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: 2066
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 # 34.
#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.
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.
Thank you for an intelligent and well intentioned response. In a recent post I explained in detail the difference between the absolute right not to be a witness against oneself whether or not the info is incriminating (which is unassailable,) and the privilege against self incrimination which the courts can override by granting the witness immunity against prosecution. If you are the target of a criminal trial you cannot be forced to even take the stand and give your name. This is the absolute right protected by the 5th amendment. If, however you are a yet to be identified co-conspirator and you're subpoenaed as a witness because the prosecutor needs your testimony to convict the ring leader you could be asked a question that directly implicates you. The court can then grant you limited immunity and force you to testify against Mr Big. In this instance your invocation of the much lower privilege against self incrimination is not absolute, and can be defeated. Okay so far? You cannot refuse to be an innocent witness against another, but you can refuse to give self-incriminating statements in the course of that testimony. (which the courts had no prior knowledge of. Which is why you received a witness subpoena instead of a criminal indictment and a summons, or a goon squad, dog killing take down arrest team). When summoned to appear to answer for a crime with which you are charged you may invoke the right not to be a self witness. ("Your honor, I do not claim to be the defendant, Horst Schmidt. I wish for the court to subpoena his wife, mother, school teachers, etc to testify and prove that I am indeed the defendant named in this indictment." In the absence of fingerprints or DNA on file you could bust their ovaries this way if you are determined that "No self witness, period!") But if you take the stand and answer a single question you have walked through the looking glass and there is no turning back to the umbrella of the absolute right. But if the state and court agree to immunize you for any self incriminating testimony, you can then be compelled to testify under penalty of imprisonment. Your argument was further distorted with the case of a corporate officer and his company records. You're not entirely responsible because resources (such as Wikipedia) have mislabeled the privilege as a "right" against self incrimination. And at present corporations have been granted limited corporate personhood which is silly because a corporation cannot be jailed but only fined for actual mala in se crimes. This is one of the reasons why future supreme court appointments give so many on both sides serious red asses. Please read the entry about the efforts to reverse court rulings supporting corporate personhood, and a constitutional amendment banning such mischief forever. Corporate officers hang together when sharing profits and bonuses, so let them hang together for corporate crimes. There is no dispute about the original intent by the drafters of our beloved constitution. And I understand the legal minutia because of years of study, particularly about how the IRS tricks people into granting jurisdiction and thus volunteering to weave their own nooses. One could just as easily dispute your cited example with this:"A bookkeeper is offered an immediate vice presidency to take over the books for a corporation, and as soon as he inspects them he reports hidden manipulations that conceal white collar criminal activity. Because he was in no way involved in the crime he can readily testify against the corporation. He would neither need nor ask for immunity nor would he REFUSE TO TESTIFY. And if a company (such as UNION CARBIDE) had through reckless disregard for human life caused the deaths of hundreds, their corporate officers should be jailed. Simply subtracting from the obscenely bulging bottom line of a fictitious corporate person is not justice, but a miscarriage. By mis-labeling an absolute right of refusal to testify as "self incrimination" instead of "self witness" it wrongfully implies that someone has something to hide. The founders in their wisdom intended to state that, "If you have a case then make it with no help from me. It simply doesn't benefit me to assist you in your wrongful prosecution of an innocent man." If America ever retraces her footsteps and turns away from corporate fascism, then this ghastly chapter of our history will take its place along side slavery, and the involuntary experimentation upon and forced sterilization of countless victims.
Limited corporate personhood is a huge fraud that pollutes the legal system and allows criminals within them protection from prosecution. Truth be told, our entire system is usurped by commercial law, commercial paper (fiat money and credit). That ruling from 1906 means nothing in our current system. The words of that ruling were pertinent in 1906 but meaningless once constitutional money was eliminated and a new monetary system incorporated. In effect we were drawn into the Banking System and out of the Constitutional one. "We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave." Louis McFadden former banker and congressman
Depending on which website you look at the Dollar has lost 92% to 98% of its value since the inception of the FED.
There are no replies to Comment # 34. End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
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)
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#15)
(Edited)
Whoever drafted this needs to rest, for surely he is babbling gibberish.
#21. To: noone222 (#19)
(Edited)
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#21)
#34. To: noone222 (#23)
Replies to Comment # 34.