertising in a campaign, they're required to air those ads, regardless of whether they agree with those ads or not. I don't know if that's a Fed law or only WI and radio only or all media--I'm thinking it's a Fed and all-media thing.

Not sure I'd have to look it up, I do believe it is Federal Law because it would mean that a media organization would be trying to use their position to supress free speech in order to get someone elected.

The Obama Campaign however seems to have a tendency to ignore any law that doesn't benefit them. There is hopefully going to be a Federal Investigation into Obama's connections with ACORN, since they've been tied to voter fraud in over 10 states, and the Obama Campaign is financially tied to them.

Obama may not even be trying to get the ads pulled. He may be doing this to have it known that he disagreed with the ad without being too specific about what in the ad was not true. That way it is assumed the whole ad is false rather than specific parts.

Since people have been arrested over bumper stickers and media outlets have been threatened I'm going to go out on a limb and say that odds are Obama is afraid of the ads because they are telling the truth.

And Fox News is now reporting on this.
Brit Hume in the beginnings of the Opinion segment of Special Report: (2nd story)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430323,00.html

Additional Sourcing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEFqIqoGJ_A&eurl=http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/1st-amendment-attack-video-update-of-missouri-governor/

Looks like only one Media outlet stands for the people and it sure as heck isn't one of the "Mainstream Media".

Video includes an interview with the Governor of Missouri.

Based on people's research here: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/is-this-1984-missouri-public-officials-join-obamas-truth-squad/

If Obama's campaign is involved they are in deep trouble: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html

ET Warrior
10-17-2008, 10:54 AM
This thread seems like an appropriate place to post this. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/16/secret-service-milbank/)

I haven't seen the story picked up by any actual news groups, so I'd take it with a grain of salt, but the implications are disturbing at best.

Achilles
10-17-2008, 12:13 PM
I went to the WaPo site linked to in the story, but didn't see anything confirming or denying this. Neither did I see anything at Huffington Post or Talking Points Memo.

Since Milbank's column appears to have a humor bent to it, I'm wondering if something was taken out of context and turned into a Think Progress article.

Thanks for the link and I'll continue to keep an eye out for more.

GarfieldJL
10-17-2008, 02:06 PM
This thread seems like an appropriate place to post this. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/16/secret-service-milbank/)

I haven't seen the story picked up by any actual news groups, so I'd take it with a grain of salt, but the implications are disturbing at best.

Uh, there probably isn't anything in that article and here's why you can say there probably isn't.

It would have already been all over the mainstream media earlier today, due to the fact they're looking for anything they can to smear Governor Palin. I expect it to end up on their reporting later today sometime, despite the fact there probably isn't anything there.

Achilles
10-17-2008, 05:09 PM
I'm going to donate a dollar to Obama's campaign for every one of Garfield's post which contain a fallacy or a double-standard. Anyone with me?

KinchyB
10-17-2008, 05:15 PM
I'm going to donate a dollar to Obama's campaign for every one of Garfield's post which contain a fallacy or a double-standard. Anyone with me?

Would if I could... but I don't think you can donate that much legally... not to mention I don't have the millions to spend. :P

ET Warrior
10-18-2008, 02:31 AM
It would have already been all over the mainstream media earlier today,I think these are my favorite types of posts. The "If this were real the liberal media would have eviscerated all republicans within arms reach" or "Well if this had been (insert conservative politician) the media would be going ape-****" posts.

No actual basis for any of it, but a constant stream of conjecture.

GarfieldJL
10-18-2008, 02:35 AM
I think these are my favorite types of posts. The "If this were real the liberal media would have eviscerated all republicans within arms reach" or "Well if this had been (insert conservative politician) the media would be going ape-****" posts.

No actual basis for any of it, but a constant stream of conjecture.

See: http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=193049


The man only asked Obama a question, I didn't even have to go off site for this source.

Joe the Plumber is not even running for office for crying out loud.