her and other staffers, from both parties, blew the whistle on the practice in exchange for immunity... that would be how blowing the whistle works. That is a logical falacy, one does not have to be guilty of anything to accept immunity in exchange for testimony. The granting of immunity is not evedence of guilt, it's evedence of the possibility of guilt, which is meaningless.and that hasn't happenned. last time i checked your suspicions were pretty irrelevant.There is no similar circumstance, your imaginings just don't create one. An incorrect unofficial tally was reported to the AP, the correct tally was reported officially through the canvasing effort. There is no vote fraud (which even if there were tampering wouldn't be the case... it would be elections fraud). There was no evedence of any election fraud. There was a mistake made in reporting the unofficial tally to the AP, which has no legal affect on the outcome of the election or the official tabulation of the votes. The official tabulation was verified by county officials and opposition party canvassers. Thats it. There is no "there" there.
I love it when willfully ignorant neocon wonks like Benny try to redefine reality to suit their belief system.
Pay attention Benny: whistle blowing DOES NOT require immunity from prosecution. Immunity from prosecution is granted to people WHO ARE COMPLICIT IN A CRIME, but are willing to turn States evidence against THEIR COHORTS in exchange for NOT going to jail themselves. "Whistle blowers" are employees who turn in their corrupt bosses/supervisors or illegal practices by their employers, and who recently had to have new legislation passed to protect them from hostile retribution by their companies. If you can legally and factually prove me wrong on this, Benny then please do...that means something other than your opinion, supposition and conjecture, Benny.
Now as I showed with the previous posts link, you have AGAIN the same person involved in "misplacing" votes that just happen to win the day for the GOP candidate. Coincidence? Perhaps...but when a person who beat a rap by turning rat is involved, I'll wait for a more in depth review.
Your logical falacy does not stand up.
First off, learn to spell, it's f-a-l-l-a-c-y. And there is no such thing as a "logical" fallacy...another sign that Benny's more comfortable with his version of reality than actual reality. Immunity from prosecution is not proof of criminal activity. It's kind of like the 5th, not saying doesn't make you guilty or not guilty and cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, its just not saying because there is a POSSIBILITY that you MAY be incriminated.
I said before I didn't want YOUR opinion, Benny....I wanted you to provide fact based, documented, valid definitions as to what a whistle blower is and what Immunity from prosecution entails. You, Benny, don't know WTF you're talking about. So once again, I'll have to school you. Observe and learn:
State and federal statutes may grant witnesses immunity from prosecution for the use of their testimony in court or before a grand jury. Sometimes, the testimony of one witness is so valuable to the goals of crime prevention and justice that the promise of allowing that witness to go unpunished is a fair trade. For example, a drug dealer's testimony that could help law enforcement to destroy an entire illegal drug-manufacturing network is more beneficial to society than is the prosecution of that lone drug dealer. Although the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution grants witnesses a PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted prosecutors to overcome this privilege by granting witnesses immunity. Prosecutors have the sole discretion to grant immunity to witnesses who appear before a grand jury or at trial.
States employ one of two approaches to prosecutorial immunity: Use immunity prohibits only the witness's compelled testimony, and evidence stemming from that testimony, from being used to prosecute the witness. The witness still may be prosecuted so long as the prosecutor can obtain other physical, testimonial, or CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE apart from the witness's testimony. Transactional immunity completely immunizes the witness from prosecution for any offense to which the testimony relates.
Immunity - Immunity From Prosecution - Witness, Testimony, Grant, Witnesses, Drug, and Investigations
Accepting immunity from prosecution is no different, and sorry to burst your bubble but if a whistle blower is complicit in a crime or believes they MAY have been complicit in a crime they would be an idiot not to seek immunity in exchange for their testimony, and the state would be idiots if they didn't offer it at least conditionally. You don't know that anything different than that occurred as you have no more of the facts than I do. Could be either one.
Your supposition and conjecture is irrelevent, Benny. Here's another dose of reality for you:
Whistleblowers are individuals who have the courage and integrity to stand up and call attention to wrongdoing in government and private industry. They report illegal activities because it is the right thing to do, even though it can trigger retaliation.
San Francisco Whistleblower Lawyer :: What is a Whistleblower Lawsuit? :: Sacramento, California Qui Tam Attorney
Also dumbass, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, no votes were misplaced. Thats just your imagination working in overtime. The only thing that happenned here was that an incorrect unofficial tabulation of the votes was passed on to the AP, and that it was incorrect was discovered in the official canvas conducted by the county officials under the scrutiny of canvas watchers from both parties. There are no official acts to investigate. there is no "there" there. The only thing an investigation can show is how the incorrect number was given to the AP in the unofficial tabulation which has no bearring on the outcome of the election and its official results.
