Kim Campbell Needs a Head Shake.....Badly.

Wilber · October 18, 2016

6 hours ago, jbg said:

Spelling fail on "colour" according to my software.

Colour, favour, etc. Canadian eh. Actually, leaving out the u is distinctly American English.

betsy · October 18, 2016

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

It's a crime against women.

:rolleyes:

Wilber · October 18, 2016

OK, have it your way. Grabbing a woman by the crotch isn't a criminal act

jbg · October 18, 2016

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

OK, have it your way. Grabbing a woman by the crotch isn't a criminal act

It's assault.

WestCoastRunner · October 18, 2016

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

OK, have it your way. Grabbing a woman by the crotch isn't a criminal act

Time for Betsy to give back her uterus.

Moonlight Graham · October 18, 2016

Who cares what Kim Campbell says? She was given and not elected the PM-ship after Mulroney quit, then a few months she not only lost the election with her party she also lost her own MP seat! :lol:

Wilber · October 18, 2016

2 hours ago, jbg said:

It's assault.

Apparently, betsy says not.

kimmy · October 19, 2016

On 10/12/2016 at 5:47 AM, betsy said:

The only reason we know about that conversation, is due to the fact that someone had violated someone's privacy and we're nothing more than eavesdroppers. We are self-celebrating "eavesdroppers".....and so many of us had wilfully taken the locker room banter out of context, and had used it to smear these two men. It's like hearing something that's not meant to be heard, and spreading it! It's gossip!

Billy Bush was suspended indefinitely from his job, thanks to the media that violated his privacy. If there's anything to criticize Trump and Bush for, it'll be for their carelessness around an open mic. Still, that doesn't give anyone the right to breach someone's privacy (hurting so many people in the process like Nancy O'Dell (and her family), and Arianne Zucker (and her family), Trump's and Bush's.

So what is Kim Campbell actually saying.......there's no such thing as freedom of speech (even in private?)

Well, if that's how Kim campbell thinks, we've been spared from who knows what other idiocy she would've been capable of doing as a sitting Prime Minister. Good thing she sat for only a few months!

This is some of the most absurd brain-scrambled stuff you've come out with yet to prop up your ridiculous hero.

Trump's freedom of speech has never been in doubt. Nobody has questioned his right to brag about grabbing women by the pussy.

Trump's right to privacy has not been violated either. Neither Canada nor the United States have any express right to privacy in our constitutions. Both of our countries provide citizens legal protection against unjustified search and seizure, security of person and property, and protection against unjustified surveillance by agents of the state.

I'm not sure how you could think any of this applies to the Trump tape situation.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're wandering around in public with a TV interviewer wearing a live mic in full view of TV cameras. It's moronic to suggest that Trump had any reasonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances.

As for the people who were hurt by the release of this tape? BOO HOO. Trump dug his own grave here. Billy Bush comes off almost as creepy as Trump, given his attempt to pimp out Arianna Zucker to Trump during the tape. If Trump's comments about Nancy O'Dell were hurtful to her or her family, maybe she shouldn't have gone furniture shopping with the notorious adulterer. If Trump's comments were hurtful to his wife and children, maybe he shouldn't have "moved on that like a bitch" or "grabbed them by the pussy". I'm not sure how any of this reflects badly on Arianna Zucker; she did about as well as a woman could have, after being put in such an awkward situation by Bush and Trump.

The release of this tape isn't a violation of anyone's legal rights. The release of this tape is journalism in the public interest.

-k

betsy · October 19, 2016

8 hours ago, kimmy said:

This is some of the most absurd brain-scrambled stuff you've come out with yet to prop up your ridiculous hero.

Trump's freedom of speech has never been in doubt. Nobody has questioned his right to brag about grabbing women by the pussy.

Trump's right to privacy has not been violated either. Neither Canada nor the United States have any express right to privacy in our constitutions. Both of our countries provide citizens legal protection against unjustified search and seizure, security of person and property, and protection against unjustified surveillance by agents of the state.

I'm not sure how you could think any of this applies to the Trump tape situation.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're wandering around in public with a TV interviewer wearing a live mic in full view of TV cameras. It's moronic to suggest that Trump had any reasonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances.

As for the people who were hurt by the release of this tape? BOO HOO. Trump dug his own grave here. Billy Bush comes off almost as creepy as Trump, given his attempt to pimp out Arianna Zucker to Trump during the tape. If Trump's comments about Nancy O'Dell were hurtful to her or her family, maybe she shouldn't have gone furniture shopping with the notorious adulterer. If Trump's comments were hurtful to his wife and children, maybe he shouldn't have "moved on that like a bitch" or "grabbed them by the pussy". I'm not sure how any of this reflects badly on Arianna Zucker; she did about as well as a woman could have, after being put in such an awkward situation by Bush and Trump.

The release of this tape isn't a violation of anyone's legal rights. The release of this tape is journalism in the public interest.

-k

I suppose it wasn't explained well enough.

Yes it was, if what you say in private is taken out of context, and is used to lynch you in public! It is a crime against free speech.

If people can get intimidated and become fearful of what they say, even in private - we're no better than places like China!

If you can be freely demonized in public over something that was said privately, and especially when it was taken out of context......what's next?

The point is that Hillary, of all people, ought to have known better. You don't LEAD the mob to lynch someone over something that was supposed to be a private conversation, and to take that conversation out of context. It says more about her character - she's willing to throw anything, and anyone, under the bus for her own gain.

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 19, 2016

9 hours ago, kimmy said:

The release of this tape isn't a violation of anyone's legal rights. The release of this tape is journalism in the public interest.

-k

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. It's an illegal act, Kimmy!

It's a tape of a private conversation which was released without the permission of the people involved.

You can't tape someone without letting them know you're recording them, and you can't release that without their permission.

Illegal Recording Under the Wiretap Act

Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is illegal for any person to secretly record an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)

Exceptions

There are two huge exceptions built into this law that have the capacity to gut it of effect. A recording otherwise in violation of the Wiretap Act is legal if:

one person to the conversation consents to the recording, or
the person making the secret recording is authorized by law to do.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/can-i-record-a-conversation-between-myself-anothe#

Trump was not holding any political office when that conversation was secretly recorded!

To say that to listen to that private conversation is for public interest, is laughable! What, you want to tap into anyone's private conversation to know what's going on? Just in case they're plotting something illegal? My....my...my. Anyone who thinks that....needs a headshake, too.

A lot of Canadian headshakers......starting with Kim Campbell! :lol:

In other words, Hillary Clinton abets and encourages an illegal act. She's also profitting from it since she's using that illegal act as a weapon to destroy her political opponent.

It shows her character! When it comes to outright sleaze and illegalities......she's dah gurl!

Too bad, our first female PM joined that dumb mob, too. Whooooo boy.

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · October 19, 2016

2 hours ago, betsy said:

There are two huge exceptions built into this law that have the capacity to gut it of effect. A recording otherwise in violation of the Wiretap Act is legal if:

one person to the conversation consents to the recording, or

He consented to the recording by wearing the mike. Next!

Now about those private citizens' emails that Trump/Putin hacked...

dialamah · October 19, 2016

3 hours ago, betsy said:

It says more about her character - she's willing to throw anything, and anyone, under the bus for her own gain.

It says a lot about your character that you continue to defend a man who boasted about grabbing women's pussies and walking into a room with nude teenage girls.

kimmy · October 19, 2016

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. It's an illegal act, Kimmy!

It's a tape of a private conversation which was released without the permission of the people involved.

You can't tape someone without letting them know you're recording them, and you can't release that without their permission.

Illegal Recording Under the Wiretap Act

Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is illegal for any person to secretly record an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)

As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to claim he had any reasonable expectation to privacy when he's wandering around wearing a live microphone in view of TV cameras.

The idea that anything was taken out of context is also laughable. We have the full conversation and have the full context for what he said. Nothing has been taken out of context.

-k

kimmy · October 19, 2016

On 10/14/2016 at 3:22 AM, betsy said:

Ms Campbell, another thing that went sailing over your coiffed head: JOURNALISM IS DEAD!

All you've got to do is read, and watch news report!

Journalism is dead. If they had been doing their job, they'd have exposed Trump for what he is long before it ever got to this point. Instead they gave him massive amounts of free publicity, turned him into a political rock star, and helped propel him to the Republican nomination. Instead of covering his campaign like journalists, they fawned over him like Billy Bush did, using his fame to create ratings. The media were willing partners in playing Trumps game. Team Trump didn't mind a bit. You guys loved it.

I suppose that's not what you're complaining about, though. You feel there needs to be "balance". You want there to be a positive Trump story to balance each negative Trump story, or you want a negative Hillary story to on the TV for each negative Trump story on the TV. That's not really what "balance" means.

When they cover a NASA mission, they don't give equal time to members of the Flat Earth Society to claim that NASA is a hoax. Their obligation is to the facts, not to the false notion that they have to be equally fair to NASA and to the Flat Earth Society. And the idea that to be "balanced" they shouldn't report the crap that comes out of Trumps mouth, or try to find something negative to say about Hillary each time Trump says something stupid is false as well. Their role is to report the facts, not to pretend that each candidate has equal merit.

-k

betsy · October 19, 2016

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

As I mentioned earlier, it's absurd to claim he had any reasonable expectation to privacy when he's wandering around wearing a live microphone in view of TV cameras.

The idea that anything was taken out of context is also laughable. We have the full conversation and have the full context for what he said. Nothing has been taken out of context.

-k

Pathetic rebuttal. :rolleyes:

You're not getting it, Kimmy. It's not about his expectation to privacy! What's his expectation got to do with the law?

The only expectation would be for the law to apply to him, as it would to everyone else!

It's about Hillary, abetting and using an illegal act, to bolster her candidacy!

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 19, 2016

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

Journalism is dead. If they had been doing their job, they'd have exposed Trump for what he is long before it ever got to this point. Instead they gave him massive amounts of free publicity, turned him into a political rock star, and helped propel him to the Republican nomination. Instead of covering his campaign like journalists, they fawned over him like Billy Bush did, using his fame to create ratings. The media were willing partners in playing Trumps game. Team Trump didn't mind a bit. You guys loved it.

I suppose that's not what you're complaining about, though. You feel there needs to be "balance". You want there to be a positive Trump story to balance each negative Trump story, or you want a negative Hillary story to on the TV for each negative Trump story on the TV. That's not really what "balance" means.

When they cover a NASA mission, they don't give equal time to members of the Flat Earth Society to claim that NASA is a hoax. Their obligation is to the facts, not to the false notion that they have to be equally fair to NASA and to the Flat Earth Society. And the idea that to be "balanced" they shouldn't report the crap that comes out of Trumps mouth, or try to find something negative to say about Hillary each time Trump says something stupid is false as well. Their role is to report the facts, not to pretend that each candidate has equal merit.

-k

The media followed his campaign for the RATINGS!!!! It's hard to ignore Trump when other networks air him, and ratings go off the roof!

Trump knew how to use their own weakness against them. Good thing. Otherwise, they'd have buried Trump without a peep!

The more sensational it is, the better. EXCEPT FOR BILL and HILLARY CLINTON'S sordid saga.

Oh no, not the Clintons! Sweep their dirt under the rug.....we don't want any conservative ideology in power! Especially, not Trump!

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

?Impact · October 19, 2016

15 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's about Hillary, abetting and using an illegal act, to bolster her candidacy!

Just like it is about Donald sexually assaulting women, engaging in sexual acts with a minor, trafficking drugs, etc.

betsy · October 19, 2016

Kim Campbell: Criticisms Of Hillary Clinton Are 'Small Potatoes'

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/02/i-think-it-matters-kim-campbell-being-the-first-and-only-female-pm-in-canada_n_10785462.html

Hahahahaha :lol: Hahahaha :lol:

Check out the......

THE WIKILEAKS ( and other leaks)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFUASZbs_jA

Hahahaha :lol:

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · October 19, 2016

33 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's about Hillary, abetting and using an illegal act, to bolster her candidacy!

This campaign is all about projecting. If Trump is committing an illegal invasion of privacy in his campaign by hacking emails, he says Hillary is doing illegal things and attacks her for it. If Trump is getting lots of attention for how he now breathes through his blown-out sinus cavity, he says Hillary must be on drugs. If Trump is going to court for allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl and has assaulted scores of others, he attacks Bill Clinton for his transgressions.

But there was no illegal invasion of Trump's privacy. Again, HE WAS WEARING THE MIKE WILLINGLY! THAT IS CONSENT!

Edited October 19, 2016 by BubberMiley

Argus · October 19, 2016

6 hours ago, betsy said:

If what you say in private is taken out of context, and is used to lynch you in public! It is a crime against free speech.

That would at least be a principled stand if you had the principles to apply it to the similar stolen conversations taken from the emails of Democratic party staffers and Clinton's campaign manager. But you don't. You gleefully retell every purloined private conservation to use against them and in support of your new god Trump.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Argus

cybercoma · October 19, 2016

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Pathetic rebuttal.

Thanks for the advanced warning before I read the rest of your reply.

Edited October 19, 2016 by cybercoma

betsy · October 19, 2016

3 hours ago, Argus said:

That would at least be a principled stand if you had the principles to apply it to the similar stolen conversations taken from the emails of Democratic party staffers and Clinton's campaign manager. But you don't. You gleefully retell every purloined private conservation to use against them and in support of your new god Trump.

Hillary brought this on when she deleted emails in her private server. She was serving as Secretary of State - and her behaviour compromised national security. Look, even Benghazi is on wikileaks.

When you're a public servant, you've got to follow the rules. See what happens when you don't?

Hillary was in office. Trump was not.

That's the big difference between the taped private conversation of Trump in 2005, and the wikileaks of Hillary and staff!

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 19, 2016

4 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

This campaign is all about projecting. If Trump is committing an illegal invasion of privacy in his campaign by hacking emails, he says Hillary is doing illegal things and attacks her for it. If Trump is getting lots of attention for how he now breathes through his blown-out sinus cavity, he says Hillary must be on drugs. If Trump is going to court for allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl and has assaulted scores of others, he attacks Bill Clinton for his transgressions.

But there was no illegal invasion of Trump's privacy. Again, HE WAS WEARING THE MIKE WILLINGLY! THAT IS CONSENT!

It's not consent. He didn't know the mic was still on.

The Washington Post obtained the footage from 2005, which includes audio of Bush and the Republican presidential nominee using extremely vulgar language while discussing women while riding on an Access Hollywood bus to the set of Days of Our Lives.

Trump, who along with Bush didn't realize their mics were still hot, is overheard telling him and several others about a failed attempt to seduce an unnamed woman,

http://www.eonline.com/news/800654/billy-bush-issues-apology-after-audio-of-lewd-conversation-with-donald-trump-leaks

Edited October 19, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · October 19, 2016

On 13/10/2016 at 5:20 AM, betsy said:

Any court of law would say consent to record is implied by wearing the mic. This will never go to court because it wasn't illegal. Your wikileaks, however, are totally illegal and there will likely be an investigation into Putin's influence over Trump in this election.