One of the more outrageous errors that caught my attention during the debate, was Hillary’s claim that “Stop and Frisk” was made unconstitutional in part because if was ineffective. Not true. Here’s the case law on stop and frisk. Terry v. Ohio, U.S. Supreme Court decision, issued on June 10, 1968, which held that police encounters known as stop-and-frisks, in which members of the public are stopped for questioning and patted down for weapons and drugs without probable cause, do not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.
This case law is still valid and this is why stop and frisk is still practiced by most law enforcement agencies, but perhaps not as vigorously as it once was due to politics in certain big cities like New York or Chicago, but not because it is unconstitutional. Clinton is a lawyer and the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio should be quite familiar to her, it is virtually every law school graduate in the last 40 plus years. And further, since when has the Supreme Court applied the standard of something being “ineffective” as a litmus test for Constitutionality? If you said NEVER, you would be 100% correct, unlike Mrs. Clinton who is 100% wrong.
Mrs. Clinton told a whopper when Trump called her on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was much like the old NAFTA deal. Trump said, “You want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it, then you heard what I was saying – how bad it is – and you said, I can’t win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.”
Hillary replied: That is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about in — Trump interjected, “You called it the gold standard. You call it the gold standard of trade deals.” And yes… she did. Clinton wrote in her book Hard Choices that the TPP was the “gold standard” of trade deals, and she appeared very much in favor of it as President Obama’s secretary of state. She said it “would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property.” She called it “important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field.” She also called it “a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.” Facing a serious populist primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, however, Clinton shifted her position left. Mrs. Clinton lied.
Mrs. C said something next that I took strong exception too. “Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way? Stop and risk was found to be unconstitutional. And in part because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do.” So everyone in America, including the cops are racist? What a whopper that one is!
Mrs. Clinton was wrong about this too… “Now I believe in community policing and in fact violent crime is one half of what it was in 1991; property crime is down 40 percent. We just don’t want to see it creep back up.” HUH, where has she been? The current FBI data report says that violent crime increased by nearly 4 percent between 2014 and 2015, with murders rising by nearly 11 percent. Then Hillary followed up that whopper with another, “Well, it’s also fair to say, if we’re going to talk about mayors that under the current mayor crime has continued to drop, including murders.” Nope, again murders are up.
Trump called her on this one. “You’re wrong.” “No, I’m not!” Hillary replied. “Murders murders are up.” Trump countered and he was right.