Discussion for article #245120
2 Likes
Ouch! Twenty years for a false driver’s license. Underage drinkers take note.
7 Likes
But, but, this was supposed to be a Republican white-wash against Planned Parenthood.
What is wrong with Amurican Justice???
(says 3 Republican candidates so far)
15 Likes
Sounds like some real justice, as long as a conviction and jail time is the outcome.
4 Likes
Don’t even need to go there.
Hey G4A, can I buy some enriched uranium?
That does not, in fact, imply that you have enriched uranium, nor does it imply you intend to sell it to anyone even if you did.
11 Likes
I have to applaud that Texas Grand Jury for finding the ACTUAL crimes committed, as opposed to the phony ones these liars tried (and failed) to manufacture.
They’re going to have a rough time trying to make a 1st Amendment defense on this one, because ya don’t get to commit crimes in the name of journalism.
29 Likes
Mm…Yellow cake.
7 Likes
That part there also ignores the fact that the law in question also includes phrasing that merely attempting to purchase human organs is itself illegal.
It’s the same deal with drugs or prostitution: You don’t actually have to receive the drugs or sex in order to be charged for the attempt.
20 Likes
As much as I hate these clowns, I think the use of fake ID’s for an undercover investigation like this should be considered protected activity under the First Amendment. Environmental and animal protection advocates are fighting ag-gag laws on a similar theory.
This gets more and more interesting. Now we learn the grand jury knew from its first meeting there was nothing indictable about PP or any of its people. What still isn’t clear to me is how they were able to pivot to these creeps and their fake IDs? Could that info have been in the PP depositions?
3 Likes
He also argued that “buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well.”
“So, since Planned Parenthood wasn’t selling fetal tissue, we are totally innocent. Wait, no, that can’t be right. Hold on …”
9 Likes
I can’t agree with you when it comes to actually using forged identification. Reporters, like cops, can make false statements, or allude to an official capacity to nail down a suspect or get a story, but false ID is a step over the line.
That siad, I hope PP has invested in some media training for all of its people, and engaged in some media/meeting 101s, like confirming that people really are who they say they are before you meet with them…
9 Likes
Didn’t Jim Rockford have a little printing press in the trunk of his Firebird to make whatever business card he needed in a particular situation?
2 Likes
What? Attorney is arguing there was no seller? but that’s not what the client says…client says PP was SELLING fetal tissue. So what if he asked for it first? his own words say they were indeed selling.
3 Likes
Why is a false ID over the line? What harm did the activists do? It’s not like they used it to get out of a ticket for driving without a license, or to defraud the government of welfare benefits for profit. They did it for information to disseminate for political advocacy purposes which is the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect. The government should not be sending people to jail for using deception in this way. Upton Sinclair lied to get into a slaughterhouse for his expose “The Jungle” – would you send him to jail, even if he had used a fake ID to get that job? Of course not.
“the count could bring up to 20 years in prison”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh man…we’ll never hear the end of the Mandela comparisons from the Teatrolls hahahaha…
5 Likes
The actual charge is Tampering with a Governmental Record, with the additional circumstance of doing so to cause harm to others. That is what the 20 years is about.
10 Likes
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The forging and fraudulent use of faked governmental documents, particularly identification, is a crime with steep penalties because it threatens the integrity of the entire ID system. It has nothing to do with whether it was used against the gov’t to “get out of a ticket” versus some sort of fraud that did not involve the using it against the government, etc. It also has nothing to do with the First Amendment. To the extent that fraudulent use of a forged government ID could even be remotely considered “speech,” it is clearly subject to limitation and regulation and prior restraint, and it is not in any way made “political” in nature because of the fraudster’s ultimate goal of trying to manufacture a political shitstorrm with their fraudulent behavior and fabrications. You are waaaaay off base on the legal analysis. Put down the Fischer Price briefcase and step away from the keyboard.
As for Upton Sinclair, he didn’t forge an official government ID or document. It’s a totally broken attempt at an analogy and therefore irrelevant.
30 Likes
He would also use every business card he was handed as a later ready-in-his-pocket disguise.
Read what you just wrote.
The people who made the film were con artists. And when PP didn’t say or do anything that would serve the purpose of the filmmakers, even when the footage was edited for effect, they imported footage to deceive viewers.
Investigation…bah!
18 Likes