Deleted from facebook

censored.pngWhat Tom Reed doesn’t want to see:

Tom Reed voted to waste 1.6 billion on a wall.
deleted July 28, 2017
deleted July 28, 2017

The penultimate paragraph …

(So herein lies the opportunity: The best way to ensure that Congress extricates itself from ideologically polarized gridlock is to return to Congress those elected officials who have demonstrated the capacity to work across the aisle to address the nation’s problems.–Buf News guest opinion cited by TR)

… is the whole reason for this essay (the Buf News article cited), and Reed’s involvement in this (Problem Solvers) caucus. There’s just not enough meat on the bones of this fix (Problem Solvers healthcare proposal). The House has become a joke and stands little chance of meaningful legislation on healthcare. Is Louie Gohmert involved? He’s my favorite clown that stumbles out of this packed Volkwagon.
deleted 8/9/17 (posted by another, presumably deleted by TR.)

On Aug. 12, a racist comment disappeared, presumably deleted by TR.

On Aug. 13 the message is that lower corporate taxes will encourage investment, create jobs, and increase wages. It doesn’t mention that the current tax code provides credits for investment. If business profits are untaxed, Tom would like us to believe that we all will benefit. It is a hard sell, but the GOP is working hard at it.
deleted 8/13/17 (included a link to a W&M post for this date)

I see no pattern to Tom’s deletions except that any link to this blog normally disappears quickly.  If readers have had posts deleted, please leave a comment.

About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Deleted from facebook

  1. Nancy Padak says:

    I have been blocked from Reed’s FB page for a couple of years. Every month or so, I email asking why. All I ever get back in response is that “thanks and we’ll get back to you soon” note.


  2. whungerford says:

    One person reported being unblocked after complaining in person to Tom Reed’s staff. Have they given you a reason?


  3. Nancy Padak says:

    no. never. I’ll try an in person complaint. thanks


  4. cathkestler says:

    I have been blocked for over 5 years as was Deb Meeker because we held him to the truth!
    I was once met at a TH meeting with 2 Chautauqua County detectives when I promised to come with a hundred people. While I asked my questions one of the detectives moved to cover the door and unsnapped his holster and put his hand on his gun as if to intimidate me and I persisted. He can bring out the f king National Guard and he’s not going to shut me up. I asked him point blank why I was blocked on Twitter– his reply, “I hurt his feelings when I publically tweeted and wrote in my column about his affair with a staffer and was kicked out of his house during his campaign because his wife caught him and was sent to live at his lake house. While he was campaigning about “what a family man he was”, that ad at his house was a total sham– he wasn’t even living there. He also had a female staffer quit because of his advances, Tom you think you can hide ALL of your indiscretions but I will always be here to call your ass out. You never noticed I followed you, silly man chicks are slick and sick of your sh*t.


  5. cathkestler says:

    Nancy, don’t hold your breath, I’ve been asking but I am blocked on every single for of social media and he refuses to answer any of my questions. File a House Ethics complaint, I have 6 of them against him.


  6. whungerford says:

    Have you or anyone received a response from the Ethic Committee?


  7. Arthur Ahrens says:

    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984


  8. Anne says:

    I was curious with all his bipartisan noise recently whether that meant he’d also unblocked those of us who disagree with him, but no, of course not. I’ve had numerous posts deleted…usually those that call him out on a vote he wants to deny having made, or something dealing with facts–real, not alterate, facts–that refute one of his pet claims. He’s despicable.


  9. cathkestler says:

    I’ve been told they are inquiring regarding my complaint but aren’t getting answers. I guess that’s why the House tried to do away with the Ethics Committee — too many complaints. Instead of insisting that EC inquiries have to be answered they want to shut it down. 😦


  10. whungerford says:

    The “bipartisan noise” is very effective political posturing; the amount of favorable press is astonishing.


  11. David Eric Cummins says:

    Try contacting the ACLU about it. They’ve been active on the issue of politicians blocking their constituents on social media since the uproar over Trump blocking people on Twitter.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Steve Beikirch says:

    Nancy, I was blocked for almost two years and I tried the email/letter/phone route to no avail. At one of Reed’s town halls I confronted Reed’s assistant Alison Hunt. Ask your questions when others are around. She admitted that she was aware of my situation and proceeded to tell me I was blocked because I made threatening remarks in my posts. To that I said that I expect her to provide me with those posts and if she didn’t I would take the issue to a higher authority. Miraculously with no notice within a week I was unblocked.


  13. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Which higher authority would you recommend? ACLU?


  14. robbin says:

    I was blocked 4 yrs ago for asking deep questions… i recall him saying something about reverse # lookup/email last election cycle that he wouldn’t do it anymore.. it was an aside.. an almost inaudible mention..


  15. Tom Zoidal says:

    I wrote the above example of deletions regarding the Buffalo news piece and the Volkswagen packed with clowns. It looks to me like it is still on Reed’s FB page. It’s no consultation to me though as I have been blocked from his other FB page. Tom Reed is a small town boy with no previous political experience. His two-year stint as mayor of Corning was merely a token position in a small town that has a city manager. And what has become of this pudgie, small town boy? He has become a smug manipulator of a government position who seeks to enrich himself and abuse his staff and constituents. If he is a truly a problem solver, why can’t he work to solve gun violence. The opiod crisis he likes to address kills about the same number of people as gun violence. It’s not anathema to protect the 2nd Amendment AND pass sensible gun laws. People like Reed obfuscate the issue to put fear into local hunters and then reap their votes.


  16. whungerford says:

    Tom, I read your comment, posted Aug. 9 on Reed’s page, carefully and noted when if disappeared from the chronological listing. Can you still see it there? Facebook seems to have some quirks–sometimes my comments disappear and later appear again. I can’t easily tell if comments are visible to others even if I still see them.

    Your comment among other things pointed out that the “Buf News” article Reed posted was a campaign endorsement for Tom Reed. It’s unfair that Reed can post an endorsement, but constituents by his rules can’t.

    I’m not sure why your comment evaporated from the “chron” listing; Perhaps it was this: “The House has become a joke and stands little chance of meaningful legislation on healthcare.”


  17. Tom Loid says:

    Yes…i saw the my post was still on FB this morning. When i posted it–an inspirational moment in the middle of mowing my lawn!–I thought it might get deleted though.

    Kudos to you for all you do.


  18. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Would it be possible to start a thread here or someplace else containing any / all deletions from Reed’s Facebook page?
    A running tally might be effective. And educational.


  19. Carol says:

    It is apparently illegal for a public official to delete posts on an official Facebook page used to communicate with constituents. Our state attorney general is very busy with lawsuits against the Trump administration, but perhaps his office would be interested, since the offense was committed in NY and involves a federal official.

    When Nick Weinstein managed Reed’s Facebook page he was vigorously stifling dissent by blocking posts, and now whoever manages the page seems to be a bit more lenient, and that person occasionally impersonates Reed and comments.

    I recommend taking a screenshot of everything you post, and checking occasionally to see if it is still there.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Anne says:

    I’m sure it’s his office that’s feeding the stories directly. Why some of these outlets publish them blindly is what astonishes me…no journalism involved.


  21. Anne says:

    Carol, can you lead us to a source that cites the illegality of that? Thanks.


  22. Carol says:

    I am not an attorney, but a Google search yields a lot on this topic. Many references state that it social media is public record if used to communicate with constituents, must be retained as long as state and federal requirements mandate it, and must be released per FOI and subpoena. Regs do need to be further developed now that social media is so widespread. If I were Reed’s attorney I would be advising him to retain everything. One may argue that if there is a disclaimer with terms of service extremely hateful posts could be removed. But Reed doesn’t remove them (Len, Gary, et al with their verbal abuse and name calling). He only stifles his “extreme liberals.” This mentions under “Public Record” that social media is public record and must be retained and also must be produced under FOI or subpoena.


  23. Arthur Ahrens says:

    actually, it is the very definition of journalism…

    journalism – noun – the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.

    and the exercise of First Amendment rights.


  24. Anne says:

    They aren’t doing the writing, though…they’re publishing what Reed’s office is feeding them.


  25. Anne says:

    Thanks Carol…my daughter is an attorney so I’ll have her research this for me (in her copious amounts of spare time). Meanwhile one of my posts today just disappeared! Are we doing a running tally yet?


  26. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Resistance efforts are taking root in pro-Trump country. Women are leading the charge.


  27. Arthur Ahrens says:

    NOTHING from NY-23 DEMOCRATS tonight about TRUMP’s despicable comments about Charlottesville and REED’S support for TRUMP!


    Art’s unofficial Reed Vs. Democrats Publicity Tally For NY-23 since 11/9/2016
    Includes Town Halls, Television Appearances, Editorials, Press Conferences, Newspaper Articles, Missed Opportunities

    Tom Reed 28
    Democrats 8
    Democrat Missed Opportunities 4


  28. cathkestler says:

    I’m sure the Democrats running had something to say. Did you contact them Arthur or just condemn them!?!


  29. Arthur Ahrens says:


    I am looking for public pronouncements. Not private conversations.
    No public pronouncements? Reed and Trump win.

    Is that what you want?


  30. whungerford says:

    I see no need for animosity; I agree with both views.

    Trump and Reed are getting extraordinary media exposure, and even negative publicity may be better than none.

    Reed’s Democratic opponents do need more media exposure. Access to media is one of many advantages enjoyed by an incumbent.

    We can’t blame Democratic candidates for the difficulties they face. We might well do more to help with letters to the editor for example.


  31. Anne, I was blocked from Reed’s politician Facebook page a couple of years ago. It is important to distinguish between his politician’s page and his official government page. I believe he can block more freely from his politician’s Facebook page than his government page.

    Here is an article that describes a recent Federal Court case in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court held that government officials can not block social media users on the basis of their views. Of course, this was a Virginia Court, so New York Courts are not bound by this decision. However, I think it is likely that a New York Court would be influenced by this ruling. Please note-I am not a lawyer, so take my opinion for what it is worth–half an ounce of cotton candy and some pocket lint.

    And without further ado, some links about the case:


  32. I’m not running for office, but you might enjoy my comments on Donald Trump’s and Tom Reed’s weak response to the Charlottesville terrorists.


  33. Arthur Ahrens says:

    Thank you so very much for sharing.
    Please continue your good work.
    Best regards,
    Arthur Ahrens


  34. Thanks Arthur. I really appreciate the encouragement.


  35. The question of whether Donald Trump can legally block Twitter users or whether doing so would violate the Constitutional rights of users has moved beyond the mere theoretical. Several Twitter users are actually suing Donald Trump to force him to lift his block on them. You can read the complaint here.

    Click to access 2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf

    For a short summary of the lawsuit, see

    A Justice Department lawyer says, in effect, that this lawsuit is nonsense. You can read about his objection here.

    This is the most important part of that article

    ————-Begin quote——————–
    “”It would send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters to hold that a president’s choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter—a privately run website that, as a central feature of its social-media platform, enables all users to block particular individuals from viewing posts—violate the Constitution.” That’s part of what Michael Baer, a Justice Department attorney, wrote to the New York federal judge overseeing the lawsuit Friday.

    In addition, the Justice Department said the Courts are powerless to tell Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle, which has 35.8 million followers.

    “To the extent that the President’s management of his Twitter account constitutes state action, it is unquestionably action that lies within his discretion as Chief Executive; it is therefore outside the scope of judicial enforcement,” Baer wrote (PDF).

    Baer added that an order telling Trump how to manage his Twitter feed “would raise profound separation-of-powers concerns by intruding directly into the president’s chosen means of communicating to millions of Americans.”

    ————-End quote——————–

    I see two main objections here.

    1) An injunction by the Court telling the President how he can use his account would violate the separation of powers.

    2) The President is the fuckin’ Commander-In-Chief. What army are you, the Court going to use to enforce your order, Punk?

    I am not a Constitutional lawyer, so I am not qualified to respond to the first objection. As far as the second objection–well, he has a point. Sure, the Court could, and in my opinion, should declare its opinion that Trump is violating the Constitutional rights of the users. But then what? The Court would be powerless to enforce its injunction. Only Congress could enforce it through the impeachment process. And though there are some preliminary signs that the President is losing support among Republicans, so far they are gutless wonders who refuse to call for his impeachment.

    But I THINK I have a way around this. Why not add Twitter as a defendant? After all, it is Twitter who has provided Trump the ability to unconstitutionally block users. Presumably Twitter could override his ability to block users and Twitter could unblock those who he has already blocked. The Court could not enforce an order against Trump, but it certainly could get an order against Twitter enforced. It could order Twitter to unblock the accounts or it could order Twitter to freeze Donald Trump’s account and deny him the ability to make any more posts until HE has unblocked the accounts of those who have followed him.

    Direct pressure against Trump is pointless. There is no leverage. But Twitter has leverage over President Trump, and the Court has leverage over Twitter. As an added bonus, a court injunction against Twitter would sidestep the thorny issue of separation of powers. The Court would be issuing an order against a private company, not against the head of the Executive Branch. It is possible that I am overlooking something in my analysis–again I am not a lawyer. Maybe there is a law or ruling that would prevent the plaintiff’s from adding Twitter as a defendant that I am unaware of. But if my analysis is correct, let’s hope the Plaintiffs add Twitter as a defendant in their Amended Complaint. Let’s hope they use the right lever.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.