See other History Articles
Title: Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller calls Hillary Clinton a 'c***' on Twitter
Source:
Daily Mail
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... Hillary-Clinton-c-Twitter.html
Published: Nov 2, 2016
Author: Chris Spargo
Post Date: 2016-11-02 15:17:34 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 2750
Comments: 38
A Texas official has come under fire after he called Hillary Clinton a 'c***' on Twitter, and then tried to claim it was because his account was hacked. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller posted the offensive comment on Tuesday, tweeting out a Pennsylvania poll that claimed Donald Trump was set to receive 44 per cent of the vote while Clinton was at 43 per cent. Instead of Clinton's name next to her number however, it said the word 'c***.' Soon after claiming his account was hacked, Miller told a different story, claiming that it was a retweet and he was unaware of the offensive language. This explanation was also problematic as the comment was posted directly on his account and not a retweet of another Twitter user's post. Poster Comment: Go Texas ... no defamation here ... she is a cunt !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#6. To: noone222 (#0)
And the hits just keep on rolling in from Texas state capitol: Several Texas Democratic women have denounced the Texas agriculture commissioner as well as Republican Party leadership for staying mum a day after the commissioner’s Twitter account posted a message calling Hillary Clinton a misogynist profanity.
I also think the losing side will protest the vote and demand recounts.
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. (Actually, the constitution applies to non citizens, too.) He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. (Sure, try opening a waste hauling business in a municipality that provides it to residents and businesses.) His power to contract is unlimited. (Oh, really? So, Murder, Inc. may contract assassination services with impunity?) He owes no duty to the state... (Unless he imports goods that are subject to "duties, imposts and excises" the only "duty" that is "owed" is a tax, not to be confused with "He has no obligation...") ...or to his neighbors (?) (Obviously, it would require some really abstract machinations for "him" to "owe" am import tax to neighbors, but did this really need to be said? A solution in search of a problem or, simply pompous twaddle?) ...or to his neighbors (?) (to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to (in)criminate (sic) him. (Too silly to respond to point by point. Was this drafted in crayon?) He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, (Unless he's a govt contractor) beyond the protection of his life and property .... He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. (Jesus! A regular Adam Smith) Whoever drafted this needs to rest, for surely he is babbling gibberish.
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#15)
(Edited)
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/201/43.html United States Supreme Court HALE v. HENKEL, (1906) No. 340 Argued: Decided: March 12, 1906 Supreme Court ruling Hale vs. Henkel If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Mr. Justice Brown, delivered the opinion of the court. This ruling was from a case in 1906 so the Judge is likely Resting In Peace.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestGo Texas ... no defamation here ... she is a cunt !(
#10. To: CadetD (#6)
#15. To: noone222 (#10)
Replies to Comment # 15. Whoever drafted this needs to rest, for surely he is babbling gibberish.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.