Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt are Liars
Last night’s presidential debate was business as usual for the mainstream media; protect the Democrat, fillet the Republican. Hillary Clinton received preferential treatment and protection from the Democrat moderator, Lester Holt. There was no clearer evidence of Lester Holt’s bias than when he joined with Hillary Clinton to refute Donald Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that stop and frisk policing is constitutional. Trump is correct, and Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt are liars!
The SCOTUS rendered an opinion in Terry v. Ohio that stop and frisk is a valuable, constitutional policing method that can effectively shield people and businesses from nefarious activities. The State of Ohio argued that distinctions have to be made between a “stop” and an “arrest” and between a “frisk” and a “search.” The argument is that “the police should be allowed to stop a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity.” When there is probable cause that a person may be armed, “the police have to have the power to frisk him for weapons.” The State of Ohio claimed, and the majority opinion of the SCOTUS affirmed, that there is no “substantial constitutional question” related to stop and frisk. Clinton and Holt are ignorant of Terry v. Holt, or they have convenient amnesia.
Clinton and Holt skewered Trump for his support of stop and frisk and claimed the practice is unconstitutional. The basis for Clinton and Holt’s argument is the arbitrary opinion of a retired judge, Shira Scheindlin, who while presiding over a stop and frisk case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down Terry v. Ohio by ruling that stop and frisk is unconstitutional and “called for a federal monitor to oversee the New York Police Department (NYPD) and for cops to wear body cameras while on patrol.” Scheindlin’s progressive, unlawful ruling was put on hold, and she was removed from the case by an appellate panel that determined her impartiality “ran afoul” of judicial ethics.
The three-judge panel ruled that Scheindlin violated the code of conduct for U.S. judges by failing to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities” and should have recused herself from the case because her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Clinton and Holt decided that their fellow progressive, Scheindlin, has the final say on stop and frisk. Therefore, the practice is unconstitutional. However, the SCOTUS ruled that stop and frisk is constitutional, so the ruling of Scheindlin is irrelevant, and Clinton and Holt are liars.
The first presidential debate of 2016 proved once again that a Republican of any stripe cannot get a fair and balanced forum for debating the Democrat candidate. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has the power to influence the choice of venue, network, and moderator for each debate, but it appears that the RNC lacks the backbone to insist on a different set of circumstances for the debates.