Posted on 09/28/2016 6:16:28 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.
Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.
Here’s what really happened....
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Lester Holt's legacy, his Candy Crowley moment - forever on the A list for activist liberals in the corrupt media.
Forever know now as Lester Dolt
I’m sure Lester Holt will correct the record on his nightly news cast.
I suspect he will defend it, they don't care about facts in the media - they make up the news.
Of course you’re right. I was joking. I’ve seen enough of Holt’s nightly “news” to see it’s a typical mainstream media product with the usual biases, from the host to the stories they choose to run, and how those stories are framed.
Haha. I was thinking Lesser Dolt. He needs further shaming...
Exactly. Selective reporting. One judge rules the practice unconstitutional renders Holt's claim "true," and the WSJ deconstruction a "pants on fire" lie.
All the other relevant facts, like the case being reversed and returned, and the existence of the Terry case, and so on, that undercuts the claim, so is simply not reported as part of the fact checking.
And with this means of "reporting," the press will claim it is not making up news, and they are literally correct. "I did not have sex with that woman."
Trump was right. That said, “stop and frisk” SHOULD be unconstitutional in my opinion. And not because of Holt’s claim that it “racially profiles”. It should be unconstitutional as a violation of one’s fourth amendment rights.
Lester Dolt must have been believing the news he was reading.
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic :)
Fact checking, racism, bigotry.. this are just words and phrases used by the left to attack their opponents and are not being used accurately. Sort of repurposed, like using a baseball bat to mug someone.
I hope everyone noticed during the debate you could see an ‘ear piece’ in Holt’s ear....the Commissioner of the Debates said the Moderator could not wear an ear piece...so what is with that...review the debate and you will see it...
I’m for stop and frisk; however, in Terry the police must be able to articulate that under the circumstances “there was reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot,” so says the Court in Terry.
#Lester Crowley......Trending...
There’s a pretty long history of it being constitutional, beginning with the Terry case over 40 years ago. “Reasonable suspicion” is all that’s necessary.
Those terms are NEVER applied to a Leftist. No matter what they say or do, where those terms might actually apply, they are never smeared with those terms.
The debate commission producer used that to help Holt keep time. Not to say the debate commission producer isn’t doing more than that, but that’s who “had Holt’s ear.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.