Obama Campaign trying to muzzle criticism

[mimartin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[GarfieldJL]

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]

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

[Astor]

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]

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]

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.[/Quote]

 

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

[GarfieldJL]

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]

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 evil

heh

 

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

i see an opening man quick pull the race card

[ET Warrior]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I think the burden of proof is on your end not mine.

 

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

[GarfieldJL]

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?