Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

[Dr.House]

Hows the recount coming? Able to manufacture 7000+ votes yet?





The republicans must have stoleded this bee-yatch....lol

 

[taichiliberal]

The only thing for anyone to notice is that you're a laughably stupid liar. Why not show a modicum of honesty and just admit the case had nothing to do with any vote tampering, that it was both parties that were at fault and that it was about staff working on campaigns not about election of vote fraud?

Oh, thats right, because you're a lying ass.

BTW dumbass, when did I ever say Klappenbagger wasn't entitled to a recount...

Oh thats right, I didn't, and you're just a further liying stupid ass.

Also liar, the only thing I've ever done here is hold out the possibility that it could be a case of whistle blowing and said quite clearly that neither you nor I know anything different. You're the ******* moron who's making claims you can't back up as if being a whistleblower would somehow preclude anyone from accepting immunity in the event that they believed they might be implicated in criminal activity doing so. Fact is they can be, and immunity is a tool the prosecution uses to get at the truth. Maybe she was implicated, maybe she was a small fish (which dumbass, she was), maybe they offered her immunity to get at bigger fish (which dumbass, is what happenned). Whether she went to them or they came to her is what neither you nor I know, so stop pretending you do.

The chronology of the posts shows Benny to be either completely delusional or a cowardly, lying little neocon/teabagger toadie or both. Observe, ladies and gentlemen:

Posts #571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610

Like all intellectually bankrupt neocon/teabagging wonks, Benny just regurgitates the SOS in various ways, with a few false accusations and outright lies thrown in for good measure...Benny should apply to one of Murdoch's media outlets...he should do well!

So you can't back up your lies. No problem, everyone knew you couldn't. And now you attempt to compound them with even more lies, this time about me personally. You are such a stupid ass. I have never been to a TP rally, have no intention of ever attending one, and have no need to attend one. When I speek I do it with my vote, not standing in the street like some dumbassed liberal activist. If the time ever comes for me to go to the streets... it won't be with a sign.

Back up your lie asshole. Show us where the immunity was granted in connection to a case involving vote tampering.

Back up your lie asshole, show us where she's ever been charged with the crimes of vote tampering or elections fraud and gotten immunity for that.

Since you can't, why not display a small bit of integrity and just admit you lied.

Oh... yeah, liars have no integrity.

Benny keeps yelling "you lie!", but he cannot provide the exact quote as to what I'm "lying" about. As the chronology of the posts shows, Benny has a nasty habit of trying to substitute his supposition and conjecture for the facts and the logic derived from them.

Benny keeps repeating that the case in which Nickolaus was granted immunity from prosecution for her testimony was not about "voter fraud". As the chronology of the posts shows, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT... as I provided the link that referred to the case involving corrupt politicians. Benny either cannot comprehend/remember what he read, or just lies to try and cover his Benny stubborn folly.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I provided LEGAL DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE of the differences of "immunity from prosecution" and "whistle blower". Benny just REFUSES to accept the FACTS, and thus continues to push his own supposition and conjecture in order to try and paint Nickolaus as snow white with regards to Wisconsin politics. Pity that Benny cannot accept the FACTS....being granted immunity from prosecution means that you can give testimony in a court case WITHOUT fear of violating your 5th Amendment rights. "Whistle blowers" are an entirely different matter....and to date Benny cannot produce any legal precedent that supports his oft repeated assertions that meld whistle blower laws with a granting of immunity from prosecution to apply to Nickolaus.

Bottom line: Nickolaus actions in combination with her dubious history in Wisconsin politics and the vote turnout numbers (and how those numbers came about) gives Kloppenburg every right to under Wisconsin law for a recount. What ever falls out of that will be that.

Now Benny fabricates all types of stories of me making accusations and statements that I just did not do....as the chronology of the posts will show. Posts #571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610

Benny claims not to be a teabagger, but his actions here mimic the convoluted logic and irrational rants those neocon off-shoot numbskulls love so much. Benny will just continue to deteriorate and regurgitate his schtick, hoping no one will notice his failures here. So be it, I'm done exposing Benny's willful ignorance.

 

[Zander]

Hows the recount coming? Able to manufacture 7000+ votes yet?





The republicans must have stoleded this bee-yatch....lol

The recount will end with the same result that we have today. The Democrat/Progressive/liberal/commie candidate will lose.

 

[BenNatuf]

I see, so because the crooked registrar in this Wisconsin county wasn't given immunity for voter fraud, but some OTHER crime, she couldn't possible be involved in anything else nefarious?

Gee, this criminal only took stereos before...why would we think they would steal TVs now?

You have evedence that she actually committed one and didn't just accept the immunity deal to protect herself in the event that she may have? Facts are what they are, the case had to do with staff working on political campaigns for both dems and reps in WI. It was common practice and the staff are not to blame for it... they are if anything the victims of the crimes along with the public. They were granted immunity in exchange for them testifying against the bigger fish who directed them to conduct illegal acts.

 

[BenNatuf]

The chronology of the posts shows Benny to be either completely delusional or a cowardly, lying little neocon/teabagger toadie or both. Observe, ladies and gentlemen:

Posts #571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610

Like all intellectually bankrupt neocon/teabagging wonks, Benny just regurgitates the SOS in various ways, with a few false accusations and outright lies thrown in for good measure...Benny should apply to one of Murdoch's media outlets...he should do well!

So you can't back up your lies. No problem, everyone knew you couldn't. And now you attempt to compound them with even more lies, this time about me personally. You are such a stupid ass. I have never been to a TP rally, have no intention of ever attending one, and have no need to attend one. When I speek I do it with my vote, not standing in the street like some dumbassed liberal activist. If the time ever comes for me to go to the streets... it won't be with a sign.

Back up your lie asshole. Show us where the immunity was granted in connection to a case involving vote tampering.

Back up your lie asshole, show us where she's ever been charged with the crimes of vote tampering or elections fraud and gotten immunity for that.

Since you can't, why not display a small bit of integrity and just admit you lied.

Oh... yeah, liars have no integrity.

Benny keeps yelling "you lie!", but he cannot provide the exact quote as to what I'm "lying" about. As the chronology of the posts shows, Benny has a nasty habit of trying to substitute his supposition and conjecture for the facts and the logic derived from them.

Benny keeps repeating that the case in which Nickolaus was granted immunity from prosecution for her testimony was not about "voter fraud". As the chronology of the posts shows, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT... as I provided the link that referred to the case involving corrupt politicians. Benny either cannot comprehend/remember what he read, or just lies to try and cover his Benny stubborn folly.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I provided LEGAL DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE of the differences of "immunity from prosecution" and "whistle blower". Benny just REFUSES to accept the FACTS, and thus continues to push his own supposition and conjecture in order to try and paint Nickolaus as snow white with regards to Wisconsin politics. Pity that Benny cannot accept the FACTS....being granted immunity from prosecution means that you can give testimony in a court case WITHOUT fear of violating your 5th Amendment rights. "Whistle blowers" are an entirely different matter....and to date Benny cannot produce any legal precedent that supports his oft repeated assertions that meld whistle blower laws with a granting of immunity from prosecution to apply to Nickolaus.

Bottom line: Nickolaus actions in combination with her dubious history in Wisconsin politics and the vote turnout numbers (and how those numbers came about) gives Kloppenburg every right to under Wisconsin law for a recount. What ever falls out of that will be that.

Now Benny fabricates all types of stories of me making accusations and statements that I just did not do....as the chronology of the posts will show. Posts #571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610

Benny claims not to be a teabagger, but his actions here mimic the convoluted logic and irrational rants those neocon off-shoot numbskulls love so much. Benny will just continue to deteriorate and regurgitate his schtick, hoping no one will notice his failures here. So be it, I'm done exposing Benny's willful ignorance.

Why do you insist on continuing to lie? And this time you lie about your lying. Is it congenital?

...you have a woman who was granted immunity from prosecution in order to testify against others arrested for vote tampering...

That would be from post 607 dumbass. Nowhere after that post did you ever admit you lied. The case had nothing to do with vote tampering and you are a proven (though very poor) liar.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3556737-post607.html

Your "cronology" stupid ass runs out in your next post, post # 610

You can "imagine" all you want, Benny boy....that's been your problem all along. Me, I'll take ALL the facts and wait for the outcome.

RThat would be post 610 dumbass, The last post in your so called "cronology". I'm not seeing where you admitted what you said in post 607 is wrong. So why not have a small itty bitty bit of integrity and just admit you lied when you said the case was about vote tampering?

Oh, thats right...

Because you're a liar.

So there you have it liar. Your lie, your failed defense claiming you didn't lie or admitted you were wrong, and the cronology you claim proves you right, that only seem to prove you lied.

Liar.

And in the above quoted post you say this

Benny keeps repeating that the case in which Nickolaus was granted immunity from prosecution for her testimony was not about "voter fraud". As the chronology of the posts shows, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT

yet the 'cronology" clearly shows you acknowledged nothing, but continued with the lie. Is you saying you acknowledged here in this post finaly your copping to your lies? Odd that you would do it by lying about having done it before.

Again, why do you lie so much?

here, I'll help you out it should look something like this...

I tackyliberal, admit that B' en Natuf was right. I, tackyliberal, lied when I, tackylliberal, said voter fraud was involved in the previous case, I, tackyliberal then lied about lying about voter fraud being involved in the previous case when B'en Natuf correctly pointed out that I, tackyliberal, was wrong, I tackyliberal, then further lied about having acknowledged that I, tackyliberal, both lied and lied about lying, and have now lied about my, (tackyliberal's) previous lies and lies about lying.

^^^not a real quote^^^

 

[Seawytch]

I see, so because the crooked registrar in this Wisconsin county wasn't given immunity for voter fraud, but some OTHER crime, she couldn't possible be involved in anything else nefarious?

Gee, this criminal only took stereos before...why would we think they would steal TVs now?

You have evedence that she actually committed one and didn't just accept the immunity deal to protect herself in the event that she may have? Facts are what they are, the case had to do with staff working on political campaigns for both dems and reps in WI. It was common practice and the staff are not to blame for it... they are if anything the victims of the crimes along with the public. They were granted immunity in exchange for them testifying against the bigger fish who directed them to conduct illegal acts.

Valiant effort there, Ben, in defending a criminal. You don't need immunity if you've done nothing wrong. Kathy Nickolaus was obviously dirty or she wouldn't have been offered (and TOOK) immunity. The people of Waukesha elected a crook, but it's a Republican district and ya'll do love your crooks. (Republicans elected a convicted one in Florida)

Remember when Republicans used to claim they were the "Law and Order" party?

 

[del]

I see, so because the crooked registrar in this Wisconsin county wasn't given immunity for voter fraud, but some OTHER crime, she couldn't possible be involved in anything else nefarious?

Gee, this criminal only took stereos before...why would we think they would steal TVs now?

You have evedence that she actually committed one and didn't just accept the immunity deal to protect herself in the event that she may have? Facts are what they are, the case had to do with staff working on political campaigns for both dems and reps in WI. It was common practice and the staff are not to blame for it... they are if anything the victims of the crimes along with the public. They were granted immunity in exchange for them testifying against the bigger fish who directed them to conduct illegal acts.

Valiant effort there, Ben, in defending a criminal. You don't need immunity if you've done nothing wrong. Kathy Nickolaus was obviously dirty or she wouldn't have been offered (and TOOK) immunity. The people of Waukesha elected a crook, but it's a Republican district and ya'll do love your crooks. (Republicans elected a convicted one in Florida)

Remember when Republicans used to claim they were the "Law and Order" party?

remember when there was this concept of innocent until proven guilty?

people would have this thing called an "indictment", followed by a "trial"with a panel of people called a "jury". they would announce a "verdict"

you can google it if you don't believe me, fuckchop.

 

[Seawytch]

You have evedence that she actually committed one and didn't just accept the immunity deal to protect herself in the event that she may have? Facts are what they are, the case had to do with staff working on political campaigns for both dems and reps in WI. It was common practice and the staff are not to blame for it... they are if anything the victims of the crimes along with the public. They were granted immunity in exchange for them testifying against the bigger fish who directed them to conduct illegal acts.

Valiant effort there, Ben, in defending a criminal. You don't need immunity if you've done nothing wrong. Kathy Nickolaus was obviously dirty or she wouldn't have been offered (and TOOK) immunity. The people of Waukesha elected a crook, but it's a Republican district and ya'll do love your crooks. (Republicans elected a convicted one in Florida)

Remember when Republicans used to claim they were the "Law and Order" party?

remember when there was this concept of innocent until proven guilty?

people would have this thing called an "indictment", followed by a "trial"with a panel of people called a "jury". they would announce a "verdict"

you can google it if you don't believe me, fuckchop.

Gosh, "fuckchop"...how creative

Innocent people don't get immunity for their testimony.

 

[del]

Valiant effort there, Ben, in defending a criminal. You don't need immunity if you've done nothing wrong. Kathy Nickolaus was obviously dirty or she wouldn't have been offered (and TOOK) immunity. The people of Waukesha elected a crook, but it's a Republican district and ya'll do love your crooks. (Republicans elected a convicted one in Florida)

Remember when Republicans used to claim they were the "Law and Order" party?

remember when there was this concept of innocent until proven guilty?

people would have this thing called an "indictment", followed by a "trial"with a panel of people called a "jury". they would announce a "verdict"

you can google it if you don't believe me, fuckchop.

Gosh, "fuckchop"...how creative

Innocent people don't get immunity for their testimony.

uh, yes, they do.

my condolences on your impending loss.

 

[BenNatuf]

I see, so because the crooked registrar in this Wisconsin county wasn't given immunity for voter fraud, but some OTHER crime, she couldn't possible be involved in anything else nefarious?

Gee, this criminal only took stereos before...why would we think they would steal TVs now?

You have evedence that she actually committed one and didn't just accept the immunity deal to protect herself in the event that she may have? Facts are what they are, the case had to do with staff working on political campaigns for both dems and reps in WI. It was common practice and the staff are not to blame for it... they are if anything the victims of the crimes along with the public. They were granted immunity in exchange for them testifying against the bigger fish who directed them to conduct illegal acts.

Valiant effort there, Ben, in defending a criminal.

Criminal? Do you have a link to the trial where she was found guilty of anything... cause that what it takes to be a "criminal"?

You don't need immunity if you've done nothing wrong. Kathy Nickolaus was obviously dirty or she wouldn't have been offered (and TOOK) immunity.

You don't "need" it, but then again having it when you've done nothing wrong, or were not the party responsible for the wrongdoing you ended up being involved in doesn't hurt when the state wants your testimony either Nickolaus was a low level staffer doing what low level staffers (of both parties) did. She testified against the big fish, which is what the state wanted. You have NO IDEA whether she was offered immunity for her testimony after being implicated, or if she requested immunity to protect herself in the event she may have committed a crime doing what her bosses told her to do (but wasn't sure). Nither do I, and unlike you all... I'm not claiming to know.

The people of Waukesha elected a crook, but it's a Republican district and ya'll do love your crooks. (Republicans elected a convicted one in Florida)

Alcee Hastings is a democratic.

 

[taichiliberal]

So you can't back up your lies. No problem, everyone knew you couldn't. And now you attempt to compound them with even more lies, this time about me personally. You are such a stupid ass. I have never been to a TP rally, have no intention of ever attending one, and have no need to attend one. When I speek I do it with my vote, not standing in the street like some dumbassed liberal activist. If the time ever comes for me to go to the streets... it won't be with a sign.

Back up your lie asshole. Show us where the immunity was granted in connection to a case involving vote tampering.

Back up your lie asshole, show us where she's ever been charged with the crimes of vote tampering or elections fraud and gotten immunity for that.

Since you can't, why not display a small bit of integrity and just admit you lied.

Oh... yeah, liars have no integrity.

Benny keeps yelling "you lie!", but he cannot provide the exact quote as to what I'm "lying" about. As the chronology of the posts shows, Benny has a nasty habit of trying to substitute his supposition and conjecture for the facts and the logic derived from them.

Benny keeps repeating that the case in which Nickolaus was granted immunity from prosecution for her testimony was not about "voter fraud". As the chronology of the posts shows, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT... as I provided the link that referred to the case involving corrupt politicians. Benny either cannot comprehend/remember what he read, or just lies to try and cover his Benny stubborn folly.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I provided LEGAL DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE of the differences of "immunity from prosecution" and "whistle blower". Benny just REFUSES to accept the FACTS, and thus continues to push his own supposition and conjecture in order to try and paint Nickolaus as snow white with regards to Wisconsin politics. Pity that Benny cannot accept the FACTS....being granted immunity from prosecution means that you can give testimony in a court case WITHOUT fear of violating your 5th Amendment rights. "Whistle blowers" are an entirely different matter....and to date Benny cannot produce any legal precedent that supports his oft repeated assertions that meld whistle blower laws with a granting of immunity from prosecution to apply to Nickolaus.

Bottom line: Nickolaus actions in combination with her dubious history in Wisconsin politics and the vote turnout numbers (and how those numbers came about) gives Kloppenburg every right to under Wisconsin law for a recount. What ever falls out of that will be that.

Now Benny fabricates all types of stories of me making accusations and statements that I just did not do....as the chronology of the posts will show. Posts #571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610

Benny claims not to be a teabagger, but his actions here mimic the convoluted logic and irrational rants those neocon off-shoot numbskulls love so much. Benny will just continue to deteriorate and regurgitate his schtick, hoping no one will notice his failures here. So be it, I'm done exposing Benny's willful ignorance.

Why do you insist on continuing to lie? And this time you lie about your lying. Is it congenital?



That would be from post 607 dumbass. Nowhere after that post did you ever admit you lied. The case had nothing to do with vote tampering and you are a proven (though very poor) liar.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3556737-post607.html

Your "cronology" stupid ass runs out in your next post, post # 610

RThat would be post 610 dumbass, The last post in your so called "cronology". I'm not seeing where you admitted what you said in post 607 is wrong. So why not have a small itty bitty bit of integrity and just admit you lied when you said the case was about vote tampering?

Oh, thats right...

Because you're a liar.

So there you have it liar. Your lie, your failed defense claiming you didn't lie or admitted you were wrong, and the cronology you claim proves you right, that only seem to prove you lied.

Liar.

And in the above quoted post you say this

Benny keeps repeating that the case in which Nickolaus was granted immunity from prosecution for her testimony was not about "voter fraud". As the chronology of the posts shows, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT

yet the 'cronology" clearly shows you acknowledged nothing, but continued with the lie. Is you saying you acknowledged here in this post finaly your copping to your lies? Odd that you would do it by lying about having done it before.

Again, why do you lie so much?

here, I'll help you out it should look something like this...

I tackyliberal, admit that B' en Natuf was right. I, tackyliberal, lied when I, tackylliberal, said voter fraud was involved in the previous case, I, tackyliberal then lied about lying about voter fraud being involved in the previous case when B'en Natuf correctly pointed out that I, tackyliberal, was wrong, I tackyliberal, then further lied about having acknowledged that I, tackyliberal, both lied and lied about lying, and have now lied about my, (tackyliberal's) previous lies and lies about lying.

^^^not a real quote^^^

I detest liars such as Benny....Check Post #601.....seems Benny didn't read or wants to ignore that one, which is where I admit error on one part....which is why Benny keeps frothing at the mouth about me "lying". If one ignores certain FACTS, then all Benny's assertions and accusations would make sense. From there, Posts #603, 607, and 610 refer to LEGAL definitions, of which Benny just wants to ignore and create his own version of in order to suit his beliefs and assertions. Beyond that, just follow 571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610...which shows Benny's totally irrational and absurd repetitions. Benny wants his version of reality, legal precedent, documented facts and current records of events be damned. Benny is what's known as willfully ignorant, with a dose of insipid stubborness thrown in.

As the chronology of the posts shows, Benny is just full of it.....what's pathetic is how Benny will insist that his myopic opinion, supposition and conjecture replaces documented facts and the logic derived from them. So be it....I learned long ago that you can't rationally argue with fools like Benny, and it's best to let them have the last diatribe.

 

[Dr.House]

Hows the recount coming? Able to manufacture 7000+ votes yet?





The republicans must have stoleded this bee-yatch....lol

The recount will end with the same result that we have today. The Democrat/Progressive/liberal/commie candidate will lose.

Doesn't take Kreskin to figure out that one....lol

 

[taichiliberal]

Valiant effort there, Ben, in defending a criminal. You don't need immunity if you've done nothing wrong. Kathy Nickolaus was obviously dirty or she wouldn't have been offered (and TOOK) immunity. The people of Waukesha elected a crook, but it's a Republican district and ya'll do love your crooks. (Republicans elected a convicted one in Florida)

Remember when Republicans used to claim they were the "Law and Order" party?

remember when there was this concept of innocent until proven guilty?

people would have this thing called an "indictment", followed by a "trial"with a panel of people called a "jury". they would announce a "verdict"

you can google it if you don't believe me, fuckchop.

Gosh, "fuckchop"...how creative

Innocent people don't get immunity for their testimony.

I've asked several times for Benny or his like minded cohorts to produce the legal case precedent or law where the whistle blower laws became based on or incorporated "immunity from prosecution".....or where the court deemed that a person NOT charged with a crime had to be granted "immunity from prosecution" to testify. To date, I get nothing but there supposition and conjecture. But then I forgot that neocons and teabaggers approach law, politics and practically everything in society from a personal "faith based" attitude.

 

[BenNatuf]

Benny keeps yelling "you lie!", but he cannot provide the exact quote as to what I'm "lying" about. As the chronology of the posts shows, Benny has a nasty habit of trying to substitute his supposition and conjecture for the facts and the logic derived from them.

Benny keeps repeating that the case in which Nickolaus was granted immunity from prosecution for her testimony was not about "voter fraud". As the chronology of the posts shows, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT... as I provided the link that referred to the case involving corrupt politicians. Benny either cannot comprehend/remember what he read, or just lies to try and cover his Benny stubborn folly.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I provided LEGAL DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE of the differences of "immunity from prosecution" and "whistle blower". Benny just REFUSES to accept the FACTS, and thus continues to push his own supposition and conjecture in order to try and paint Nickolaus as snow white with regards to Wisconsin politics. Pity that Benny cannot accept the FACTS....being granted immunity from prosecution means that you can give testimony in a court case WITHOUT fear of violating your 5th Amendment rights. "Whistle blowers" are an entirely different matter....and to date Benny cannot produce any legal precedent that supports his oft repeated assertions that meld whistle blower laws with a granting of immunity from prosecution to apply to Nickolaus.

Bottom line: Nickolaus actions in combination with her dubious history in Wisconsin politics and the vote turnout numbers (and how those numbers came about) gives Kloppenburg every right to under Wisconsin law for a recount. What ever falls out of that will be that.

Now Benny fabricates all types of stories of me making accusations and statements that I just did not do....as the chronology of the posts will show. Posts #571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610

Benny claims not to be a teabagger, but his actions here mimic the convoluted logic and irrational rants those neocon off-shoot numbskulls love so much. Benny will just continue to deteriorate and regurgitate his schtick, hoping no one will notice his failures here. So be it, I'm done exposing Benny's willful ignorance.

Why do you insist on continuing to lie? And this time you lie about your lying. Is it congenital?



That would be from post 607 dumbass. Nowhere after that post did you ever admit you lied. The case had nothing to do with vote tampering and you are a proven (though very poor) liar.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3556737-post607.html

Your "cronology" stupid ass runs out in your next post, post # 610

RThat would be post 610 dumbass, The last post in your so called "cronology". I'm not seeing where you admitted what you said in post 607 is wrong. So why not have a small itty bitty bit of integrity and just admit you lied when you said the case was about vote tampering?

Oh, thats right...

Because you're a liar.

So there you have it liar. Your lie, your failed defense claiming you didn't lie or admitted you were wrong, and the cronology you claim proves you right, that only seem to prove you lied.

Liar.

And in the above quoted post you say this

yet the 'cronology" clearly shows you acknowledged nothing, but continued with the lie. Is you saying you acknowledged here in this post finaly your copping to your lies? Odd that you would do it by lying about having done it before.

Again, why do you lie so much?

here, I'll help you out it should look something like this...

I tackyliberal, admit that B' en Natuf was right. I, tackyliberal, lied when I, tackylliberal, said voter fraud was involved in the previous case, I, tackyliberal then lied about lying about voter fraud being involved in the previous case when B'en Natuf correctly pointed out that I, tackyliberal, was wrong, I tackyliberal, then further lied about having acknowledged that I, tackyliberal, both lied and lied about lying, and have now lied about my, (tackyliberal's) previous lies and lies about lying.

^^^not a real quote^^^

I detest liars such as Benny....Check Post #601.....seems Benny didn't read or wants to ignore that one, which is where I admit error on one part....which is why Benny keeps frothing at the mouth about me "lying". If one ignores certain FACTS, then all Benny's assertions and accusations would make sense. From there, Posts #603, 607, and 610 refer to LEGAL definitions, of which Benny just wants to ignore and create his own version of in order to suit his beliefs and assertions. Beyond that, just follow 571, 578, 590, 597, 601, 603, 607 and 610...which shows Benny's totally irrational and absurd repetitions. Benny wants his version of reality, legal precedent, documented facts and current records of events be damned. Benny is what's known as willfully ignorant, with a dose of insipid stubborness thrown in.

As the chronology of the posts shows, Benny is just full of it.....what's pathetic is how Benny will insist that his myopic opinion, supposition and conjecture replaces documented facts and the logic derived from them. So be it....I learned long ago that you can't rationally argue with fools like Benny, and it's best to let them have the last diatribe.

And now your lying about telling the truth? Do you ever stop lying? Post 607 dumbass is AFTER post 601 and its in post 607 that you lied YET AGAIN and claimed she was granted immunity to testify abgainst people who were "arrested for vote tampering". No such thing occurred as no vote tampering was ever a factor in the case.

Once again liar here is what you said in post 607, several posts after you claim to have copped to your lie in post 601

Bottom line: you have a woman who was granted immunity from prosecution in order to testify against others arrested for vote tampering...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3556737-post607.html

Now liar, you can easily see that post 607 comes AFTER post 601 and that you CONTINUED to lie about it. In post 601 you admitted it was not voter fraud, and then you came back in post 607 with a different charge "vote tampering" (which BTW would be elections fraud), another spurious charge that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the case, and ANOTHER lie. The case was about staffers working on campaigns durring work hours, both democratic and GOP staffers were bought in to corroborate the practice which was commonplace.

Now, just admit you lied, and to cover it up came back with another lie, and that you are now continuing to lie. Not just about the charge, but about lying, admitting you lied, and claiming you admitted you lied.

Really, this is pretty damned sad for you since its so EASY to prove.

BTW dumbass, your supposition about her actually having committed a crime is just as much a supposition (more so in fact) than my saying I don't know if she did or not. I only know she was granted immunity for crimes she MAY have committed in exchange for her testimony against the TARGETS of the investigation. That would be pretty common even for those who have committed no crime but think they MAY have. In fact stupid ass, me saying "I don't know" is not any sort of supposition at all.

 

[BenNatuf]

remember when there was this concept of innocent until proven guilty?

people would have this thing called an "indictment", followed by a "trial"with a panel of people called a "jury". they would announce a "verdict"

you can google it if you don't believe me, fuckchop.

Gosh, "fuckchop"...how creative

Innocent people don't get immunity for their testimony.

I've asked several times for Benny or his like minded cohorts to produce the legal case precedent or law where the whistle blower laws became based on or incorporated "immunity from prosecution".....or where the court deemed that a person NOT charged with a crime had to be granted "immunity from prosecution" to testify. To date, I get nothing but there supposition and conjecture. But then I forgot that neocons and teabaggers approach law, politics and practically everything in society from a personal "faith based" attitude.

Seriously, how ******* stupid are you? Of course immunity is a tool prosecutors may use to protect whistleblowers. Without it whistleblowers who were made complicit in crimes would be incriminating themselves.

1006 WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTES AND IMMUNITY: Whistleblower statutes are intended to protect the disclosure of improper conduct, not the underlying conduct itself. Consequently, none of the whistleblower statutes IGs are concerned with provide whistleblowers immunity from discipline or prosecution for their participation in the misconduct they disclose. Conversely, the statutes do not prohibit a grant of immunity from prosecution or discipline, and the False Claims Act even permits a participant to recover money for reporting the fraud, albeit at a reduced rate. IG investigators may be confronted by people who offer to make whistleblower communications in return for both immunity and protection from reprisal. Investigators must be careful not to promise whistleblowers immunity, and to ensure that any decision to grant immunity from prosecution or disciplinary action based on the underlying misconduct is made by proper authority. IG investigators also must remember that they can never guarantee whistleblowers freedom from retaliation or reprisal. They can promise a thorough investigation and an IG recommendation for remedial action if an allegation of reprisal or retaliation is substantiated. Return to Chapter Table of Contents.

The proper authority dumbass, would be the prosecutor.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/Documents/In...rd)/Chapter 10 - Whistleblower Protection.doc

more reading for your stupid ass

When I first met Robert Rester, I was investigating McWane as part of a reporting team at The New York Times. Rester eventually went on the record and became a key source for our story. His revelations, echoed by scores of McWane employees across the country, internal company documents and government records, figured prominently into a three-part series in The Times and a corresponding PBS Frontline documentary. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and environmental regulators, too, took notice and offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts. When it was all over, McWane was fined millions of dollars for safety and environmental violations and several employees were convicted of felonies. Rester's McWane career, however, had come to an abrupt end.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2008/12/the-whistleblowers-tightrope.html

 

[taichiliberal]

Gosh, "fuckchop"...how creative

Innocent people don't get immunity for their testimony.

I've asked several times for Benny or his like minded cohorts to produce the legal case precedent or law where the whistle blower laws became based on or incorporated "immunity from prosecution".....or where the court deemed that a person NOT charged with a crime had to be granted "immunity from prosecution" to testify. To date, I get nothing but there supposition and conjecture. But then I forgot that neocons and teabaggers approach law, politics and practically everything in society from a personal "faith based" attitude.

Seriously, how ******* stupid are you? Of course immunity is a tool prosecutors may use to protect whistleblowers. Without it whistleblowers who were made complicit in crimes would be incriminating themselves.

1006 WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTES AND IMMUNITY: Whistleblower statutes are intended to protect the disclosure of improper conduct, not the underlying conduct itself. Consequently, none of the whistleblower statutes IGs are concerned with provide whistleblowers immunity from discipline or prosecution for their participation in the misconduct they disclose. Conversely, the statutes do not prohibit a grant of immunity from prosecution or discipline, and the False Claims Act even permits a participant to recover money for reporting the fraud, albeit at a reduced rate. IG investigators may be confronted by people who offer to make whistleblower communications in return for both immunity and protection from reprisal. Investigators must be careful not to promise whistleblowers immunity, and to ensure that any decision to grant immunity from prosecution or disciplinary action based on the underlying misconduct is made by proper authority. IG investigators also must remember that they can never guarantee whistleblowers freedom from retaliation or reprisal. They can promise a thorough investigation and an IG recommendation for remedial action if an allegation of reprisal or retaliation is substantiated. Return to Chapter Table of Contents.

The proper authority dumbass, would be the prosecutor.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/Documents/In...rd)/Chapter 10 - Whistleblower Protection.doc

more reading for your stupid ass

When I first met Robert Rester, I was investigating McWane as part of a reporting team at The New York Times. Rester eventually went on the record and became a key source for our story. His revelations, echoed by scores of McWane employees across the country, internal company documents and government records, figured prominently into a three-part series in The Times and a corresponding PBS Frontline documentary. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and environmental regulators, too, took notice and offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts. When it was all over, McWane was fined millions of dollars for safety and environmental violations and several employees were convicted of felonies. Rester's McWane career, however, had come to an abrupt end.

The Whistleblower's Tightrope - Exposé: America's Investigative Reports

Benny, you ******* ignoramus! LEARN to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY!

".... offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts

Rester was complicit in a crime...he wasn't just some working stiff who noticed corrupt management policies and the managers profiting from such....Rester was ONE of the corrupt management getting paid who blew the whistle. His actions were complicit in a crime, hence his need for immunity from prosecution for "blowing the whistle"!

Consequently, none of the whistleblower statutes IGs are concerned with provide whistleblowers immunity from discipline or prosecution for their participation in the misconduct they disclose.

IG investigators may be confronted by people who offer to make whistleblower communications in return for both immunity and protection from reprisal. Investigators must be careful not to promise whistleblowers immunity, and to ensure that any decision to grant immunity from prosecution or disciplinary action based on the underlying misconduct is made by proper authority

And THAT's just by military standards, you Benny bumpkin! It coincides with the links I provided in earlier posts. Clearly there are two different set of circumstances regarding whistleblowers and immunity from prosecution. Immunity from prosecution is NOT granted to whistleblowers automatically....YOU HAVE TO BE COMPLICIT IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. Which is why Nickolaus was granted such in an earlier Wisconsin political scandal, and why her envolvement in the current race raised enough suspicions to warrant a perfectly legal recount by Kloppenburg (spL).

The chronology of the post (note Post #658) shows that I've stated and proved this time and again....but YOU Benny are just insipidly stubborn. So be it...perhaps now that you've provided the nails for your own coffin in this debate, you'll STFU and leave with some dignity instead of trying to lie about what you or I actually have stated. The chronology of the post will ALWAYS be there to thwart you, Benny. Adios.

 

[BenNatuf]

I've asked several times for Benny or his like minded cohorts to produce the legal case precedent or law where the whistle blower laws became based on or incorporated "immunity from prosecution".....or where the court deemed that a person NOT charged with a crime had to be granted "immunity from prosecution" to testify. To date, I get nothing but there supposition and conjecture. But then I forgot that neocons and teabaggers approach law, politics and practically everything in society from a personal "faith based" attitude.

Seriously, how ******* stupid are you? Of course immunity is a tool prosecutors may use to protect whistleblowers. Without it whistleblowers who were made complicit in crimes would be incriminating themselves.

The proper authority dumbass, would be the prosecutor.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/Documents/In...rd)/Chapter 10 - Whistleblower Protection.doc

more reading for your stupid ass

When I first met Robert Rester, I was investigating McWane as part of a reporting team at The New York Times. Rester eventually went on the record and became a key source for our story. His revelations, echoed by scores of McWane employees across the country, internal company documents and government records, figured prominently into a three-part series in The Times and a corresponding PBS Frontline documentary. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and environmental regulators, too, took notice and offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts. When it was all over, McWane was fined millions of dollars for safety and environmental violations and several employees were convicted of felonies. Rester's McWane career, however, had come to an abrupt end.

The Whistleblower's Tightrope - Exposé: America's Investigative Reports

Benny, you ******* ignoramus! LEARN to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY!

".... offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts

Rester was complicit in a crime...he wasn't just some working stiff who noticed corrupt management policies and the managers profiting from such....Rester was ONE of the corrupt management getting paid who blew the whistle. His actions were complicit in a crime, hence his need for immunity from prosecution for "blowing the whistle"!

Consequently, none of the whistleblower statutes IGs are concerned with provide whistleblowers immunity from discipline or prosecution for their participation in the misconduct they disclose.

IG investigators may be confronted by people who offer to make whistleblower communications in return for both immunity and protection from reprisal. Investigators must be careful not to promise whistleblowers immunity, and to ensure that any decision to grant immunity from prosecution or disciplinary action based on the underlying misconduct is made by proper authority

And THAT's just by military standards, you Benny bumpkin! It coincides with the links I provided in earlier posts. Clearly there are two different set of circumstances regarding whistleblowers and immunity from prosecution. Immunity from prosecution is NOT granted to whistleblowers automatically....YOU HAVE TO BE COMPLICIT IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. Which is why Nickolaus was granted such in an earlier Wisconsin political scandal, and why her envolvement in the current race raised enough suspicions to warrant a perfectly legal recount by Kloppenburg (spL).

The chronology of the post (note Post #658) shows that I've stated and proved this time and again....but YOU Benny are just insipidly stubborn. So be it...perhaps now that you've provided the nails for your own coffin in this debate, you'll STFU and leave with some dignity instead of trying to lie about what you or I actually have stated. The chronology of the post will ALWAYS be there to thwart you, Benny. Adios.

I guess you're stupid ass didn't actualy read the link. The guy was a whistlkeblower, he was reporting the crimes, he knew himself to be complicit and the prosecutors offered him immunity for his testimony AFTER he blew the whistle you dumbass. Immunity is an oft used tool with whistleblowers. You don't have to be complicit in any criminal activity to be offered or accept immunity, you just have to think you might be.

Supposing dumbass that you're a low level staffer working for a politician and are not familiar with statutes. Supposing the politician has you doing a few campaign related activities while your at work. Supposing you're not really sure if they're illegal because they might not be strictly speaking "campaign" activities but could be construed as constituent services. Suppose you blow the whistle on it but aren't actually sure if you broke the law in doing them but are aware of other activities you know others are doing that are illegal. You get an attorney and he negotiates your testimony with the prosecutors, as part of that (if he's worth a shit) he gets you immunity. Did you commit a crime? Do you know if you did? Does anybody? What harm does it do for the prosecutor to offer it to you even in the event you didn't and he knows it, or he thinks you may have but isn't going to prosecute you anyway because he's not sure he could convict? He might just get better information from you because you think you may have committed a crime. That of course is all supposition, but it is also completely possible.

And when did I ever say immunity was granted automatically? Yet another lie from you. Can you help yourself? You're the ******* moron who's been arguing ad nauseum that immunity and whistleblowing have nothing to do with each other. Now you say that a person can get immunity if they were complicit in a crime and are a whistleblower... finally admitting that you lied about that too? What ******* planet are you on? You are one of the most seriously stupid persons I've ever seen post.

I've already played out your dumbassed cronology, you lied, you copped to one lie and covered it with another, claimed you didn't lie, then claimed you had already copped to the second lie (which you didn't) and then lied about having copped to the lie covering the lie to begin with.

Stop lying.

Also dumbass. The military standards are from FEDERAL LAW, specifically the federal statute on whistleblowers. If you want to see more links of cases of whistleblowers being granted immunity try ******* google, there are many of them. As I;ve said from the beginning, immunity is a tool prosecutors use with whistleblowers to entice them to give a full account of the activities they are investigating. Without immunity many might hold back, not because they've committed a crime, but because they think they may have.

BTW you lying sack of shit, post 658 is the post you claimed to have copped to the lie in post 601 that you didn't make untill post 607? Were you planning to lie and deciding to cop to it premptively? What a poor ******* liar you are. If you're going to lie about having done something maybe you should not do it in NUMBERED posts, or maybe not bring attention to the numbers dumb ****.

 

[taichiliberal]

Seriously, how ******* stupid are you? Of course immunity is a tool prosecutors may use to protect whistleblowers. Without it whistleblowers who were made complicit in crimes would be incriminating themselves.

The proper authority dumbass, would be the prosecutor.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/Documents/In...rd)/Chapter 10 - Whistleblower Protection.doc

more reading for your stupid ass



The Whistleblower's Tightrope - Exposé: America's Investigative Reports

Benny, you ******* ignoramus! LEARN to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY!

".... offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts

Rester was complicit in a crime...he wasn't just some working stiff who noticed corrupt management policies and the managers profiting from such....Rester was ONE of the corrupt management getting paid who blew the whistle. His actions were complicit in a crime, hence his need for immunity from prosecution for "blowing the whistle"!

Consequently, none of the whistleblower statutes IGs are concerned with provide whistleblowers immunity from discipline or prosecution for their participation in the misconduct they disclose.

IG investigators may be confronted by people who offer to make whistleblower communications in return for both immunity and protection from reprisal. Investigators must be careful not to promise whistleblowers immunity, and to ensure that any decision to grant immunity from prosecution or disciplinary action based on the underlying misconduct is made by proper authority

And THAT's just by military standards, you Benny bumpkin! It coincides with the links I provided in earlier posts. Clearly there are two different set of circumstances regarding whistleblowers and immunity from prosecution. Immunity from prosecution is NOT granted to whistleblowers automatically....YOU HAVE TO BE COMPLICIT IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. Which is why Nickolaus was granted such in an earlier Wisconsin political scandal, and why her envolvement in the current race raised enough suspicions to warrant a perfectly legal recount by Kloppenburg (spL).

The chronology of the post (note Post #658) shows that I've stated and proved this time and again....but YOU Benny are just insipidly stubborn. So be it...perhaps now that you've provided the nails for your own coffin in this debate, you'll STFU and leave with some dignity instead of trying to lie about what you or I actually have stated. The chronology of the post will ALWAYS be there to thwart you, Benny. Adios.

I guess you're stupid ass didn't actualy read the link. The guy was a whistlkeblower, he was reporting the crimes, he knew himself to be complicit and the prosecutors offered him immunity for his testimony AFTER he blew the whistle you dumbass. Immunity is an oft used tool with whistleblowers. You don't have to be complicit in any criminal activity to be offered or accept immunity, you just have to think you might be.

Supposing dumbass that you're a low level staffer working for a politician and are not familiar with statutes. Supposing the politician has you doing a few campaign related activities while your at work. Supposing you're not really sure if they're illegal because they might not be strictly speaking "campaign" activities but could be construed as constituent services. Suppose you blow the whistle on it but aren't actually sure if you broke the law in doing them but are aware of other activities you know others are doing that are illegal. You get an attorney and he negotiates your testimony with the prosecutors, as part of that (if he's worth a shit) he gets you immunity. Did you commit a crime? Do you know if you did? Does anybody? What harm does it do for the prosecutor to offer it to you even in the event you didn't and he knows it, or he thinks you may have but isn't going to prosecute you anyway because he's not sure he could convict? He might just get better information from you because you think you may have committed a crime. That of course is all supposition, but it is also completely possible.

And when did I ever say immunity was granted automatically? Yet another lie from you. Can you help yourself? You're the ******* moron who's been arguing ad nauseum that immunity and whistleblowing have nothing to do with each other. Now you say that a person can get immunity if they were complicit in a crime and are a whistleblower... finally admitting that you lied about that too? What ******* planet are you on? You are one of the most seriously stupid persons I've ever seen post.

I've already played out your dumbassed cronology, you lied, you copped to one lie and covered it with another, claimed you didn't lie, then claimed you had already copped to the second lie (which you didn't) and then lied about having copped to the lie covering the lie to begin with.

Stop lying.

Also dumbass. The military standards are from FEDERAL LAW, specifically the federal statute on whistleblowers. If you want to see more links of cases of whistleblowers being granted immunity try ******* google, there are many of them. As I;ve said from the beginning, immunity is a tool prosecutors use with whistleblowers to entice them to give a full account of the activities they are investigating. Without immunity many might hold back, not because they've committed a crime, but because they think they may have.

BTW you lying sack of shit, post 658 is the post you claimed to have copped to the lie in post 601 that you didn't make untill post 607? Were you planning to lie and deciding to cop to it premptively? What a poor ******* liar you are. If you're going to lie about having done something maybe you should not do it in NUMBERED posts, or maybe not bring attention to the numbers dumb ****.

As a whistleblower, you are only given the option for immunity from prosecution ONLY IF you are complicit in a crime.

If you are NOT complicit in a crime, then you are given protection under the whistle blowers law, which means that under federal law, you are protected against retaliation from the people you are blowing the whistle on...these laws vary from state to state, military to federal.

These are a matter of Legal fact, a matter of Legal history that I've documented, that Benny inadvertently corroborated. But as you can see, Benny veers off documented law and legal precedent in favor of his personal supposition and conjecture...as all failed propagandist do.



All one has to read post 601, 607 and 658 to see how full of baloney Benny is, and how delusional his rantings are, as Benny obviously has a severe reading comprehension problem or is just a full blown lying SOS.

Benny will repeat his BS six ways to Sunday, but the chronology of the Post will always be there to make a liar and BS artist out of him. So I will let this little Benny fool have the last predictable parrot squawk and childish insult, as having the last word is Benny's version of a logically proven point.

 

[BenNatuf]

Benny, you ******* ignoramus! LEARN to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY!

".... offered Rester immunity from prosecution if he testified against the company and his former cohorts

Rester was complicit in a crime...he wasn't just some working stiff who noticed corrupt management policies and the managers profiting from such....Rester was ONE of the corrupt management getting paid who blew the whistle. His actions were complicit in a crime, hence his need for immunity from prosecution for "blowing the whistle"!

Consequently, none of the whistleblower statutes IGs are concerned with provide whistleblowers immunity from discipline or prosecution for their participation in the misconduct they disclose.

IG investigators may be confronted by people who offer to make whistleblower communications in return for both immunity and protection from reprisal. Investigators must be careful not to promise whistleblowers immunity, and to ensure that any decision to grant immunity from prosecution or disciplinary action based on the underlying misconduct is made by proper authority

And THAT's just by military standards, you Benny bumpkin! It coincides with the links I provided in earlier posts. Clearly there are two different set of circumstances regarding whistleblowers and immunity from prosecution. Immunity from prosecution is NOT granted to whistleblowers automatically....YOU HAVE TO BE COMPLICIT IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. Which is why Nickolaus was granted such in an earlier Wisconsin political scandal, and why her envolvement in the current race raised enough suspicions to warrant a perfectly legal recount by Kloppenburg (spL).

The chronology of the post (note Post #658) shows that I've stated and proved this time and again....but YOU Benny are just insipidly stubborn. So be it...perhaps now that you've provided the nails for your own coffin in this debate, you'll STFU and leave with some dignity instead of trying to lie about what you or I actually have stated. The chronology of the post will ALWAYS be there to thwart you, Benny. Adios.

I guess you're stupid ass didn't actualy read the link. The guy was a whistlkeblower, he was reporting the crimes, he knew himself to be complicit and the prosecutors offered him immunity for his testimony AFTER he blew the whistle you dumbass. Immunity is an oft used tool with whistleblowers. You don't have to be complicit in any criminal activity to be offered or accept immunity, you just have to think you might be.

Supposing dumbass that you're a low level staffer working for a politician and are not familiar with statutes. Supposing the politician has you doing a few campaign related activities while your at work. Supposing you're not really sure if they're illegal because they might not be strictly speaking "campaign" activities but could be construed as constituent services. Suppose you blow the whistle on it but aren't actually sure if you broke the law in doing them but are aware of other activities you know others are doing that are illegal. You get an attorney and he negotiates your testimony with the prosecutors, as part of that (if he's worth a shit) he gets you immunity. Did you commit a crime? Do you know if you did? Does anybody? What harm does it do for the prosecutor to offer it to you even in the event you didn't and he knows it, or he thinks you may have but isn't going to prosecute you anyway because he's not sure he could convict? He might just get better information from you because you think you may have committed a crime. That of course is all supposition, but it is also completely possible.

And when did I ever say immunity was granted automatically? Yet another lie from you. Can you help yourself? You're the ******* moron who's been arguing ad nauseum that immunity and whistleblowing have nothing to do with each other. Now you say that a person can get immunity if they were complicit in a crime and are a whistleblower... finally admitting that you lied about that too? What ******* planet are you on? You are one of the most seriously stupid persons I've ever seen post.

I've already played out your dumbassed cronology, you lied, you copped to one lie and covered it with another, claimed you didn't lie, then claimed you had already copped to the second lie (which you didn't) and then lied about having copped to the lie covering the lie to begin with.

Stop lying.

Also dumbass. The military standards are from FEDERAL LAW, specifically the federal statute on whistleblowers. If you want to see more links of cases of whistleblowers being granted immunity try ******* google, there are many of them. As I;ve said from the beginning, immunity is a tool prosecutors use with whistleblowers to entice them to give a full account of the activities they are investigating. Without immunity many might hold back, not because they've committed a crime, but because they think they may have.

BTW you lying sack of shit, post 658 is the post you claimed to have copped to the lie in post 601 that you didn't make untill post 607? Were you planning to lie and deciding to cop to it premptively? What a poor ******* liar you are. If you're going to lie about having done something maybe you should not do it in NUMBERED posts, or maybe not bring attention to the numbers dumb ****.

As a whistleblower, you are only given the option for immunity from prosecution ONLY IF you are complicit in a crime.

cite the ******* statute saying so dumbass. You are garnted immunity if the prosecutor agrees to give it to you. Your reason for seeking it could be that you know you're complicit, could be you just think you might be.

If you are NOT complicit in a crime, then you are given protection under the whistle blowers law, which means that under federal law, you are protected against retaliation from the people you are blowing the whistle on...these laws vary from state to state, military to federal.

You are given protection from retaliation regardless of whether or not you're complicit, it's not an either or thing dumbass. The statute REQUIRES that protection. Immunity, with or without you actually copping to a crime is an OPTION for the prosecutor, one that if you believe you maybe could be complicit you should seek before telling the whole story. The Prosecutor can Grant a conditional immunity, a blanket immunity, or a specific immunity, but it's entirely up to him.

These are a matter of Legal fact, a matter of Legal history that I've documented, that Benny inadvertently corroborated. But as you can see, Benny veers off documented law and legal precedent in favor of his personal supposition and conjecture...as all failed propagandist do.

I'm the only one of the two of us who hasn't changed one iota of what I'vbe said dumbass.

All one has to read post 601, 607 and 658 to see how full of baloney Benny is, and how delusional his rantings are, as Benny obviously has a severe reading comprehension problem or is just a full blown lying SOS.

Benny will repeat his BS six ways to Sunday, but the chronology of the Post will always be there to make a liar and BS artist out of him. So I will let this little Benny fool have the last predictable parrot squawk and childish insult, as having the last word is Benny's version of a logically proven point.

keep pushing this one... it's ******* hilarious. tell us, how the **** does you copping to a lie in post 601 (from earlier in the thread) somehow apply to the lie you made up in post 607? Please, show us the post AFTER post 607 where you admitted that the statement you made in post 607 about her being granted immunity in a case where "others were arrested for vote tampering" was withdrawn. Show us the post AFTER post 607 where you admitted you made that shit up.

oops... you can't, because you haven't.

Keep lying though, it's funny.

 

[Avorysuds]

see, im only trying to inform. Tight race indeed. My sources in WI tell me its a sure thing against Walker. Is this a a sign of things to come for Obama?

See that what I notice... Some on the "crazy left" pretend and outright lie that 99.99999% of all people born in the last 6,000,000,000 years agree with the Unions but the race was this close...

If anything this proves Walker is safe as fuckin shit.