Had enough yet

[mark blazejewski]

You really are losing it.





b.b.

Yea, if you are talking about the country, I think we lost that in 2008.

[mark blazejewski]

I don't know where you got that from. My whole point in this Russia deal is they ARE our enemy.

Where I got that from. If you were not paraphrasing the Obama-Romney debate, it is one hell of a coincidence.

[BorderBob]

[QUOTE=mark blazejewski;1736603][QUOTE=BorderBob;1736599]

Do you have a referral based on experience?

Not me, I'm not the one spastically posting screeds on Speakup. You really used to be such a calm voice. Long, thoughtful posts, unfilled by FOXNEWS talking points and terms dejour.






b.b.

[mark blazejewski]

It will be found to be a violation of FEC statutes to accept something of value from a foreign government.

You seem to be rather confident of a future event. Tarot Cards or Crystal Ball Bob?

[mark blazejewski]

[QUOTE=BorderBob;1736607][QUOTE=mark blazejewski;1736603]

Not me, I'm not the one spastically posting screeds on Speakup. You really used to be such a calm voice. Long, thoughtful posts, unfilled by FOXNEWS talking points and terms dejour.






b.b.

I am still thoughtful, but I do find it "cleaner" to let the reader decide for him/herself based on the actual reports. One sure as all hell can't really on the Snews, NY Times for a both sides of the story presentation. Just providing a non-mainstream media point of view my friend.

[BorderBob]

You seem to be rather confident of a future event. Tarot Cards or Crystal Ball Bob?

Thirty years, well, actually closer to 43 now in the law enforcement world and knowing how statutes are violated and applied.

You?





b.b.

[mark blazejewski]

...from an online legal dictionary...emphasis mine



Here is another



There are more...but the point?

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

See Also: FEC, Money Laundering (which I know something about), False Statements.





b.b.

I don't see a citation for "collusion." It appears to be only a verb, not a statute directed at specific criminal activity.

But hold on to the one for conspiracy. It may prove useful.

[mark blazejewski]

Not me, I'm not the one spastically posting screeds on Speakup.

Well, absent a gig as a syndicated columnist, where do you propose I post my comments?

Now you must know how we, the "Deplorables" must feel with having to endure all of the unsupported, hysterical, hour-after-hour, day-after-day, non-stop, whining accusations, made by the left, and duly reported in sycophantic, leftist media outlets, print and broadcast, since about 2:45 a.m. on November 9, 2016.

Trump stole Wisconsin, Trump Stole Pennsylvania, Trump Stole Michigan; recount, recount, recount; Trump electors are defecting in droves; Trump colluded with the Russians; Trump had some hookers water the bed sheets, stop the Inaugural; blah, blah, blah...

If you don't have a problem with the voluminous charges, you should not have a problem with the in-turn rebuttals.

[mark blazejewski]

Thirty years, well, actually closer to 43 now in the law enforcement world and knowing how statutes are violated and applied.

You?





b.b.

I don't foresee the future. I'm not a clairvoyant, not a lawyer, not in law enforcement, not a prophet of God. I'm just a crippled, retired construction worker. You know, one of those "Deplorables," so my opinion is worthless, and comes under the phrase I use on SpeakUp frequently, "What do I know?" That is one reason I asked you for the citations, which, I thank you for.

[mark blazejewski]

Thirty years, well, actually closer to 43 now in the law enforcement world and knowing how statutes are violated and applied.

You?





b.b.

Bob,

This is sincerely meant to be helpful:

I have no reason to doubt your rather impressive credentials, and for that reason, I wish to give you an opportunity to clarify the bracketed comment.

When you relate "...knowing how statutes are violated and applied," with the context of your repeated references to "money laundering," as well as to this "Russia collusion," and absent any publicly published bonafide specifics/particulars regarding the same, I assume and hope, that you are not directly, or indirectly, leaking classified law enforcement/investigatory information, within your capacity as a law enforcement official.

That is not a "gotch ya" wise crack. I do enjoy our exchanges, and I would feel far more comfortable if you could further qualify, or at least clarify, those comments so as not leave those comments subject to speculative interpretation or impression. (Not for me specifically, but for any "interested" visitor to this Thread.)

Thanx Bob

[mark blazejewski]

Trump won the election "by decision."

By decision?"

Unless you are confusing the 2016 Presidential Election with the 1876 Presidential Election, you are becoming unwrapped Bob.

1876, I believe, was the only time a Presidential Election was decided by anything close to a "decision." Remember, The Wormley Hotel, The Electoral Commission, etc. and all of that fun stuff. Even Bush v. Gore only dealt with the legality of a recount, and the decision concerned the application of Florida's election standards.

A technicality, a Constitutional one,

Some technicality. A majority of the Electors in the Electoral College IS the deciding, unambiguous Constitutional standard.

but not by a plurality of votes cast.

The popular vote means nothing, and is not even referenced in the Constitution.

Many on the right believe that had HRC made "one more trip" to Wisconsin or Michigan that it would have tipped her way,

Maybe, but maybe if there was no DNC-Clinton Primary COLLUSION (there's that word again) perhaps Bernie Sanders, who did win Michigan, and I think Wisconsin, would have won. OR, maybe if she wasn't as crooked as the day is long, she may have wiped the floor with both Sanders and Trump.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Ah, "Per Chance to Dream." You can refer to Shakespear, but I prefer to reference the Twilight Zone, that's why all the capital letters.

I have people still morning the death of Bob Denver this year. (he died in 2005).

Did he finally die from eating those radio-active vegetables?

[HipKat]

Where I got that from. If you were not paraphrasing the Obama-Romney debate, it is one hell of a coincidence.

It must be because I've been very firm, if you look back however many pages, when I was hammering ion the Russia thing after Trump Jr's emails came out that there is NO reason to have anything to do with a country that is our eneened to his speech rump. I listmy.

Anyway, THIS is Why I hate Trump. I listened to his speech to NY Law Enforcement today, good speech overall, much like yesterday's Medal of Valor speech, and of course, he can't stick to topic, much like the Boy Scout speech, and mentioned his frustration with the failed vote on the Republican's health care fiasco,then he said "I told them from the beginning, let Obamacare implode, THEN do something about it" which is yet another lie, considering he said in his campaign "We're going to repeal and replace it on day 1 with great health care for everybody"

[HipKat]

[QUOTE=mark blazejewski;1736609][QUOTE=BorderBob;1736607]

I am still thoughtful, but I do find it "cleaner" to let the reader decide for him/herself based on the actual reports. One sure as all hell can't really on the Snews, NY Times for a both sides of the story presentation. Just providing a non-mainstream media point of view my friend.

Since when do actual reports require reporting from multiple sides? Oh, right, since the liar in chief patched your thought process with the term fake news

[HipKat]

I don't see a citation for "collusion." It appears to be only a verb, not a statute directed at specific criminal activity.

But hold on to the one for conspiracy. It may prove useful.

Are you daft? Let me help you out. "we have information that would be detrimental to HRC, if you're interested"> "Yes, I'd love that."

Crime committed

[mark blazejewski]

Are you daft? Let me help you out. "we have information that would be detrimental to HRC, if you're interested"> "Yes, I'd love that."

Crime committed

Okay Your Honor.

I could address the purported Russian Babe-Donald Jr. exchange, but then I would be sliding off rails parallel to the rails you already slid off. No need for a multiple train wreck.

When responding, try to stay on topic. Silly HipKat.

The quote you bracketed, and incorrectly addressed, concerned the possible existence of a specific statue identifying"collusion" as a crime. No such statute was offered by Bob. You have offered no such statute.

Argue with the guy on the link below. He speaks directly to the criminality of "collusion:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNX6eqTMCEE