Hillary Clinton told a lot of lies last night in the first presidential debate.
There is definitely a lot to unpack.
Lester Holt wasn’t much better.
One of the many false things he said involved the “stop and frisk” program in New York that Trump wants to implement in some areas across the country.
It brought crime down significantly in New York and both Lester Holt and Hillary falsely implied last night that everyone agrees the process was unconstitutional.
At the very least, there is some grey area.
Even liberal Clinton supporter Alan Dershowitz understands that.
Here is Larry O’Connor with more…
From Hot Air:
Was “stop and frisk” really ruled unconstitutional? Is it really a form of racial profiling?
The answer is a little bit more nuanced than Holt made it out to be last night.
DERSHOWITZ: There was a district court judge, Shira Scheindlin, who ruled that the NY stop and frisk, as applied, was unconstitutional. she wrote a hundred and some odd opinion, but it didn’t get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court last word on it was a case called Terry v. Ohio many many many many years ago and the Supreme Court held under certain circumstances at least stop and frisk can be constitutional
Look, the interesting thing is how it’s applied. In Massachusetts it was applied in a very effective way with the cooperation of some of the leaders of the African American community and it really helped to disarm gang members in parts of the city where the crime rate was very high. But, if it’s used just as a form of racial profiling then it’s done in a way that probably raises constitutional questions.
But, it’s much more subtle and much more complex and a hard issue to raise in the context of a 2-minute answer in a debate.
O’CONNOR: Probably would have been best for Lester Holt to not wade into “fact checking” on that area…
DERSHOWITZ: I think you don’t fact check in your question, you fact check after the answer is given, and I think he made a controversial sub-statement which then, Donald Trump responded to, factually, and they both had some truth on their side.
And, in fact, it’s true that Mayor DeBlasio chose to not fight the constitutionality of New York’s version of the policy in a higher court so there is still an open question.
Were North Carolina’s and Texas’ voter ID laws considered constitutional when the lowest courts gave them the seal of approval? No. The constitutionality of those laws were always held open until the left had the answer they’ve waited for from a higher court. Same with Obama’s unilateral amnesty action and the individual mandate embedded in Obamacare.
I hope the remaining moderators learn the “Lester Holt Rule” on fact checking. Stay in your lane and just ask the questions.