OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADOPTS POLICE STATE TACTICS TO SUPPRESS DISSENT
The Obama Campaign has recently adopted a truly frightening tactic in Missouri. Obama’s campaign is assembling a group of sympathetic prosecutors and law enforcement agents to “target†anyone they think is lying or misleading the public about Obama and his positions. If this intimidation tactic didn’t smack of fascism by its very nature, the title of this group, The Barack Obama Truth Squad, should dispel any lingering doubts. You can watch a local news report about the group here.
The brazen nature of Obama’s ploy is amazing. There is only one reason why Obama would want to assemble a “Truth Squad†comprised solely of prosecutors and law enforcement agents: he wants to quash all dissent through naked intimidation. If all Obama wanted was volunteers to engage the public and challenge the assertions of the opposing candidate he could do so with anyone. But that is not what Obama wants. He wants people with a badge, gun, and/or the power to prosecute going after anyone that says something critical of of the Obamessiah. I find it amazing that liberals will go in to spasms of rage over supposed threats to civil liberties in The Patriot Act (a law designed to stop terrorists) yet have no problem with the “Truth Squad’s†attempt to crush political dissent.
At least the Governor of Missouri gets it. Read his statement here.
Talk about liberal fascism. Sieg Heil, Big Smile.
Buy More Ammo.
So, there’s going to be a 7th season of the Sopranos after all. Who would have predicted that Tony and the family would relocate to St. Louis via Chicago?
“If this intimidation tactic didn’t smack of fascism by its very nature, the title of this group, The Barack Obama Truth Squad, should dispel any lingering doubts.”
I guess you’ve never googled “mccain truth squad.”
From the McCain-Palin web site:
“In the event of false attacks, rumors and smears against Governor Palin, the Palin Truth Squad will issue alerts and statements to voters and the media to set the record straight. Additionally, the Truth Squad will be available to respond to inquiries from the media.”
And McCain’s South Caolina Truth Squad includes the state Attorney General and Adjutant General.
http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2008/01/08/mccain-camp-preps-for-false-negative-attacks-with-truth-squad/
“‘Our goal is to set the record straight,’ said Attorney General Henry McMaster. ‘As soon as one of these negative attack ads goes up on the air or hits the mailboxes, we’ll let the voters know the truth. Hopefully candidates will have learned, given what happened in Iowa, that negative campaigning just doesn’t work. But, just in case, we’ll be ready.’”
In the story linked to above, the anchor says that “the Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad.” Whoa! But then the reporter actually says they will be “reminding voters” that Obama is a Christian and will reduce taxes etc. and will “respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.” What does that mean–that they’ll be bringing law enforcement to bear? Well, the woman is quoted as saying, “…we’re here to respond to character attacks, to set the record straight…” The man is quoted as saying, “…somebody’s gotta step up and say that’s not the truth…”
Where does anyone say that they’re going to target, prosecute, intimidate, bring charges or anything remotely similar?
So we go from “targeting” the opposition in the lead, to “reminding,” “responding” and “stepping up.” Huh. Sounds pretty much like the The McCain and Palin Truth Squads to me.
It’s the anchor and the reporter who keep saying “prosecutors” and “sheriffs,” as if there’s going to be some legal action.
And the reporter who filed the original story has now back away from the blatant mischaracterization of events:
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/BLOGS09/80928009
Not much of a story left, it would appear.
Sorry, the “lede.”
Grover,
First of all, the Missouri Obama Truth Squad is specifically recruiting law enforcement members. If all they were doing was seeking volunteers, regardless of profession, (like the McCain Truth Squad) to get their side of the story out then I would agree with you that there was nothing out of the ordinary with this story. However, intentionally comprising the Truth squad of prosecutors and law enforcement personnel was done for a specific purpose, to raise the specter of prosecution. The McCain Truth Squad is not specifically recruiting law enforcement members. The article you linked to did not retract or refute this part of the story
Secondly, the reporter said that the prosecutors “also say that they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate violate Missouri ethics laws.” Again, neither the prosecutors nor the reporter retracted that quote in the story.
The intentional recruitment of law enforcement and the threat of prosecution for violating ethics laws is a naked attempt to chill political speech. In light of the public uproar this has caused in Missouri I have no doubt that the prosecutors are backpedling now. Nevertheless, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what they were attempting to do.
None of the prosecutors are saying that they were misquoted, only that the “story has gotten out of control.†In light of the dust up over this I have no doubt that is what they want everyone to think.
This is all in line with other intimidation efforts by the Messiah:
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/obama-uses-thuggish-lawyer-tactics-to-try-to-squelch-nras-criticism/
http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=918
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-intimidation-tactics-against-wgn.html
It appears that Obama believes that Constitutional liberties do not apply to his critics.
Grover,
I realy liked this quatoe from the article you linked to.
“In an interview with the News-Leader, Donatelli admitted the Democratic prosecutors “haven’t specifically said†they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.”
I am soooo reassured. They haven’t specifically said they would prosecute their critics so lets just rely on their good will and sweet intentions and hope we don’t find ourselves in their crosshairs.
I think this guy (again from the article you linked to) has it exactly right.
“I don’t think you have to use the power. I think if you just call out somebody and you have the power, you’ve made your point,†Donatelli said. “It’s not that you have to prosecute a guy, but people think you might.â€
And that is the nub of it. This was not just some arm of a campaign that one or two prosecutors joined to volunteer in their spare time. Obama’s truth squad specifically recruited law enforcement agents and prosecutors. I think you are smart enough to know that wasn’t just a coincidence.
That should have been “quote” not quatoe. Waking up is hard to do.
[...] Southern Appeal says: [...]
Joel, there’s no story here. This is exactly what the McCain campaign has been doing for months now: recruiting high-level state officials and pols, including attorneys-general, to respond forcefully to misleading ads, robo-calls and other tactics. There is only ONE sheriff mentioned in the story. Jennifer Joyce has already said:
“As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.”
You say, “the threat of prosecution for violating ethics laws is a naked attempt to chill political speech.”
Who said that Joel? Where, when? It’s an intimation by the reporter himself, nobody else. Please show me anyone who’s quoted saying anything about prosecution.
If you’re determined to live in some paranoid fantasy world fueled by Jonah Goldberg’s ridiculous book, you’re free to do so. But there’s no factual basis for believing that this is any different from what McCain’s campaign has been doing. None.
New Mexico’s Dona Ana County District Attorney was recruited by the McCain campaign to be a member of the statewide Palin Truth Squad. Has she prosecuted anyone or intimidated Democratic voters in New Mexico?
Grover,
It is a big story. That is why there is so much outrage in Missouri over this. That is why the governore issued a statement about it.
As I have said before, I have no problem with individual district attornies or even sherrifs volunteering their time for the candidate of their choice. I have no problem with them attempting to correct the record on behalf of thei candidate. My problems with The Barack Obama Truth Squad are as follows:
1. It specifically recruited prosecutors and law enforcement agents. In fact, the news story said that the truth squad would be comprised solely of prosecutors and Law enforcement agents, not just that there might be a few participating.
2. The reporter quoted the prosecutors, not intimated, “that they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.†Coming from a prosecutor that is a not so subtle threat of prosecution. Although it does require a minor amount of deductive reasoning to see the relationship, it doesn’t take a lot.
Again, I don’t have a problem with truth squads that only want to represent their candidate’s side of the story. I don’t care if they include the odd prosecutor or sherif. I DO have a problem when the only people on a truth squad are prosecutors and Law enforcement and they make not so subtle threats about “targeting” people they claim “violate Missouri ethics laws.â€
You can deny and dissimilate all you want Grover, but there are real problems with this truth squad as it is comprised and what its members have said. Remember, no one claims they were misquoted in this story. I remain amazed at how easily liberals look the other way when their side uses bully tactics to stifle debate and chill speech. But then again, if that really mattered they would not have supported a product of Chicago’s political machine for president.
Sieg Heil, Big Smile.
As a prudential matter, this smells bad, and for that reason neither presidential candidate should engage in trying to stifle dissent or intimidate polemic speech.
As a matter of constitutional law, however, false statements of fact, knowingly made, are not protected by the First Amendment. Such fantastic claims as the assertion that Barack Obama is a muslim would likely be (civilly) actionable for damages, even under the stringent, actual malice standard.
That having been said, equity will ordinarily not enjoin a libel, so the best remedy here is countervailing speech. I agree that prosecutors should not be the countervailing speakers.
To paraphrase Harry Truman, when McCain supporters stop lying about Senator Obama, Obama supporters should stop telling the truth about Senator McCain (and the diverted drug thief he dumped his crippled first wife for).
John,
For a moment there I thought we might find agreement on something. However, you reverted to form and finished you comment with a classless insult and smear of a woman you have never met.
I am proud to say that my father would disown me if I displayed the absolute lack gentlemanly conduct you seem to wallow in regularly.
“It specifically recruited prosecutors and law enforcement agents.”
So did McCain’s campaign. They recruited at least two attorneys-general, an adjutant general and a county district attorney. Has it occurred to you that higher ups in Missouri weren’t available because of the Republican administration?
“The reporter quoted the prosecutors, not intimated, ‘that they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.’”
Where’s the quote, Joel? Where? Show it to me. Show me when and where one of the interviewees said that. SHOW. ME. THE. QUOTE.
“I DO have a problem when the only people on a truth squad are prosecutors and Law enforcement and they make not so subtle threats about ‘targeting’ people they claim ‘violate Missouri ethics laws.’”
Show me where they said that. Please. I’m begging you. Just one eensy, weensy little quote directly from the mouths of one of these Truth Squaders that says they plan to target violators of ethics laws.
You are quoting the reporter, not the participants. Show me the quote.
Interesting that the video clip now eliminates the ridiculous, unfounded lede about “targeting” people.
Grover,
Are you really that stupid? In the clip the reporter says that the PROSECUTORS (the reporter is quoting them) “say that they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate violate Missouri ethics laws.â€
THAT IS THE QUOTE. Neither Jennifer Joyce nor Bob McCulloch ( the prosecutors that the reporter was quoting) claim that the reporter misquoted them. Consequently, unless you think the reporter was lying about what they said and these two prosecutors just didn’t catch it, then the only alternative left is that they actually said what the reporter said they said.
I am truly amazed that you have not been able to grasp it. My sense is that you are not that stupid and that you are either in denial or you are intentionally trying to cloud the issue.
“THAT IS THE QUOTE.”
No, that’s the reporter’s interpretation of what they may or may not have said. The prosecutors don’t deny it in the story because they have no idea how the reporter is going to package the story or interpret their remarks before the story airs. This is the way TV news stories are handled.
“Neither Jennifer Joyce nor Bob McCulloch ( the prosecutors that the reporter was quoting) claim that the reporter misquoted them.”
That’s not so. I quoted Jennifer Joyce above saying that her remarks had been misinterpreted. Her spokesperson has said “the prosecutors did not plan to look for ethics violations and, in fact, could not act on ethics violations without a referral from the Missouri Ethics Commission.” Bob McCulloch has refused to comment.
“…unless you think the reporter was lying about what they said and these two prosecutors just didn’t catch it…”
If I had a nickel for every time a conservative b*tched about the media, I’d be filthy rich. Now your telling that we absolutely must trust the reporter. Go figure. Have you ever been interviewed? Do you know how reporters mangle everything you say? He may be right, he may have lied, or he may have simply made a mess what someone said to him, without understanding the impact. Since we don’t have a transcript of the interviews, we don’t know. All I know is the reporter says one thing and the interviewees say something quite different.
“My sense is that you are not that stupid and that you are either in denial or you are intentionally trying to cloud the issue.”
I’m not stupid. I watch the news story and hear a reporter say something very controversial that is not backed up by anything the interviewees say on camera. It’s that simple, Joel. Neither you nor I have any idea whether Joyce or McCulloch intended to target campaign ethics violators for prosecution, for the simple reason that we have no idea what they told the reporter, other than what is shown on film–which, if it doesn’t contradict what the reporter said, certainly doesn’t confirm it in any way, shape or form.
From the St. Louis Beacon:
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch have denied that they plan criminal prosecutions against those making false statements about Sen. Barack Obama. Gov. Matt Blunt issued a statement on Saturday likening the prosecutors’ involvement in an Obama “truth squad” to the Sedition Acts that made criticism of the president a crime.
“Nobody on this truth squad had any interest in prosecuting anybody,” Joyce said through a spokesperson. McCulloch refused to comment on Monday. Last Friday, he told KMOX’s Mark Reardon that neither he nor Joyce had any plan to file criminal charges. “if there is something that is clearly completely false that has no basis in truth, yeah I’ll be happy to step up and say that just isn’t true.” McCulloch said he would be taking that stand as a private citizen, not a prosecutor.
From reporter John Mills blog:
“Members of law enforcement never said anyone would be prosecuted, indicted or punished for saying anything, only that they were prepared to tell the public the truth.”
http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/kmov_election_092808_truthsquad.bec69e89.html?npc
“That is why the governore issued a statement about it.”
Of course he issued a statement about it. I’m sure he was *delighted* to take advantage of what the news story managed to imply, intentionally or not, about the Obama campaign.
From MyFox St. Louis:
“McCulloch strongly rejected Blunt’s argument. ‘What I said was if it is a lie I’ll call somebody on it and say that’s a lie; tell us the truth. That gets morphed by those with these very sinister motives,’ the prosecutor said. He added, ‘It’s morphed into ‘they are trying to intimidate people into not talking.’”
Sounds like they’ve denied it to me, Joel.
The reporter denies they said, they deny they said it. But I’m sure it’s all a liberal media cover-up to hide the truth.
Grover,
Nice try but no,
The Prosecutors in none of these subsequent stories say that they were MISQUOTED by the reporter. They claim that their remarks have been misrepresented, not by the reporter mind you, but by their critics. those are two entirely different things.
The reporter said that the story had been “twisted out of context” but gave no specifics about what that meant. He did not say that he misquoted or misattributed what the prosecutors said.
As I have pointed out several times before above, the reporter specifically states that the prosectors “say that they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate violate Missouri ethics laws.†The reporter is QUOTING the prosecutors.
Also as I have said before, these prosecutors are seriously backpedaling NOW because of the public outrage that resulted from the story in which they were quoted. Because their jobs and public standing are on the line now they have every reason in the book to try and make their comments looks as non threatening after the fact as possible.
Again this is all easy to both see and understand. These prosecutors are getting spanked and are NOW running for cover.
“The reporter is QUOTING the prosecutors.”
He may be or he may not be, Joel. There’s no way to know unless we see the transcripts of the interviews. There’s NO record that this is actually what they said.
“Sarah Palin says she is in favor of teaching creationism in schools.”
Would you call that a quote?
“Because their jobs and public standing are on the line now they have every reason in the book to try and make their comments looks as non threatening after the fact as possible.”
The only comments I’ve seen or heard from them mimic almost word for word what members of the McCain and Palin Truth Squads have been quoted as saying.
And what happened to “targeting”? I thought they were targeting people.
You’ve gotta hand it to Gov. Blunt for being firm on this issue. The Obama thug squads clearly crossed the line by enlisting sheriffs and prosecutors to push their political agenda, and I think made a strong point that their point about “alleged violation” is extremely cloudy and ambiguous.
Check out Blunt’s interview on Fox News if you haven’t seen it already — http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/29/report-on-obamas-truth-squad-thugs/#comment-813073