Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

There is only one truth. $42,000 is a lie. $250,000 is the truth. Where is the confusion?

Factcheck.org
A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted

But you are missing the point - although the article goes on to say that the ad that went along with this is misleading, which I won't argue with - the FACT is accurate.
So get off your high horse there and put your emotions to the side while you go and check your facts before saying it is a LIE - it's a fact.
Even if misleading in the context of that ad.

Where did you read that people would be threatened with jail?

Joyce and McCulloch "are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama."
I'm sorry, Libel charges, - - - I tend to relate any threats by law enforcement officers or prosecutors as having an end result of jail time.

Actually, no you wouldn't. You would be guilty of defamation.

If I believe I have sufficient information to state he is a muslim or that the tax is 42k - are you going to charge me with Libel - it is an intimidation tactic - and you know it - defamation would be if I intentionally mistated information in order to defame - if my evidence states otherwise, don't try to intimidate me with legal action. Would you fight so hard if it was McCain truth squads ? ? ?

Intimidation of any American for exercising their constitutional rights should be fought by every one of us - rep. or dem. or independent.

WHAT constitutional right is being stepped on?

First Ammendment - my right to stand on the corner with my sign stating my evidence that he is a muslim (even if not true, but I don't know since there is actual evidence saying otherwise in his past) ((I personally believe he renounced this)) and also pointing to the FACT that he voted on the 42k tax bill.
You miss the point entirely, that I should be allowed to state what I believe is the truth even if it is not.
As an example - should we go after all of the 9/11 truthers - and hit them with Libel charges for saying that Bush orchestrated 9/11 - that would be intimidation.

Again - it's about INTIMIDATION - threats of libel from prosecutors and law enforcement officers.

reply to post by Animal


Just WHO'S TRUTHS ARE THESE PEOPLE PROTECTING????? Both sides seem to differ on many issues. Firearms laws and Obama's complete and total support through the years of any and all anti-laws and his voting record tells volumes on how he's trying to portray himself as a supporter of gun rights, should speak to the problem here. If someone disagrees and dares to say anything negative on this issue, will these "truth squads" go after those that actualy know his record because he's trying to change his image on this one platform? JUST EXACTLY WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE SOMEONE FOR GIVING THEIR INFORMED OPINION ON THIS TOTAL SCAM???? This is NOT protecting anyone but Obama and thats the issue!

Zindo

You know, this is what makes me want to vote for McCain, even though I would have wanted to write in Ron Paul. Obama is a poster-child for socialism. Socialism will result in more government interference in all aspects of life and weaken the economy even further. His ideology is so preposterous, condescending and hypocritical that it almost leaves no choice for someone that values their constitutional rights.

You know, it really is sad seeing people in this thread feigning confusion about the outrageousness of anything closely approximating 'truth squads' under color of law by people in positions of government power.

First, let me make something very clear. I actually make an effort to deny ignorance.

Let's begin with:

But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states.

Source.

Maybe this will avoid the predictable accusations of partisanship in reference to my post.

If the above is true, I find those facts equally appalling.

I also want to fix something I stated earlier. This does not appear to be just Obama supporters, but according to the reports includes people from Obama's actual campaign apparatus that have organized this:

The KMOV report said the Obama campaign asked members of Missouri's law enforcement to target anyone who "lies" or issues misleading television ads. Formation of the Obama "Truth Squad" was the result, the report said.

Link.

And:

On Wednesday, Obama’s Missouri campaign announced U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would lead a group of Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors and one sheriff “who will be proactive in letting voters in the Show-Me State know the truth in the face of the distortions by the McCain campaign,” according to a news release.

The group includes prosecutors from St. Louis, Dunklin, Lafayette, Cass, Clay, Ripley, Audrain and Jackson counties volunteering to be surrogates for Obama on their own time.

...

In a conference call Saturday with reporters from battleground states, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe said those who spread lies and mistruths about the Illinois senator have to be “held accountable,” but did not elaborate how.

Link.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...what the Truth Squad is supposedly doing is to address the defamation of Barack Obama. What part of that is unconstitutional, illegal or immoral?

What exactly is the problem? You all can express indignation, but if you can't articulate what exactly you are outraged about, I still don't get your position.

Oh, I don't think I've had any problem articulating exactly what I'm outraged by. The issue appears to be one with respect to your comprehension of it.

It appears what you and others would like is to turn the clock back a few hundred years and return to the implementation of Star Chambers to hear political libel cases.

The 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism in England eventually evolved into various categories of political libel (see slander and libel for the modern incarnation of this law). Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel had been established.

Modern slander and libel law evolved since then to mostly eradicate the use of libel laws to intimidate active political participants during a public debate.

Political libel

Continuing...

No longer exists in most English speaking jurisdictions

In most developed countries, a combination of discouragement to vexatious litigation, general recognition of chilling effects, and sometimes formal definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, serve to limit politically-motivated libel suits.

...

Recognizing the chilling effect of such laws, American courts reformed libel law to protect free speech on matters of public interest, where plaintiffs bear onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage. All statements of opinion are immune from liability. This includes almost all political statements.

See also, Chilling effect (term)

The rabid and blind support I see from Obama people who seem to have no problem with this stuff is an indication there is no difference from that and the blind and rabid support Bush received from his proponents.

In other words, it just looks like if Obama wins, we are in for four more years of THE SAME nonsense-- just with a little "D" attached to it.

How revolting.


reply to post by Animal

Originally posted by Animal
I just saw your link on LiveLeak. The story says the prosecutors in Missouri are going to put pressure on anyone who releases anything the 'violates Missouri election ethic laws'. I am curious, why would disallowing anything that violates law be a bad thing? Is it because it is Obama's supporters doing it? Personally I think that this is a non-issue.

Well, that's a curious thing, considering I can find NO Missouri government entity with the authority to do anything close to what is implied by these morons.

Moreover:

The Missouri Ethics Commission

The Missouri Ethics Commission is given the statutory authority to investigate complaints made against elected and appointed officials...The commission has jurisdiction to review complaints alleging violations of: the requirements imposed on lobbyists; the financial interest disclosure requirements; the campaign finance disclosure requirements; any code of conduct promulgated by any department, division, or agency of state government, or by state institutions of higher education; the conflict of interest laws; and the provisions of the constitution or state statute or order, ordinance or resolution of any political subdivision.

The commission shall not investigate complaints alleging conduct which allegedly occurred previous to the period of time allowed by law for criminal prosecution or conduct which is not criminal in nature which occurred more than two years prior to the date of the complaint. The commission may refuse to investigate any conduct which is the subject of civil or criminal litigation. The commission shall also not accept any complaint alleging conduct, other than failure to file the appropriate financial interest statement or campaign finance disclosure report, by any candidate for public office within sixty days prior to the primary election at which such candidate is running, and until after the general election.

...

According to Missouri State Law, the Commission shall dismiss any complaint lacking any basis in fact or law which is frivolous in nature. Any person who submits a frivolous complaint shall be liable for actual and compensatory damages to the alleged violator for holding the alleged violator before the public in a false light. A finding by the Commission that a complaint is frivolous or without probable cause shall be a public record.

So, in fact, this doesn't really look like a promising avenue for the Truth Squaders, does it?

But that isn't really their point is it? The mere mention by these government officials that they might pursue action under color of law is the actual point, isn't it?

What a VILE and UNACCEPTABLE practice.



And shame on all of you who claim to be looking for something different than the nonsense of the last eight years.



Why aren't more of you denying ignorance, rather than embracing it?

[edit on 28-9-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by JustTheFacts
Factcheck.org
A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year."

Well, if someone claims that he once voted on that, then they have the truth on their side. If they claim that's his plan for the future, then they're lying.

Joyce and McCulloch "are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama."
I'm sorry, Libel charges, - - - I tend to relate any threats by law enforcement officers or prosecutors as having an end result of jail time.

OK. If they are committing libel, what's wrong with bringing libel charges against them?

First Ammendment - my right to stand on the corner with my sign stating my evidence that he is a muslim (even if not true, but I don't know since there is actual evidence saying otherwise in his past) ((I personally believe he renounced this))

Defamation

As I read it, if you state that it's your opinion, then you would be all right. If you state it as a fact, you could be charged and the courts would prove you right or wrong.

You can state your belief as long as you're clear that it's just your opinion.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Matt Blunt IS Credibility...

He may be stepping down to do something else but his Dad Roy Blunt is running, they are a very big family here.

Hmm...

Obama has jurisdiction and tactical command over Missouri law enforcement?

That's news to me.

Even if he did, why would Obama cause such disruption and consternation in Missouri, a state where he gains about a percentage point in the polls every week against McCain? If the trend continues, McCain will be trailing Obama in a week or so.

The OP sounds fishy to me. Sounds like it's meant to frighten the undecided locals and recent Obama converts back to McCain.

A Republican Governor ambiguously criticizing a Democratic candidate!?! Why I've never heard of such a thing!

If Missouri prosecutors and Obama supporters in law enforcement want to take issue with people violating Missouri's ethics laws, then more power to them. If the Governor doesn't like Missouri's ethics laws regarding lying and running misleading ads, then he should work to change those laws and stop crying with vague accusations. This story is absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by loam
You know, it really is sad seeing people in this thread feigning confusion about the outrageousness of anything closely approximating 'truth squads' under color of law by people in positions of government power.

At the risk of being accused of "feigning confusion", you still haven't said what you object to.

Is it people bringing the truth to the people?
Is it people correcting those who lie?
Is it charging people with libel when they have committed libel?

So, McCain has a Truth Squad, too. I support it, too. I don't believe anyone should be lying to win an election.

Maybe this will avoid the predictable accusations of partisanship in reference to my post.

But my support of the McCain truth squad doesn't avoid the predictable accusations of MY supposed partisanship and rabid and blind support.

The rabid and blind support I see from Obama people who seem to have no problem with this stuff is an indication there is no difference from that and the blind and rabid support Bush received from his proponents.

So, if a person supports the spread of truth and accountability of lying from BOTH sides, they are "blindly partisan" and if they support the spread of lies from BOTH side, they're not partisan?

So, in fact, this doesn't really look like a promising avenue for the Truth Squaders, does it?

Not so sure about that. If you're implying that a libel complaint would be "lacking any basis in fact or frivolous in nature". That's a judgment call. And while it's clear that some would consider lying frivolous, not everyone does.


[edit on 28-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Haha!

At least loam and Benevolent Heretic both have their antlers on this morning. I starred both of you because you're arguing well.

I don't have my antlers on today. And it feels good. After the past weeks political and financial events, my head hurts.

So carry on you two, while I have my cup of tea.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
At the risk of being accused of "feigning confusion", you still haven't said what you object to.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If you still can't understand my position, then nothing I say will make you understand it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, McCain has a Truth Squad, too. I support it, too.

I think that point of view is one to be FEARED.

In addition to demonstrating a repulsive amount of arrogance, that view also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding with respect to the perils of anything even remotely approaching a truth squad found in a political system.

I guess some people aren't much for history.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, if a person supports the spread of truth and accountability of lying from BOTH sides, they are "blindly partisan" and if they support the spread of lies from BOTH side, they're not partisan?

My words are written in plain English and they certainly bare no resemblance to your understanding of them.

You might want to try and reread what I've written.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by loam
So, in fact, this doesn't really look like a promising avenue for the Truth Squaders, does it?

Not so sure about that. If you're implying that a libel complaint would be "lacking any basis in fact or frivolous in nature". That's a judgment call. And while it's clear that some would consider lying frivolous, not everyone does.

Same answer. You might want to try and reread what I've written.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by loam]

So what's the bottom line? Obama is a alley scum gangbanger from chicago and now he is using the same tactics with his new gang ........police officers?

Now he has hired thugs, and openly commits crime against our system of law and civil rights through proxy? Crime is crime, if it is committed through others for your benefit then you fall under the RICCO statutes as an organized crime syndicate.

Can we lay this out plain and simple so its easy to understand?

reply to post by southern_Guardian


I am not a republican i live in missouri and i have for most of my life. i was just giving some background on the dirty acts that Democrats have pulled and it wouldn't surprise me if they were actually doing what the OP as stated given their track record as of late in Missouri all of which even if indirectly pertains to the OP. goes to show motive.

I see every election all the dirty stunts that both sides pull even on election day. and by far they last few elections the democrats have pulled the dirtier stunts.

Source

McCain’s campaign has an Honest and Open Election Committee, whose Missouri members include former Sen. John Danforth and U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, and another state McCain group monitoring any Democratic jabs at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
...
Obama’s national campaign manager David Plouffe said Saturday that Truth Squads simply monitor attacks and refute them.

Later, state communications director Debbie Mesloh issued a statement that called it “the height of absurdity” for the GOP to contend that the Obama squad planned to go to court or jail critics.
...
By the way, a quick surf of the Internet found a McCain Truth Squad in New Hampshire, formed last January, that included several public officials with prosecutorial powers, including the state attorney general.

As has been said, this is a non-issue. The outrage and indignation is wasted.

Oh, and Area51, I put my antlers away. They give me a pain in my neck.

Originally posted by loam
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

But, can you put lipstick on it?

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Zindo in the link you provided the two prosecutors talk about what they are doing. The direct quote is says they will take legal action against anything that: "violates Missouri election ethic laws". You can not be tried for sharing your opinion but you can be tried for publishing knowingly FALSE information.

Show me examples of how this group has taken any legal action against ANYONE for sharing opinions.

Until you prove that this group is somehow acting outside of what is considered to be legal and legitimate I have a hard time buying the hype.

I thought Id start a different thread regarding McCains own Truth squads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace

reply to post by loam


Defamation, Libel and Slander Law check it out some time mate.


To quote you:

Why aren't more of you denying ignorance, rather than embracing it?

This really made me laugh because in my eyes what these 'truth squads' are trying to do is rid our election cycle politics of the base personal assaults and attacks that are nothing more or less than ignorance.

While our nations economy, honor, and way of life crumble we are expected to be caught up by the slander and wedge issues rather than the REAL issues at hand.

More power to ANY candidate who wants to act aggressively to end the ability of the 'others' to make believe the issues are anything but what is real.

reply to post by Animal


Animal, your post made me realize that this "truth squad" thing is very similar to what the staff did here at ATS with the insane political rumors and lies that were being spread like a disease on ATS.

So, it seems ATS has its own "Truth Squad". And their name is the Mod Squad!

reply to post by Animal


Since you appear interested in the actual law, let me help you with a more meaningful link from The Missouri Bar on DEFAMATION (Libel and Slander).

Incidentally, since you also appear to be in the business of trying to educate me on these 'truth squads', you do appreciate the difference between civil and criminal action, right?

So unless Obama intends to personally advance a lawsuit against someone in Missouri for defamation, I'm assuming the fascist threats made by these government morons intended those statements for no purpose other than political intimidation.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


ATS is a private website.

The fact you miss that distinction astounds me.



So sad.

EDIT:

By the way, does that fact my posts remain indicate the "Mod Squad" finds them to not be the type equal to "the insane political rumors and lies that were being spread like a disease on ATS"?


[edit on 28-9-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
ATS is a private website.

I know. I was just making a comparison. I said it was "similar".

And it is.