HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Jerry Jones Testifies Tru...

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:34 AM

Jerry Jones Testifies Trump "Persuaded" NFL to Write Anthem Rule for His Benefit. That's a Crime

@ShaunKing
BOMBSHELL.

Testimony from @dallascowboys owner Jerry Jones just leaked from his deposition in the Colin Kaepernick NFL collusion case.

He implicates Trump in a crime and says Trump told him not to let it go because it was good for him politically.


@ShaunKing
Jerry Jones just testified under oath that the President of the United States violated 18 US Code 227 and specifically told him what policy he wanted and said it was important because it was good for him politically.

Jones openly admits Trump is using the NFL for political gain










MORE:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/30/jerry-jones-president-made-it-clear-that-he-wasnt-letting-anthem-issue-go/

101 replies, 12646 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 101 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jerry Jones Testifies Trump "Persuaded" NFL to Write Anthem Rule for His Benefit. That's a Crime (Original post)
kpete May 2018 OP
Roland99 May 2018 #1
George II May 2018 #20
Roland99 May 2018 #50
George II May 2018 #63
George II May 2018 #65
Roland99 May 2018 #79
Roland99 May 2018 #80
triron May 2018 #95
Cha May 2018 #2
Heartstrings May 2018 #15
Ligyron May 2018 #85
Cha May 2018 #88
Cha May 2018 #87
Heartstrings May 2018 #89
kentuck May 2018 #3
uponit7771 May 2018 #8
RandomAccess May 2018 #42
mountain grammy Jun 2018 #97
CakeGrrl May 2018 #4
tulipsandroses May 2018 #5
kchamberlin25 May 2018 #81
yonder May 2018 #6
oasis May 2018 #16
uponit7771 May 2018 #7
mikeysnot May 2018 #9
Chickensoup May 2018 #10
Thomas Hurt May 2018 #29
Chickensoup May 2018 #57
Maraya1969 May 2018 #11
tblue37 May 2018 #35
Buns_of_Fire May 2018 #12
Bernardo de La Paz May 2018 #13
Initech May 2018 #14
They_Live May 2018 #17
onenote May 2018 #18
Lee-Lee May 2018 #24
jberryhill May 2018 #31
exboyfil May 2018 #32
onenote May 2018 #51
MyOwnPeace May 2018 #76
onenote May 2018 #77
Lee-Lee May 2018 #45
Pepsidog May 2018 #49
Sophia4 May 2018 #53
jberryhill May 2018 #62
Sophia4 May 2018 #68
jberryhill May 2018 #69
Sophia4 May 2018 #71
Pepsidog May 2018 #96
triron May 2018 #72
jberryhill May 2018 #73
Lee-Lee May 2018 #75
femmedem Jun 2018 #98
LanternWaste May 2018 #34
Lee-Lee May 2018 #46
onenote May 2018 #52
NewJeffCT May 2018 #19
LittleGirl May 2018 #21
Baitball Blogger May 2018 #22
Gothmog May 2018 #23
bitterross May 2018 #25
Beausoleil May 2018 #26
barbtries May 2018 #27
JustAnotherGen May 2018 #28
MariaCSR May 2018 #43
Lee-Lee May 2018 #48
JustAnotherGen Jun 2018 #99
workinclasszero May 2018 #30
riversedge May 2018 #33
leftynyc May 2018 #36
Uncle Joe May 2018 #37
SunSeeker May 2018 #38
EffieBlack May 2018 #39
onenote May 2018 #54
EffieBlack May 2018 #64
onenote May 2018 #78
EffieBlack May 2018 #82
onenote May 2018 #84
EffieBlack May 2018 #86
onenote May 2018 #91
EffieBlack May 2018 #92
onenote May 2018 #93
Me. May 2018 #40
Lee-Lee May 2018 #41
avebury May 2018 #44
duforsure May 2018 #47
Kablooie May 2018 #55
former9thward May 2018 #56
FBaggins May 2018 #59
PaulX2 May 2018 #58
Top 10 Idiots May 2018 #60
LiberalLovinLug May 2018 #61
tclambert May 2018 #66
bigbrother05 May 2018 #67
C Moon May 2018 #70
Hugin May 2018 #74
Amaryllis May 2018 #90
spanone May 2018 #83
Scurrilous May 2018 #94
ck4829 Jun 2018 #100
rocktivity Jun 2018 #101

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:36 AM

1. Not the least but surprised. And the "liberal media" will surely be all over this!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #1)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:20 PM

20. That took only two minutes. Did you see the link?

NBC SPORTS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #20)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:36 PM

50. Ooooo. NBC Sports! Massive audience!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #50)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:12 PM

63. Well, you were claiming that the "liberal media" wouldn't cover it, but in the OP it was....

....clearly demonstrated that the "liberal media" (regardless of your characterization of "NBC Sports" ) in fact DID cover it, and I've seen other news outlets covering the story too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #1)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:15 PM

65. CNN, Yahoo, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Star-Telegram (Dallas)....

...and many others have covered this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #65)

Thu May 31, 2018, 04:05 PM

79. But are they covering it as a crime which would presume immediate investigations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #65)

Thu May 31, 2018, 04:13 PM

80. No mention on the front page of CNN, Bing news, MSNBC, nor USA Today

this *should* be major news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #80)

Thu May 31, 2018, 10:44 PM

95. MSM will give him a pass to the gates of Hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:37 AM

2. Glad these owners are telling the

truth like they should be.

WTHF! UMF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #2)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:14 PM

15. Is that the pipe on Northshore, Cha?

I could get very comfortable living on Northshore!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heartstrings (Reply #15)

Thu May 31, 2018, 05:58 PM

85. I'll answer that.

Teahupoo, Tahiti.
No other wave is that thick and glassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #85)

Thu May 31, 2018, 07:33 PM

88. Mahalo, LIgyron

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heartstrings (Reply #15)

Thu May 31, 2018, 07:32 PM

87. It's a random pic on the net..

Ligyron's post sounds good to me!

I have a similar large framed photograph of my son surfing in Indonesia.

Are you talking about the Northshore of Oahu?

Heartstrings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #87)

Thu May 31, 2018, 07:49 PM

89. Yes, Northshore of Oahu...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:38 AM

3. Holy Shit !

Where does it end ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #3)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:01 PM

8. With the NFL giving Kapernick .. .bout 20 .... 30 million for starters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #8)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:16 PM

42. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 1, 2018, 12:32 AM

97. and that would be a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:43 AM

4. Of course. That's the way Trump operates the entire presidency

He's a crooked, mob-influenced business owner who strongarms and dirty deals to get what he wants.

Now he's doing it on a national scale with the powers that the office of the president (and a complicit House and Senate) afford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:49 AM

5. Of course. Everything is all about him, if its good, for him, its good for Murica

And his lackeys follow along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tulipsandroses (Reply #5)

Thu May 31, 2018, 04:24 PM

81. Murica

F**K YEAH!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:50 AM

6. He doan need no steenkin laws. He da king

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yonder (Reply #6)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:15 PM

16. Yup, that's what it all boils down to. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:00 PM

7. Damn !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:01 PM

9. Mueller is just collecting more evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:04 PM

10. Dictators play book.

1- No dictator wannabe can rule by himself. A dictator needs help from his trusted advisers and those who are willing to
lie for him, cover up crimes, create distractions, create fake news, create fake enemies, create fake victories and
those who will do any and all acts for a price. ( you see them all around Trump)

2- Discredit free press, the IC and the Courts and all who stand in his way or don't yield to his or her wishes.

3- slowly take over the lever of power one inch at a time, like a frog in boiling water.
by the time the frog feels the heat it is too late.


Do you feel the heat yet ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chickensoup (Reply #10)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:55 PM

29. Trump's playbook is described in Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism (1995)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #29)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:56 PM

57. Thanks, I will look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:04 PM

11. How many laws does he have to break before the GOP start to act like real Americans?

This is just despicable! Clinton was impeached because they pried into an adulterous affair he had and he lied to them about it.

Compare that to this one man crime ring.

If the GOP does nothing then that should be part of the Democrats campaign. Get them out because they are not patriots; they allow a president to run roughshod over the country and do nothing so they can keep their jobs. They don't care one tiny bit about the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #11)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:10 PM

35. Too many TOP are wading in rubles up to their necks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:11 PM

12. Is Comrade Trump's ass leaving a bad aftertaste, Jerry? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:11 PM

13. Abusing Presidential power for personal political gain is a crime. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:12 PM

14. He is seriously abusing his power right now. Time for him to get called out on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:15 PM

17. intimidation and extortion

that's how tRump rolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:18 PM

18. Been down this road before: "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation"

That element is missing here. Also the "official act" element. So the claims the law has been broken don't withstand scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #18)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:48 PM

24. Yep. People are jumping the gun here

 

If you actually read and look at the statute it’s not a violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #24)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:57 PM

31. I had the same question

 


What official act was Trump suggesting he would perform, or influence the performance of, in exchange?

IMHO, a more fertile field is in anti-trust law. NFL does not have a statutory exemption, but they have been found to have an implicit exemption as to certain broader employment policies which are consistent with maintaining a league composed of different organizations to compete in an organized sport. (I forget the citation right now)

A more tenuous theory would be that by acting at the behest of the president, the NFL was a state actor.

People don't generally understand how statutes work, and I'm sure you see this all the time. Someone will find one or two elements, and think the statutory elements of an offense are something of a menu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:04 PM

32. Threat of forcible deportation of

Kneeling athletes thus depriving the owners of their service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #32)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:40 PM

51. Not only does the president have no power to do that, Trump made no such threat.

Here's what Trump said: "You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country."

There is no "official act" that the president is authorized to take that would involve "forcibly deporting" a US citizen. Indeed, someone who is a citizen by birth can't be deported (where would they be "deported" to?) and can't have their citizenship revoked.

So even if Trump threatened such a thing it would be an idle threat. And his words were chosen carefully so they didn't even amount to a threat.

And there is still the partisan political affiliation issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #51)

Thu May 31, 2018, 03:22 PM

76. onenote,

I agree with all that you state except the "his words were chosen carefully" part.

That man has NEVER chosen anything "carefully."

He believes he doesn't need to - he (believes he) can take care of anything, anytime, anywhere!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyOwnPeace (Reply #76)

Thu May 31, 2018, 03:32 PM

77. I concede your point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:26 PM

45. That's why people need to read and think critically before tweeting and posting

 

It’s not the first time Shaun has jumped the gun on something like this, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:33 PM

49. Always enjoy your posts. I agree, I really don't see a crime here and case law, I suspect, would

help clarify what conduct the statue is intended to criminalize. With Trump, criminal activity isn’t probably to difficult to find. I wonder what your thoughts are with regards to Trump and Federal RICO violations and if you think Mueller will take that approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:42 PM

53. Here:

 

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
. . . .
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).
(Added Pub. L. 110–81, title I, § 102(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 739; amended Pub. L. 112–105, § 18(a), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 304.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #53)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:10 PM

62. Yes

 


Yes, that is the statute at which we are looking.

Now let's apply the facts to the statute.

Where did either of these two things happen:

-----
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
-------

What the statute does here is prevent a relevant government official from things like saying "Hey, hire my cousin and I'll get the regulators to go easy on you".

In other words, the offense here is to do something in one's official capacity (or influence an act official capacity of some other official), for the purpose of influencing the employment practices of a private party.

What is it that you believe to be the "something" within Trump's official capacity which he has offered to do, or not do, for the NFL in exchange for them implementing the policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #62)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:25 PM

68. "influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,"

 

Trump can influence or offer or threaten to influence regulatory agencies and even Congress to pass laws that we might think will violate, say the First Amendment, but which nevertheless would slow down or impede the ability of football team managers to profit from their football.

Football is a far more dangerous sport than fans realize. Lots of things could be done at a regulatory level that would make it less profitable.

Almost any threat from a president of this sort would be catastrophic for a private business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #68)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:29 PM

69. Has he?

 


In order to commit a violation, the act has to occur.

Not "can occur", but "has occurred".

If you were writing the indictment here, what is the official act that you would specify was taken (or not taken) and by whom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #69)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:34 PM

71. His public statements have been much too opinionated on this topic,

 

and they interfere with the First Amendment rights of players.

Our law is problematic in this area.

In Germany, the free speech right can be enforced against private citizens such as employers. Ours can only be enforced against the government. Nevertheless, Trump voiced his ignorant opinion about the kneeing by NFL players often enough, provided evidence enough, that the argument could well be made (and not just on this topic of interfering the rights of players in the NFL) that he is violating the First Amendment. Out of that evidence can be drawn the evidence that the threats are aimed at the employers of the NFL players. Lawsuits are won and lost. Whether the lawsuit would be won? Who knows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #69)

Thu May 31, 2018, 11:14 PM

96. Spot on analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #62)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:42 PM

72. 2) can be argued to be satisfied.

How can you get around "influences" which he clearly did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #72)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:45 PM

73. influences the official act of another

 


Okay, so who is the other government official whom Trump influenced to perform an official act, and what was the act?

For the indirect route, you are going to need an act, and you are going to need that specific other person who was influenced to do it or not do it.

Name the person and the act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #72)

Thu May 31, 2018, 03:18 PM

75. Influences an official act

 

What official act of government was influenced to the detriment or gain of the NFL or teams here?

You would have to specify the act.

Now if he said “do this or I’ll take away tax incentives” or “do this or I’ll have the IRSup your ass with never ending audits” then you have a case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Fri Jun 1, 2018, 07:55 AM

98. Would it be a violation of the First Amendment

even though the amendment only directly speaks about laws enacted by Congress? Has the amendment been broadly interpreted to prevent the squelching of peaceful protests by other governmental officials?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #18)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:08 PM

34. "it was good for him politically..."

"it was good for him politically..."

No other reason given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #34)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:27 PM

46. And that doesn't meet the standard set by the law

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #34)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:42 PM

52. Trump doesn't care what political party an athlete is affiliated with

The law was designed for a specific, narrow purpose. To prevent the government from forcing private employers to get rid of employees affiliated with a particular political party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:19 PM

19. I'm sure Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell

will be ALL over this like white on rice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #19)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:26 PM

21. I wish. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:35 PM

22. And then he followed it with the deportation comment!

He instigated that entire racist flash point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:46 PM

23. This admission also helps Colin's lawsuit against NFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:51 PM

25. Just add it to the list of High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

Not that it matters one whit to the GOP Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:52 PM

26. So?

Just add it to the list of crimes for which he will never be held to account.

Except at election time.

Which the Russians control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:52 PM

27. gee another impeachable offense.

too bad there's republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:53 PM

28. For personal reasons I've cancelled Shaun King

But rec - because it appears to be that he is the only person bringing this to the public sphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #28)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:18 PM

43. I did too.

 

I love all the truth he's bringing and I appreciate it, but it's just too stressful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #28)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:32 PM

48. Except he's wrong in his claims it's a violation of the law

 

So he’s jumping the gun making claims that don’t hold.

See my explanation below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #48)

Fri Jun 1, 2018, 08:42 AM

99. IDGAF

No disrespect - take your argument to a court of law and sue someone.

It will not be resolved at DU. If it's Legal - call Giuliani. He can use ALL the help you can provide.

This is a shiny object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 12:56 PM

30. LOCK HIM UP! IMPEACH TRUMP!

 

That criminal bastard is running wild and wiping his ass with the constitution every damn day!

What would the MSM do if it was a democratic president??

24/7/365 TV, internet, radio, newspaper hanging until the crooked bastard was driven out of office, NO DOUBT!

But Shitler is a republican so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:07 PM

33. Trump interferring in private business again--for Political purposes!! This is SO WRONG!!

When is this going to end?? When are Republicans going to do their duty??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:11 PM

36. Kaepernick just won his case (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:13 PM

37. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread kpete

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:13 PM

38. K & R for exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:14 PM

39. Not sure if it's a crime, but its very likely a First Amendment violation nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #39)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:43 PM

54. Can you cite to a case where state action has been found based on similar facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #54)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:13 PM

64. From a previous post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210648175

Business decisions by private organizations norrmally don’t trigger First Amendment challenges, HOWEVER ...

It can be reasonably argued that the NFL is carrying out explicit instructions from the president of the United States and, as such, their decision constitutes “state action” sufficient to put the First Amendment into play.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and conclusively held that a private entity can be found to engage in “state action” and, thus subject to provisions of the Constitution, including the First Amendment.

Among other things, the Court has ruled that, if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action. E.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982). “A State normally can be held responsible for a private decision ... when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.” Blum at 1003-1005.

There is no question that, in this instance, the government, through its chief executive, has coerced, influenced and encouraged the NFL to require players to stand during the National Anthem.

We’ve got receipts.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #64)

Thu May 31, 2018, 03:59 PM

78. Those cases actually support my point

None of them present a situation in which a court found state action to exist on the basis of facts even remotely comparable to those presented here.

While it is true that the courts have repeatedly and conclusively held that there can be circumstances in which the actions of a private entity can be deemed "state action", the cases cited do not hold that encouraging a private entity to act is enough to turn the private entity's action into state action. You cite the Blum and Rendell-Baker cases -- both of which found that there was no state action. Moreover, the quoted language from Blum cites four other cases: Flagg Bros. v Brooks, Jackson v. Met. Edison, Moose Lodge v. Irvis, and Adickes v Kress. The only one of those cases in which private action was deemed state action was Adickes v. Kress, where the court found that the plaintiff should be allowed to attempt to prove at trial that the discriminatory act of a restaurant in refusing to serve her was state action because it was "compelled" by state law or by custom or usage with the "force of law." As the Court stated, the question is whether the State "has commanded the result by its law."

While someone might bring a suit alleging that the NFL's adoption of its policy should be treated as "state action," I see nothing in the case law to suggest that such a claim has much chance of succeeding and it is quite the stretch to say it is "very likely" that the NFL would be found to have violated the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #78)

Thu May 31, 2018, 05:02 PM

82. No, they don't support your point

As I said, the Court has held that, where the government coerces or encourages behavior by a private entity, that behavior can constitute state action. However, in these cases, the Court found that the government didn't encourage the private behavior and therefore, it ruled, as a matter of law, the elements necessary to prove state action weren’t met.

But the fact that the individual circumstances of a previous case didn’t meet the standard is not the sole determinant here. The Court ruled in these cases that a private action, when encouraged by the government, constitutes state action. The question is whether the facts of THIS particular situation meet that criteria.

In this instance, the facts are very different - or “distinguishable” - from those in those other cases and, in my view, those differences are significant enough to justify - in fact require - a different holding.

Unlike in the cited cases, there is no question that Trump encouraged the NFL decision - in fact, he and Pence have bragged about prompting the new rule and several owners have testified that they were responding to the pressure Trump put on them. This makes the facts clearly distinguishable and is strong evidence that the new rule as encouraged by the president.

Because, according to Supreme Court binding precedent, an act encouraged by the government can indeed constitute state action giving rise to a First Amendment challenge, the players would have a strong case that the new rule is government action in violation of their First Amendment rights.

I’m a lawyer and law professor who taught Constitutional law and have considerable expertise in this area, so I know what I’m talking about. But you don’t have to take just my word for it. Here’s another perspective:

President Donald Trump, in comments both to the press and on Twitter, threatened to remove “massive tax breaks” from the 32 NFL teams unless they were to “fire” players who protested during the U.S. national anthem. While Trump, as a private citizen, is entitled to have any opinion of the NFL players' protests, the Supreme Court decision in Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan explains that when a government employee uses the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion and intimidation” to induce private entities to act in a way that chills free speech rights, that government employee's conduct violates the First Amendment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2018/05/30/why-nfls-ban-on-player-protests-invokes-first-amendment-concerns-but-canceling-roseanne-does-not/#d791ac55c5c


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #82)

Thu May 31, 2018, 05:53 PM

84. No. The Court has stated that in dicta.

The statements about "encouragement" were not necessary to the determination in any of those cases (and encouragement wasn't even mentioned by the majority in at least one of them). Find me a case with a "holding" of state action based on mere encouragement that is short of compulsion or commandment.

As for the citation to Bantam Books, it is as inapposite as can be. In that case, the issue was whether a Commission created by state law "to educate the public" about publications containing obscene, indecent or impure language or manifestly tending towards the corruption of youth and to investigate and recommend prosecution of laws against such publications, created system of informal censorship that violated the First Amendment. That the actions of the Commission were "state action" was not seriously in dispute -- the Commission was a created by the state and directed to act on the state's behalf. The quoted language is taken wildly out of context. The full context is as follows: "But, is it contended, these salutary principles {that "the line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated . . . is finely drawn. . . . The separation of legitimate from illegitimate speech calls for . . . sensitive tools. . . ."} have no application to the activities of the Rhode Island Commission, because it does not regulate or suppress obscenity, but simply exhorts booksellers and advises them of their legal rights. This contention, premised on the Commission's want of power to apply formal legal sanctions, is untenable. It is true that appellants books have not been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions -- the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation -- the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable," and succeeded in its aim." In other words, the Court was discussing whether the "informal" nature of the Commission's powers constituted a restraint on speech, not whether or not the Commission was engaged in state action.

The other case that the Forbes article author cites -- a recent district court decision denying a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a Bears season ticket owner claiming his first amendment rights were violated because he couldn't go on the field at Soldier Field for a season ticket holder event while wearing a Packers' jersey -- also lends little support to the argument that the NFL has engaged in "state action." Leaving aside the very forgiving standard applied by courts when deciding whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, the district court found that the plaintiff had met those minimum requirements with respect to the state action element of his claim by pleading facts indicating that the Bears decision over who can be on the field during season ticket holder events had been ceded by the Bears to a public entity. Again, there is nothing comparable that would warrant treating the NFL as a state actor.

I'm a lawyer too. If we want to compare resumes I'm happy to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #84)

Thu May 31, 2018, 07:16 PM

86. You're just wrong on this

First, I never claimed that Trump's actions didn't constitute compulsion or commandment - you inserted that caveat. I think his behavior clearly does go beyond mere encouragement to the level of compulsion or commandment. And the fact that the owners, by their own admission, felt compelled to do what the president demanded is considerable proof thereof.

But the Supreme Court doesn't require that the state "compel or command" that a private entity do a particular thing in order for there to be state action. The fact that the government encourages or supports such activity is sufficient. As far as your demand that I produce a "holding" of state action based on mere encouragement that is short of compulsion or commandment, all you need to do is just read the my post and the cases that I cited. It's right in there:

A State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982)


That's not dicta. That's the HOLDING as the Court specifically states at the very beginning of the case:

Held:
...
2.
...
(a) The mere fact that a private business is subject to state regulation does not, by itself, convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. A State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State. Pp. 457 U. S. 1003-1005.
...
[A]lthough the factual setting of each case will be significant, our precedents indicate that a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, supra, at 436 U. S. 166; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., supra, at 419 U. S. 357; Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, supra, at 407 U. S. 173; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra, at 398 U. S. 170. Mere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the State responsible for those initiatives under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Flagg Bros., supra, at 436 U. S. 164-165; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., supra, at 419 U. S. 357.
...
We are confronted with the question preliminary to any Fourteenth Amendment challenge: whether the State has brought its force to bear against the plaintiffs through the office of these private parties. In answering that question, we may safely assume that, when the State chooses to perform its governmental undertakings through private institutions, and with the aid of private parties, not every action of those private parties is state action. But when the State directs, supports, and encourages those private parties to take specific action, that is state action.


One of the cases cited in Blum also states very plainly that an act need not be compelled in order to constitute state action where the government has encouraged and supported the act:

Our prior decisions leave no doubt that the mere existence of efforts by the State, through legislation or otherwise, to authorize, encourage, or otherwise support racial discrimination in a particular facet of life constitutes illegal state involvement in those pertinent private acts of discrimination that subsequently occur.
...
In the present case, Mississippi statutory law did authorize and encourage respondent to discriminate against petitioner on the basis of race. Therefore petitioner can establish that respondent acted "under color of" Mississippi statutory law by showing that respondent was aware of that body of law as prescribing, encouraging, authorizing, legitimating, effectuating, or otherwise supporting its refusal to serve petitioner. The vice of action under color of statute exists wherever the private discriminatory consciously draws from a state statute any kind of support for his discrimination.Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970)


Whether Trump's repeated public badgering of the NFL owners constitutes "such significant encouragement" that the owners' acquiescence to changing the rule as he demanded constitutes state action is a question of fact for the trier of fact to determine. I think it clearly does. But the law they would apply to that fact is unequivocal: an act by a private entity that is encouraged or supported by the government CAN INDEED be deemed state action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #86)

Thu May 31, 2018, 09:57 PM

91. Wow.

Hard to know what to say.

First, the language that you cite as proving what the Court held in Blum is from the syllabus of the decision, not the opinion. As you presumably know, first year law students learn that the syllabus is not something that can be relied on. Indeed, the following language appears in every decision that has a syllabus:"The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader."

Second, the language you quote from Adickes is not from the majority opinion -- it is from Justice Brennan's separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Again, as I trust you are aware, first year law students are taught that the holding of a case is not found in the separate opinions.

The debate over what constitutes the court's holding and what constitutes dicta is eternal and exists not just among scholars and lower courts but at the level of the Supreme Court itself. The simplest way to distinguish dicta from holding is whether the language in question could be excised from the opinion without impacting the result. In Blum this task is easily accomplished by looking at whether the majority opinion, having indicated that significant encouragement/coercion is enough to establish state action never again returns to that issue in deciding the case. Thus, deleting that portion of the opinion could have no impact on the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #91)

Thu May 31, 2018, 10:10 PM

92. Wow, indeed

The Syllabus condensed the holding of the case, hence the term "HELD."

But apparently you missed the part where I quoted directly from the body of Justice Rehnquist's MAJORITY OPINION, which is NOT the "syllabus" and is not "dicta" - it resolves what Justice Rehnquist sets forth as the preliminary question of the case, i.e., it is a HOLDING.

We are confronted with the question preliminary to any Fourteenth Amendment challenge: whether the State has brought its force to bear against the plaintiffs through the office of these private parties. In answering that question, we may safely assume that, when the State chooses to perform its governmental undertakings through private institutions, and with the aid of private parties, not every action of those private parties is state action. But when the State directs, supports, and encourages those private parties to take specific action, that is state action.


But think what you want. The plain language of the Court's holding and precedent speaks for itself, regardless what you think about it.

I'm not going to argue with you about this any further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #92)

Thu May 31, 2018, 10:21 PM

93. Good luck citing the syllabus to a court.

A lawyer that does so risks having this statement from the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Detroit Lumber cited back to them:

"Counsel also say that the question is settled by the decision in Hawley v. Diller, supra, relying upon the second paragraph in the headnotes....

There are two or three answers to this contention. In the first place, the headnote is not the work of the court, nor does it state its decision,- though a different rule, it is true, is prescribed by statute in some states. It is simply the work of the reporter, gives his understanding of the decision, and is prepared for the convenience of the profession in the examination of the reports. In the second place, if the patent referred to in that headnote is a patent issued upon a wrongful entry, no such fact appeared in the case, because no patent was issued upon the entry charged to have been wrongful, but after that entry had been canceled, a patent was issued to Diller on a new entry. If it refers to some other patent than one issued upon a wrongful entry, it has no pertinency, for the doctrine of relation never carries a patent back to the date of any other entry than that upon which it is issued. And finally, the headnote is a misinterpretation of the scope of the decision."

Again, the court's opinion may contain a statement of the issues presented but when it doesn't discuss them in the course of actually deciding the case, those descriptions are dicta.

But if in fact you're right that a violation of the first amendment has "very likely" occurred, we'll soon find out when a case is brought challenging the NFL's action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:15 PM

40. And What Did Jones Get Out Of This?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:16 PM

41. I like Shaun King but he goes off with incomplete facts too often

 

As posted above, this isn’t a violation of the law he posted.

First, the law says it has to be done solely on the basis of party affiliation of a person. That is a very specific case it covers- when a covered person tells an employer not to hire a person solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation- so it would be covered if he said “don’t hire any Democrats”.

Second, it is only a violation if he threatens to or does take or withhold an official act, or influence others to do so- such as saying “don’t hire that guy or else I’ll veto this bill or not give you a contract”.

In order for that law to be violated BOTH those elements had to be met. This leaked transcript, while showing despicable behavior, doesn’t meet either of those elements much less both.

We need to not make claims like this when a few extra seconds actually reading the law of asking someone to make sure your interpretation is correct would avoid damaging our credibility by making claims that don’t hold up. Unfortunately Shaun hasn’t learned yet to pause and fact check a little before he rushes to tweet and he ends up damaging his credibility and that of people who believe and repeat him. It’s dissap because it takes away from all the great stuff he does do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:22 PM

44. If the Rethugs in Congress refuse to do something about Trump

is there any chance of some type of Class Action Civil RICO case against the whole lot. As taxpayers, the people should have standing to take on a case like this.

I would love to see Michael Avenatti try to take on this type of case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:27 PM

47. Once again,

the criminal in the white house thumbs his nose at the rule of law, yet wants to fabricate laws broken and send others who are innocent to prison. When will the GOP wake up for the American people, and this country , and put a stop to his corruption. NFL owners should sue him, not appease him, because he'll just get worse towards his demands of them , or else. Businesses should be joining together against this , not bowing down to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:47 PM

55. Another crime for Republicans to ignore.


Doesn't even come close to shooting someone on fifth Ave so it's not news to the sTrumpets.
Nothing to see here, move along.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:51 PM

56. Trump does not fall under this law.

A President is not an "officer" of the United States according to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. The President of the United States appoints "Officers of the United States" with the "advice and consent" of the United States Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #56)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:59 PM

59. He certainly does

The text specifically includes the President when it defines "covered government person" to include " (3) the President, Vice President, an employee..." etc.

However - while he is covered, his actions don't appear to be covered by the law since there's no claim that he attempted to influence their hiring decision based "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 01:57 PM

58. There Is No Law - If You Are Powerful Enough

 

Poor? Minority?

Yer going to jail!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:00 PM

60. Trump is clearly abusing his power and getting away with it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:00 PM

61. Also once again.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:18 PM

66. "No collusion! No collusion!"

Translation from Trump-speak to English: "There was collusion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:24 PM

67. Nice league youse got there, would hate that anything bad should happen to it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:30 PM

70. I figured he was behind this. I'm sure most of those rich owners love that bonehead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 02:46 PM

74. -sigh- Another day another crime.

Guess what... This really does violate the 1st Amendment.

I'm not going to wait for anyone to do anything about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #74)

Thu May 31, 2018, 08:23 PM

90. What I was thinking. THey allow him to be above the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 05:11 PM

83. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2018, 10:22 PM

94. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2018, 09:38 AM

100. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2018, 10:53 AM

101. While discussing the rule on the ESPN show Pardon The Interruption

Sportscaster hosts Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon both had a problem with the rule coming down from the league office rather than as the result of negotiations between the team owners and the the players' association. Mystery solved...


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread