Media Tracker (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    6,552
    Reaction score
    3,007
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

    There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


    That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






    Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?
     
    Still waiting for any acknowledgment of any sort from SFL that the shameless GOP members of Congress violated her privacy.

    🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗
    They didn't violate her privacy. She was getting confirmed. What information should someone be able to hide during a congressional confirmation hearing?
     
    I have an expunged record.

    I had it removed when I was 22.

    If you go on my criminal record nothing is there.

    However, if you broke the law and searched the police databases without a warrant you would find that I had committed it through police records and court filings.

    In other words, the only way they found this woman's record was through an illegal search of the database. Which is a much larger crime than the one she had expunged.

    For someone who pretends to care about people's privacy you either are lying or are so ignorant of the law it must hurt your head.

    That would explain all the nonsense here btw.
     
    And even after this has pointed out to him multiple times, he still doubles down on his error. Kind of tells you everything about him, rather than anything about her.
     
    You still haven’t looked up expunged have you? Come on, educate yourself.
    It was expunged from her record, but it doesn't change the fact that she was arrested for violence. She lied I'm her confirmation hearing.
     
    It was expunged from her record, but it doesn't change the fact that she was arrested for violence. She lied I'm her confirmation hearing.
    And? Try having a point someday. Flooding the board with non-stop bullschlitz that is either opinion or has been debunked while claiming that said flooding is fact is more than annoying. It underscores that your false god has succeeded in the destruction of what Jefferson held in high esteem.
     
    It was expunged from her record, but it doesn't change the fact that she was arrested for violence. She lied I'm her confirmation hearing.

    Actually, in a legal sense, she has never been arrested. That's what expunged means.
     
    It was expunged from her record, but it doesn't change the fact that she was arrested for violence. She lied I'm her confirmation hearing.
    She wasn’t convicted, IIRC. She isn’t required to disclose this type of record if it has been expunged. You are only required to disclose expunged convictions if they impact the job you are applying for.

    This is what I found with a 30 second Google search.
     
    She wasn’t convicted, IIRC. She isn’t required to disclose this type of record if it has been expunged. You are only required to disclose expunged convictions if they impact the job you are applying for.

    This is what I found with a 30 second Google search.
    Applying for a job is quite different than being confirmed by Congress. What information should someone be able to keep from Congress during a confirmation hearing?

    I'm well aware that it's been expunged from her record, but it doesn't change the fact she lied about it in her confirmation hearing.

    How hard would it have been to say I have been arrested for violence one time, but it was expunged from my record?
     
    Applying for a job is quite different than being confirmed by Congress. What information should someone be able to keep from Congress during a confirmation hearing?

    I'm well aware that it's been expunged from her record, but it doesn't change the fact she lied about it in her confirmation hearing.

    How hard would it have been to say I have been arrested for violence one time, but it was expunged from my record?
    That’s a legal question - and neither you nor I know the exact answer to it. Arrests are expunged because they were a mistake, normally, and disclosure of them will wrongfully impact that person’s future employment or quality of life. Her arrest had nothing to do with her ability to do that job, it was a mistake that didn’t result in her being charged. I don’t blame her for treating it as if it didn’t happen.

    What I find fascinating is that you, who say you care a lot about a person’s right to privacy, don’t think she’s entitled to any privacy over this?

    If the members of Congress had questions about an expunged arrest, why not avail themselves of the opportunity to discuss this in their private interviews with the nominee? Why lay a trap and spring it on her during open session? Seems they don’t care about what happened, they only wanted to play politics with it and don’t care who gets their privacy invaded because of it.

    It was disgusting.
     
    Once again, from what I could find, she was arrested, not convicted, and so didn’t have to disclose an expunged arrest. GOP were butt crevasses for bringing it up in public. They had ample opportunity to ask her in the private interviews if they had any questions about it at all. But instead they violated her privacy in this matter shamelessly. And SFL doesn’t give a single shirt about privacy in her case. I wonder why? Oh, it’s because she isn’t MAGA and so he doesn’t care. If she were MAGA he’d be in here gnashing his teeth about her right to privacy.
     
    Once again, from what I could find, she was arrested, not convicted, and so didn’t have to disclose an expunged arrest. GOP were butt crevasses for bringing it up in public. They had ample opportunity to ask her in the private interviews if they had any questions about it at all. But instead they violated her privacy in this matter shamelessly. And SFL doesn’t give a single shirt about privacy in her case. I wonder why? Oh, it’s because she isn’t MAGA and so he doesn’t care. If she were MAGA he’d be in here gnashing his teeth about her right to privacy.
    Is this still in question? I figured @SaintForLife figured out how to use the Google machine by now! Here's what I found from google search for "expungement"...2nd result:
    Art. 973. Effect of expunged record of arrest or conviction

    A. An expunged record of arrest or conviction shall be confidential and no longer considered to be a public record and shall not be made available to any person or other entity except for the following:

    (1) To a member of a law enforcement or criminal justice agency or prosecutor who shall request that information in writing, certifying that the request is for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or enforcing criminal law, for the purpose of any other statutorily defined law enforcement or administrative duties, or for the purposes of the requirements of sex offender registration and notification pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 15:540 et seq.

    (2) On order of a court of competent jurisdiction and after a contradictory hearing for good cause shown.

    (3) To the person whose record has been expunged or his counsel.

    (4) To a member of a law enforcement or criminal justice agency, prosecutor, or judge, who requests that information in writing, certifying that the request is for the purpose of defending a law enforcement, criminal justice agency, or prosecutor in a civil suit for damages resulting from wrongful arrest or other civil litigation and the expunged record is necessary to provide a proper defense.

    B. Upon written request therefor and on a confidential basis, the information contained in an expunged record may be released to the following entities that shall maintain the confidentiality of such record: the Office of Financial Institutions, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, the Louisiana State Board of Nursing, the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners, the Emergency Medical Services Certification Commission, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, the Louisiana Department of Insurance, the Louisiana Licensed Professional Counselors Board of Examiners, the Louisiana State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, or any person or entity requesting a record of all criminal arrests and convictions pursuant to R.S. 15:587.1, or as otherwise provided by law.

    C. Except as to those persons and other entities set forth in Paragraph A of this Article, no person whose record of arrest or conviction has been expunged shall be required to disclose to any person that he was arrested or convicted of the subject offense, or that the record of the arrest or conviction has been expunged.

    D. Any person who fails to maintain the confidentiality of records as required by the provisions of this Article shall be subject to contempt proceedings.
    The enlarge and bolded are the pertinent text.
    Now, I know that's Louisiana law, but C'mon man, it's LOUISIANA law and I'm certain that there are at least 40 other states in the union with stronger protections.
     
    CNN should not be trusted for honest legal analysis after featuring Honig and another guy who I have forgotten his name. They were / are in the bag for Trump and were called out for lying on air about Trump’s case.

     
    There are no ethical reporters left at Fox News. You can call it a wrap.

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom