Expose Planned Parenthood, Get a Felony

[Faun]

Last time I'm going to answer your question.....

It depends on the credibility of the journalist.

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

Dumbfuck.... who isn't biased when it comes to which news organizations they trust?

So that's why you need the tape.

Says you. The law says otherwise.

Another appeal to authority. Again arguing the how and not the why.

And no, says you, because you won't believe any journalist that goes against your progressive group-think.

LOL

Translation: rightard thinks his opinion trumps the law, so he'll try to ignore that it doesn't by casting another appeal to authority dismissal while he resorts to an appeal to himself fallacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty has one appeal to authority . . . himself.

 

[Faun]

Nope, not all in restaurants...

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

LOL

So now private business deals are not private?

So you would be OK with no sting ops on things like Tobacco companies, shady real estate people, and other industries?

Again, by your rules investigative journalism is nearly impossible because it becomes a "he said, she said" equivalent.'

All this so you can keep sucking Planned Parenthood's dick.

Slurp, Slurp, Slurp.

Strawman. What a pity that's the best you can do.

I never said I'm against those things. What I actually said, but you lack the intellect to comprehend.... is that the press does not get to infringe on peoples' Constitutional rights just because they're the press.

Savvy?

And what you are conveniently ignoring is that by preventing undercover recording by journalists you prevent them from having visual proof of any conversation that is made, giving hack-twats like you the "out" of saying "THAT's the source.....pfffffftttt"

Also, please tell me where "the right to privacy" is explicitly listed in the constitution.....

Hack.

Wow. I didn't realize just how mentally deficient you are.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated​

.... we're done here. You're clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing; and you clearly have no fucking clue what you're rambling about.

 

[martybegan]

And of course you bias plays into that, just as your bias makes you defend PP every step of the way.

So your answer is "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaack is me!"

Dumbfuck.... who isn't biased when it comes to which news organizations they trust?

So that's why you need the tape.

Says you. The law says otherwise.

Another appeal to authority. Again arguing the how and not the why.

And no, says you, because you won't believe any journalist that goes against your progressive group-think.

LOL

Translation: rightard thinks his opinion trumps the law, so he'll try to ignore that it doesn't by casting another appeal to authority dismissal while he resorts to an appeal to himself fallacy.

Did MLK's opinions trump the existing laws in the Jim Crow South?

 

[martybegan]

And the ones in offices may be a closer case, but again, multiple parties dealing in business, not in personal items.

Doesn't your side say once $$ changes hands your constitutional rights go out the window? i.e. BAKE THAT CAKE PEASANT

LOL

So now private business deals are not private?

So you would be OK with no sting ops on things like Tobacco companies, shady real estate people, and other industries?

Again, by your rules investigative journalism is nearly impossible because it becomes a "he said, she said" equivalent.'

All this so you can keep sucking Planned Parenthood's dick.

Slurp, Slurp, Slurp.

Strawman. What a pity that's the best you can do.

I never said I'm against those things. What I actually said, but you lack the intellect to comprehend.... is that the press does not get to infringe on peoples' Constitutional rights just because they're the press.

Savvy?

And what you are conveniently ignoring is that by preventing undercover recording by journalists you prevent them from having visual proof of any conversation that is made, giving hack-twats like you the "out" of saying "THAT's the source.....pfffffftttt"

Also, please tell me where "the right to privacy" is explicitly listed in the constitution.....

Hack.

Wow. I didn't realize just how mentally deficient you are.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated​

.... we're done here. You're clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing; and you clearly have no fucking clue what you're rambling about.

That's against the government, boy-o. Remember the constitution restricts GOVERNMENT, not individuals.

Besides people looking bad, there is nothing wrong with a reporter recording someone without their knowledge. It's in fact how the system is supposed to work to "shine the light of truth" on things illegal, or even just fugazi.

 

[Picaro]

The entire subject of Planned Parenthood & these fake journalists is a joke. I laugh at the Republicans trying to use this to illegally attack a legal entity in order to shut down their donations to the Democrats.

I laughed when the moron Ben Carson was having a fit yet when he was in med school, he worked with tissue samples from aborted fetuses. Where did he get them!!!!! The school BOUGHT them. Companies legally sell "baby parts" so why don't you idiot right wingers go after those companies? They don't donate to Democrats like PP does.

Where do they get these parts? From medical facilities like hospitals, abortion clinics, etc. These tissue suppliers pay the costs to preserve these samples.

If you don't like that process, then you must not like the medical advancements & training that these samples provie.

So quit running through the streets screaming "OMG OMG Baby Parts" like a fucking idiot & become better informed.

So why the prosecution of the videographers if all this is so legal and wonderful? Why the howls of outrage?

Because they violated the law?

They didn't violate any law; they were not taping a private conversation, they were in a public place, where people could and did overhear them. This is just another poltiical prosecution with no legal grounds by the usual neo-fascist Party apparatniks you love so much. It's illegal intimidation, period.

 

[Picaro]

The entire subject of Planned Parenthood & these fake journalists is a joke. I laugh at the Republicans trying to use this to illegally attack a legal entity in order to shut down their donations to the Democrats.

I laughed when the moron Ben Carson was having a fit yet when he was in med school, he worked with tissue samples from aborted fetuses. Where did he get them!!!!! The school BOUGHT them. Companies legally sell "baby parts" so why don't you idiot right wingers go after those companies? They don't donate to Democrats like PP does.

Where do they get these parts? From medical facilities like hospitals, abortion clinics, etc. These tissue suppliers pay the costs to preserve these samples.

If you don't like that process, then you must not like the medical advancements & training that these samples provie.

So quit running through the streets screaming "OMG OMG Baby Parts" like a fucking idiot & become better informed.

So why the prosecution of the videographers if all this is so legal and wonderful? Why the howls of outrage?

Well, they weren't violating any law, state or Federal; it's just official repression and intimidation, which all Democrats support

 

[Howey]

With a warrant? And please read the bolded sentence. It is illegal in many states to record someone without their consent.

Many states had jim crow laws, and those were found unconstitutional. Appeal to authority.

Warrants are for government actors, not private citizens.

Nope!

Do the Police Have the Right to Tap My Telephone? - FindLaw

You're not clever Comrade Brown Shirt, not in the slightest.

Try a lie that is not so painfully stupid next time.

How is that not true? Are you an attorney?

Shall we consult one? Are there any "real" attorneys on this forum?

Do the police have a warrant to wear a body cam? Do they have one for the camera in their car?

Your nonsense is downright silly.

What the fuck does that have to do with wiretapping?

Are you so dumb you think it's the cops walking the beat that are investigating these crimes?

Dumbass.

 

[Dragonlady]

All they have to do is shop for a creepy political hack masquerading as a 'Judge'. The Left is okay with this sort of thing, after all; they hate free speech and they certainly hate a legitimate 4th estate.

And don't look for the commie racists at the ACLU to defend anybody who goes after the criminal syndicates favored by Democrats; most of their cases are merely window dressing while they pursue their real agenda.

This wasn't an investigation, it was a character assassination. The raw footage was much much different than the edited version. That was what the felony charge was all about - the careful editing so that the answers matched the filmmaker's agenda, not the actual question asked.

This is flagrant dishonesty and deception.

 

[Picaro]

All they have to do is shop for a creepy political hack masquerading as a 'Judge'. The Left is okay with this sort of thing, after all; they hate free speech and they certainly hate a legitimate 4th estate.

And don't look for the commie racists at the ACLU to defend anybody who goes after the criminal syndicates favored by Democrats; most of their cases are merely window dressing while they pursue their real agenda.

This wasn't an investigation, it was a character assassination. The raw footage was much much different than the edited version. That was what the felony charge was all about - the careful editing so that the answers matched the filmmaker's agenda, not the actual question asked.

This is flagrant dishonesty and deception.

Even if that were true, just why would a Democrat or 'progressive' have a problem with that? I've been watching the same thing on major networks, in newspapers, and talking head shows re Trump for over a year now, and for decades before that re every other pet issue the faux 'Left' and it's media buddies cover for. I've seen on several bandwagons peddling and supporting flagrant dishonesty and deceptions here yourself, so you obviously don't have a complaint here.

 

[JoeB131]

You do realize the ACLU has issues with "two party consent" wiretap laws, as they infringe on journalists ability to do investigative reporting, right?

Is the ACLU alt-right now?

These weren't journalists. and they committed fraud to get the tape, and edited them in a misleading way.

THAT'S why they are in trouble.

 

[martybegan]

You do realize the ACLU has issues with "two party consent" wiretap laws, as they infringe on journalists ability to do investigative reporting, right?

Is the ACLU alt-right now?

These weren't journalists. and they committed fraud to get the tape, and edited them in a misleading way.

THAT'S why they are in trouble.

Who says they aren't journalists? Does the government get to decide who is a Journalist or not?

This will be dismissed, or at worst come back as a Not Guilty on all counts.

 

[Dragonlady]

You do realize the ACLU has issues with "two party consent" wiretap laws, as they infringe on journalists ability to do investigative reporting, right?

Is the ACLU alt-right now?

These weren't journalists. and they committed fraud to get the tape, and edited them in a misleading way.

THAT'S why they are in trouble.

Who says they aren't journalists? Does the government get to decide who is a Journalist or not?

This will be dismissed, or at worst come back as a Not Guilty on all counts.

The film makers lied about what they were doing - fraud. Then they edited the tape to say one thing when their victims said something quite different - again fraud.

Conservatives abortion opponents lie to women about abortion because the truth is not in their favour.

If you believe abortion is wrong - don't have one. This has been my position throughout my life. I don't believe in abortion so I never had one. That's what being PRO CHOICE really means. Making your own choice based on your own beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

You do realize the ACLU has issues with "two party consent" wiretap laws, as they infringe on journalists ability to do investigative reporting, right?

Is the ACLU alt-right now?

These weren't journalists. and they committed fraud to get the tape, and edited them in a misleading way.

THAT'S why they are in trouble.

Who says they aren't journalists? Does the government get to decide who is a Journalist or not?

This will be dismissed, or at worst come back as a Not Guilty on all counts.

The film makers lied about what they were doing - fraud. Then they edited the tape to say one thing when their victims said something quite different - again fraud.

Conservatives abortion opponents lie to women about abortion because the truth is not in their favour.

If you believe abortion is wrong - don't have one. This has been my position throughout my life. I don't believe in abortion so I never had one. That's what being PRO CHOICE really means. Making your own choice based on your own beliefs.

They lied about who they were to get the interview, its what is called investigative journalism.

As for editing the tapes, they also released the unedited tapes, and while i hear all sorts of accusations of fraud I rarely get any links showing what exactly the fraud it.

 

[JoeB131]

Who says they aren't journalists? Does the government get to decide who is a Journalist or not?

This will be dismissed, or at worst come back as a Not Guilty on all counts.

You keep telling yourself that. Let's not forget, the indictment in TX was from a grand jury that was empanelled to investigated PP and indicted these losers instead.

This one is in a civilized state. One where the ladyfolk still have rights.

 

[martybegan]

Who says they aren't journalists? Does the government get to decide who is a Journalist or not?

This will be dismissed, or at worst come back as a Not Guilty on all counts.

You keep telling yourself that. Let's not forget, the indictment in TX was from a grand jury that was empanelled to investigated PP and indicted these losers instead.

This one is in a civilized state. One where the ladyfolk still have rights.

Wasn't that indictment dropped?

What did these investigators do to any rights of anyone?

 

[JoeB131]

Wasn't that indictment dropped?

What did these investigators do to any rights of anyone?

YOu mean other than trying to defund PP so that women are denied health care? that's whta the goal is here.

To the point. It's against the law to tape someone without their permission. So I hope these Bible Thumping Assholes have a good time in prison.

 

[martybegan]

Wasn't that indictment dropped?

What did these investigators do to any rights of anyone?

YOu mean other than trying to defund PP so that women are denied health care? that's whta the goal is here.

To the point. It's against the law to tape someone without their permission. So I hope these Bible Thumping Assholes have a good time in prison.

So planned parenthood is the only source of health care for women? Who would have known.....

That law is clearly unconstitutional as it restricts the ability of a free press.

 

[JoeB131]

So planned parenthood is the only source of health care for women? Who would have known.....

That law is clearly unconstitutional as it restricts the ability of a free press.

No, it's perfectly constitutional as it protects privacy rights.

I mean, otherwise, I could plant cameras in your house, put embarrassing videos on YouTube and call it journalism.

Right? The People have a Right To Know

 

[martybegan]

So planned parenthood is the only source of health care for women? Who would have known.....

That law is clearly unconstitutional as it restricts the ability of a free press.

No, it's perfectly constitutional as it protects privacy rights.

I mean, otherwise, I could plant cameras in your house, put embarrassing videos on YouTube and call it journalism.

Right? The People have a Right To Know

There is a difference between trying to film someone in their home, and filming an interaction in a public place, or a place of business. Plus this is an issue of national level importance. The items discussed were not personal, they were about business transactions.

Just because they got egg on the face of an organization you get on your knees and fellate on a daily basis doesn't mean we have to end all investigative journalism.