I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
I'm not sure if they were reporting it dishonestly or if they were reporting what Trump was claiming. Not necessarily what they personally believe.
Is it only permissible for journalists or opinion figures to report something they themselves believe? They can't report info someone else's believes?
Do you think every journalist has never reported on something that they may or may not believe themselves?
If they were reporting what Trump was saying and doing, but did not believe what he was saying themselves, so what?
Unless they made definitive claims that this was in fact happening, not just reporting what Trump was saying, I do not think they are defamatory. Even if they used selective language to suggest its true. Unless they said, "Dominion is interfering with a US election, there is no doubt about it. And Dominion caused Trump to lose an election. They are bad." And then, Dominion suffered actual significant damages, then that could be considered defamation.
It's a grey area but lies do not immediately breach the first amendment. Every politition would be sued. Dominion also has to prove that they had suffered damages because of alleged lies. You can't take people to court for saying a lie about you unless is has caused damages. Could you imagine if everyone sued a person for saying a lie about them?
Dominion has a large burden to prove this is not protected speech. However it doesn't matter anyway, you do not seem to value freedom of speech much. Or freedom of beliefs either.
I know the people who are involved in this case are opinion commentators. And a opinion part of FOX news. There is many other departments that made up FOX. Not just these commentators and their obvious opinion shows.
If Trump wasn't a threat, they wouldn't be pulling these obvious political theater stunts. And that's what they said about him last time LOL.
You're not sure. OK
Yes, they endorsed the theories and claims... that's researchable (to a degree) for the average person with access to the internet.
Trump is the individual turning it into political theater... that's his strategy. There's never been this much whining and posturing about the DOJ investigation or indictment of corrupt politicians before the era of Trump. Now you have McCarthy promising immediate congressional intervention. I bet that's not the political theater you were talking about, is it?
Do you remember the big protests and outrage when Agnew was forced to resign (asVP) because of felonies or when John Edwards was convicted of that bush money charge that's so similar to the hush money case against Trump? Maybe you aren't aware that one of the ways that Trump could be considered a threat today is that he has the power to make some conservatives behave in very agitated and aggressive ways over ridiculous lies and misrepresentations. He inspires some of his fans to break things or make threats as he divides the GOP along fealty lines. That's pretty dangerous so it qualifies a threatening, right?
Unless the election results are tampered with, most people are confident that Trump cannot win the presidency in a free and fair election... he definitely couldn't even do it when he had the huge advantage of incumbency... so odds are against him.
Months after the implementation of the most stringent abortion ban in the country, conservative lawmakers in Tennessee have publicly acknowledged that the state's ban poses grave risks to the lives of women.
Quote
Will Brewer, the powerful lobbyist of Tennessee Right to Life, a Christian anti-abortion group that wrote the current ban, has been accused of waging a campaign of intimidation against lawmakers who he has said are seeking to "weaken" the law. In public testimony and private meetings, Brewer has said women should only be offered terminations if they are facing acute emergencies – such as when they enter an emergency room "bleeding out" – and suggested some complications can "work themselves out" without medical intervention.
The antiabortion lobbyist is trying to intimidate the conservative lawmakers? Is intimidation part of the conservative political playbook in the era of Trump? Kind of seems like it. Intimidating poll workers, election officials, witnesses, and even trying to intimidate the republican lawmakers have all been reported in the era of Trump.
That lobbyist's opinion about pregnancy and the complications associated with pregnancy are interesting aren't they? He wrote the law affecting reproductive health related to pregnancy even though he clearly is a dangerous idiot about reproductive health.
Quote
Speaking last week before the West Knoxville Republican Club, Brewer also questioned the veracity of medical diagnoses involving what is known as lethal fetal anomalies.
"Who's to say with any kind of certainty what a medically futile pregnancy is or a fatal fetal anomaly, which is some condition with the baby that will not allow it to live outside of the womb?” he said.
Clearly he thinks that his, or any random opinion about fetal viability is relevant and valuable. I wonder if he gets his medical advice from people who simply have opinions about the specialty?
Quote
At least one Republican lawmaker, state senator Richard Briggs, who is also a heart surgeon, has suggested that he co-sponsored the trigger bill without fully understanding its implications. Briggs has proposed a new law so that doctors – using their "good faith judgment" – could perform abortions to prevent or treat medical emergencies. It also allows women to terminate pregnancies if the fetus is not viable.
Briggs said he is still vehemently opposed to abortion. But in an interview, he said the current ban posed risks to the lives of women and girls, and cited a conversation he had with one obstetrician who told him about two pregnant patients she had seen since July who were just 12 years old.
"A fifth-grader ... their bodies are not prepared to carry a pregnancy to term. There is irreparable damage that can be done that will render it impossible for her to have children in the future. That is what Right to Life does,” he said in reference to the group that wrote the law.
Even the doctor signed onto the poorly thought out law because he is more anti-abortion than he is pro- excellence in reproductive health care. I wonder if he thinks that politics should interfere in other care decisions... like cardiology maybe.
That producer claims that corporate attorneys coerced her to provide sworn testimony in her deposition that benefited Fix but damaged her. FOX is seeking a restraining order to quiet her.
It's going to be an interesting, messy and contentious trial. I can't wait.
Yes, they endorsed the theories and claims... that's researchable (to a degree) for the average person with access to the internet.
Trump is the individual turning it into political theater... that's his strategy. There's never been this much whining and posturing about the DOJ investigation or indictment of corrupt politicians before the era of Trump. Now you have McCarthy promising immediate congressional intervention. I bet that's not the political theater you were talking about, is it?
Do you remember the big protests and outrage when Agnew was forced to resign (asVP) because of felonies or when John Edwards was convicted of that bush money charge that's so similar to the hush money case against Trump? Maybe you aren't aware that one of the ways that Trump could be considered a threat today is that he has the power to make some conservatives behave in very agitated and aggressive ways over ridiculous lies and misrepresentations. He inspires some of his fans to break things or make threats as he divides the GOP along fealty lines. That's pretty dangerous so it qualifies a threatening, right?
Unless the election results are tampered with, most people are confident that Trump cannot win the presidency in a free and fair election... he definitely couldn't even do it when he had the huge advantage of incumbency... so odds are against him.
Unless the results are "tampered with"? Are you seting up for an election denial? Didn't you just accuse Trump of doing the samething? I wonder if some of the democrats will question the election again if he wins?
Unless Trump is charged and convicted of "making his fans break things" then it will only be opinion and speculation. And even if he was convicted, "juries are unpredictable " anyway. Didn't you say that?
No president has even been presued the way Trump has. I can agree with that. They said the same in 2016 about Trump winning the presidency.
McCarthy is investigating potential corruption in the justice system. Which he should. Our justice system must be held under high scrutiny so that there is no chance of political corruption. If there is, then it's no longer justice, it's tyranny.
That producer claims that corporate attorneys coerced her to provide sworn testimony in her deposition that benefited Fix but damaged her. FOX is seeking a restraining order to quiet her.
It's going to be an interesting, messy and contentious trial. I can't wait.
You can't wait? You can't wait to hear the facts and still believe what you already do? What's the point?
The antiabortion lobbyist is trying to intimidate the conservative lawmakers? Is intimidation part of the conservative political playbook in the era of Trump? Kind of seems like it. Intimidating poll workers, election officials, witnesses, and even trying to intimidate the republican lawmakers have all been reported in the era of Trump.
That lobbyist's opinion about pregnancy and the complications associated with pregnancy are interesting aren't they? He wrote the law affecting reproductive health related to pregnancy even though he clearly is a dangerous idiot about reproductive health.
Clearly he thinks that his, or any random opinion about fetal viability is relevant and valuable. I wonder if he gets his medical advice from people who simply have opinions about the specialty?
Even the doctor signed onto the poorly thought out law because he is more anti-abortion than he is pro- excellence in reproductive health care. I wonder if he thinks that politics should interfere in other care decisions... like cardiology maybe.
Talk about hyperbole? Cardiology? The medical speciality of cardiology seeks to keep the heart beating to sustain life, not stop it from beating and ending life. Very different.
Have you ever heard of a cardiologist stopping a beating heart to save a life? Get real.
Do you suppose comments like these may excite someone to committ a terrorist attack at pregnancy centre? Because you may have caused them to think that the speciality of cardiology is at risk? Would you be guilty of incitement? Or woukd you consider yourself a hero, because domestic terrorist attacks are okay in some instances?
(Yes a heart is stopped for some surgical interventions like transplant, so save yourself from this rebuttal. However the objective is to sustain the life and provide a beating heart).
Oh nooooo. You can't use FOX as a credible source! Don't you know? There is a defemation law case against a few opinion commentators that hasn't concluded yet. So that means that FOX news in it intirety, will forever more be disqualified for everything!! No matter the outcome of the trial? Ypu know, juries are unpredictable! Besides, it's only the Republicans that call to defund the police. And investigate possible corruption!
Sounds like another Democrat hypocrite. Her pandering to the far left activist have caused her some trouble. I feel sorry for her constituents.
Do you remember the big protests and outrage when Agnew was forced to resign (asVP) because of felonies or when John Edwards was convicted ofthat bush money charge that's so similar to the hush money case against Trump? ...
[...]
I remember Mr. Edwards being charged but thought he was found not guilty.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Unless the results are "tampered with"? Are you seting up for an election denial? Didn't you just accuse Trump of doing the samething? I wonder if some of the democrats will question the election again if he wins?
Unless Trump is charged and convicted of "making his fans break things" then it will only be opinion and speculation. And even if he was convicted, "juries are unpredictable " anyway. Didn't you say that?
No president has even been presued the way Trump has. I can agree with that. They said the same in 2016 about Trump winning the presidency.
McCarthy is investigating potential corruption in the justice system. Which he should. Our justice system must be held under high scrutiny so that there is no chance of political corruption. If there is, then it's no longer justice, it's tyranny.
You can't wait? You can't wait to hear the facts and still believe what you already do? What's the point?
No, silly, I'm reminding you that Republican's in a bunch of states have at least attempted to give themselves some leeway to interfere in election results. You read about it in the credible citations just recently, right?
Your remarks make it sound like you think that Trump is a victim of some extraordinary scrutiny... that all of the legal attention he's experiencing is undeserved and unevidenced. Tell me more about why you think that Trump is the most "presued" president in history? Do you think that Nixon was going to be charged with a felony and that's why he was pardoned? What do you think would have happened had Agnew not resigned before Nixon was impeached and resigned? Were they also victims of extraordinary political investigations or is Trump different?
When was the last time that Congress inserted itself into the middle of a criminal investigation? Congressional investigation occurs parallel to DOJ or state investigation. It is not constitutional for the legislative branch to, under the guise of an investigation, usurp the power of another branch of government. That's a known. We can pretend that McCarthy's actions don't appear to be just exactly that. There literally is no urgency that would require McCarthy to take this iinvestigative acting and leave this very inappropriate impression. It's reckless and forever damages confidence in his ability to make sound decisions for the country rather than for party loyalties. IMV
McCarthy should maybe investigate why Bill Barr had the DOJ put a stop to this NY State investigation after Cohen was convicted... specifying that no further conspirators in that felony should be charged or prosecuted. That would be a worthwhile and not terribly political thing to investigate, right? Doesn't it seem odd that Barr would do that when he knew that Trump was the unidicted co-conspirator in Cohen's case?
You do know that there is documentary evidence that connects Trump personally to the felony conduct and that evidence is the basis for the investigation, right? Or do you think this NY case is all just made up for the political purpose of attacking Trump?
It's a bit tedious to have to clarify so many points for you. I'm looking forward to the trial. I hope that is going to be televised. I think that it will be interesting and contentious and messy... good entertainment. Did you get the point that time?
No, silly, I'm reminding you that Republican's in a bunch of states have at least attempted to give themselves some leeway to interfere in election results. You read about it in the credible citations just recently, right?
Your remarks make it sound like you think that Trump is a victim of some extraordinary scrutiny... that all of the legal attention he's experiencing is undeserved and unevidenced. Tell me more about why you think that Trump is the most "presued" president in history? Do you think that Nixon was going to be charged with a felony and that's why he was pardoned? What do you think would have happened had Agnew not resigned before Nixon was impeached and resigned? Were they also victims of extraordinary political investigations or is Trump different?
When was the last time that Congress inserted itself into the middle of a criminal investigation? Congressional investigation occurs parallel to DOJ or state investigation. It is not constitutional for the legislative branch to, under the guise of an investigation, usurp the power of another branch of government. That's a known. We can pretend that McCarthy's actions don't appear to be just exactly that. There literally is no urgency that would require McCarthy to take this iinvestigative acting and leave this very inappropriate impression. It's reckless and forever damages confidence in his ability to make sound decisions for the country rather than for party loyalties. IMV
McCarthy should maybe investigate why Bill Barr had the DOJ put a stop to this NY State investigation after Cohen was convicted... specifying that no further conspirators in that felony should be charged or prosecuted. That would be a worthwhile and not terribly political thing to investigate, right? Doesn't it seem odd that Barr would do that when he knew that Trump was the unidicted co-conspirator in Cohen's case?
You do know that there is documentary evidence that connects Trump personally to the felony conduct and that evidence is the basis for the investigation, right? Or do you think this NY case is all just made up for the political purpose of attacking Trump?
It's a bit tedious to have to clarify so many points for you. I'm looking forward to the trial. I hope that is going to be televised. I think that it will be interesting and contentious and messy... good entertainment. Did you get the point that time?
Maybe because the seething rage and hatred against Trump from the left that started before his inauguration is unprecedented in history. Bragg will end up being Mike Nifong when he gets done with his witch hunt and kangaroo court proceedings.
toomuchbaloney
16,238 Posts
You're not sure. OK
Yes, they endorsed the theories and claims... that's researchable (to a degree) for the average person with access to the internet.
Trump is the individual turning it into political theater... that's his strategy. There's never been this much whining and posturing about the DOJ investigation or indictment of corrupt politicians before the era of Trump. Now you have McCarthy promising immediate congressional intervention. I bet that's not the political theater you were talking about, is it?
Do you remember the big protests and outrage when Agnew was forced to resign (asVP) because of felonies or when John Edwards was convicted of that bush money charge that's so similar to the hush money case against Trump? Maybe you aren't aware that one of the ways that Trump could be considered a threat today is that he has the power to make some conservatives behave in very agitated and aggressive ways over ridiculous lies and misrepresentations. He inspires some of his fans to break things or make threats as he divides the GOP along fealty lines. That's pretty dangerous so it qualifies a threatening, right?
Unless the election results are tampered with, most people are confident that Trump cannot win the presidency in a free and fair election... he definitely couldn't even do it when he had the huge advantage of incumbency... so odds are against him.