On the evening of October 20, 2011 while being interviewed by CBS in the wake of breaking news that Gaddafi was dead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a joke with her staff between takes, declaring: “We came, we saw, he died.” She then clapped her hands and laughed triumphantly. This remains the vilest and most degraded utterance delivered by an official of the US Government ever
Nothing that any other candidate has ever said or done even vaguely compares to this literally sick and sociopathic side of the war lover Killary.
========================================================================
But according to candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt during Monday night’s presidential debate, stop and frisk is “unconstitutional.” They are wrong. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, it’s the usual misrepresenting she does when she does not know what she is talking about. As for Mr. Holt, if a moderator is going to interfere, he should do some homework and not pretend to know the law when he does not. Mr. Holt and NBC cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn’t been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, approved the constitutionality of stopping a suspect if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down—that is, a frisk—of a person’s outer clothing.
Rudy Giuliani
foxnews.com
I wasn’t astonished when Lester Holt tried to prop up Mrs. Clinton in the debate, but actually to interrupt Mr. Trump to insist that he knows the law when he doesn’t was a bit surprising. Perhaps he does know the law and this was planned? He knew the question would come up. He presumably was briefed on the law and Terry v. Ohio. Yet he interrupted Mr. Trump to assert a falsehood. This did not come as an astonishment to many;
foxnews.com
One Federal Judge did decree that because more black and Hispanics were stopped and frisked, the practice as employed in New York City was racist. That governs no one in Chicago, where Mr. Trump recommends the practice be applied.
Mayor Bill de Blasio rushed to declare Donald Trump “literally all wrong” in saying Monday that stop-and-frisk is effective and constitutional. But the NYPD put out a statement that proves him wrong.
De Blasio was on MSNBC defending Hillary Clinton, who claimed that “stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional” and “ineffective,” adding that it “did not do what it needed to do.” Trump disagreed on both counts — and the facts back him up.
As the NYPD release rightly notes, “Stop, Question and Frisk is not unconstitutional,” and even Judge Shira Scheindlin’s disastrous 2013 ruling never said so.
Fact is, the Supreme Court found it constitutional back in 1968 and has never reversed or even modified that decision. Scheindlin ruled merely that the NYPD’s use of the tactic had shown “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights, claiming racial bias.
Then the US Court of Appeals threw her off the case because her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
And it stayed her ruling — a step usually taken only when a decision is unlikely to survive the full appellate process.
But higher courts never finished examining her decision — because de Blasio, who’d won his race for mayor vowing to end the practice, squelched the city’s appeal.
Trump was also right to call Scheindlin “a very anti-police judge.” One of her own former clerks told The New Yorker that “she thinks cops lie.”
nypost.com
|
