Monday, May 25, 2015

 
A POLITICIAN WHO WILL NOT DEFEND HIMSELF AND HIS FRIENDS WILL NEVER DEFEND THE PEOPLE
 
This is not a new post for the BV,  When I did the same post concerning, Tetreau, Landin, and Garcia, Tetreau stepped up her self defense, and won the election. I did her a favor.

Virtually everything negative about Rick Longoria being put out there at this time is based on innuendo.  We are told to believe Longoria did not report money given to him by Carlos Marin - the fact no one has said Carlos Marin gave him money is lost on the liars like Juanito and the Imp putting these claims out there.

We are told he did not report money given to him by Escobedo, even though when pressed on the question the so called key witness said she does not remember.

No one wants the AG to start the prosecution of the candidates and their donors for the laundering of campaign money than me.  I spend more time on this single issue than any other issue.  I will not run a story based on "so and so told me so and so's son told them that his father received $50,000 in cash donations not reported."  The rumors run rampant.  But I continue to work on it.

If I were to believe all of the claims against Saenz, he got nearly $100,000 in cash donations.  People are mad at Saenz so they are just lying.  Now the day a donor tells me they gave Saenz unreported money, I will run with that story. A donor has a duty to report nothing.  In fact they have no duty to verify their donation was reported.  I am working on the campaigns of several candidates which go back to the last primaries. I follow every lead.  But until I get proof the AG will go with I will not publish the claims.
 
BUT HERE IS THE DEAL, IF RICK LONGORIA WILL NOT DEFEND HIMSELF AND HIS FRIENDS WHY SHOULD ANYONE DEFEND HIM?

Rick is being bullied.  The method of Internet bullying being used was created by Jerry McHale.  Rick Longoria thought it was all funny so long as he was not the object of the bullying.  He does not think it is so funny now.  Rick is the type person who supports bullying so long as he is not the object of the bullying.  The roosters have come home to roost, and Rick does not like it. 

So here is the deal, Rick is on his own.  Have at it guys and lie all you want.  Rick caves to bullies and liars.  He may or may not pay a price for his cowardice.  My sources are telling me he sees no reason to fight back because he sees no chance of losing the run-off.  Well that is not the issue.  It is about whether or not you care enough about your character to fight back.  It is about whether or not Rick is willing to send a message about bullying. 

Normally, I would say blogs putting out lies and disinformation should just be ignored.  But this race is going to have a very, very low turnout.  A few votes can make the difference. 

I am told Mike Gonzalez is either going to remain neutral or endorse Rick Longoria.  Mike is tied to Ben Neece and Abraham Galonsky.  He is not going to cross them.  If Rick's loyal voters hold, with just 5% of Mike's vote for Rick,  Rick will win.

But the tide can turn in a moment.
 
A WORD TO RICK LONGORIA FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CARTER

"We can give them training, we can give them equipment -- we obviously can't give them the will to fight," Carter said. "But if we give them training, we give them equipment, and give them support, and give them some time, I hope they will develop the will to fight, because only if they fight can ISIL remain defeated."

Carter said it was "very concerning" the local forces showed little willingness to fight, as they are the ones who will be charged with fighting, winning and holding the territory against ISIS."
 





9 comments:

Anonymous said...

You failed to mention the one that was claimed to be eyewitness to and that is a $240 cash donation by Bean Ayala. Not in there. Not reported.

BobbyWC said...

You know why innuendo works, because of saps like you.

Wherein did the witness state anything but she saw Ayala hand $240 cash to Longoria? No where.

So you know for a fact that Ayala gave an individual odd number donation of $240. How do you know this?, please enlighten my readers.

With an odd number of $240 it is more likely individual cash donations collected and then handed over. But obviously you seem to know something the witness did not disclose.

Does an odd number of $240 not at all raise an issue in your mind it could have been a collection of smaller donations.

No in your mind - absolutely not -an odd number $240 has to be only from Ayala - absolutely not possible it was a collection of money from several people.

If it was individual donations from several people there would be no legal reason to report it as anything but cash. The reports show tons of cash donations.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Texas campaign finance law doea not allow the agregation or "bundling, either. As an explaination, still illegal.

BobbyWC said...

Give me the statute and I will post your comment.

The code as I read it says, one person cannot give more than $100 in separate donations - it is considered one donation this is the only place I see the word aggregate in the code.

Now I am not saying you are wrong, but since you say it is in the law, then give me the code.

I will make a special post of your claim once I have the code.

It is fair for me to assume you have actually read the code before making such a claim


Bobby WC

Anonymous said...


Please use the following in its entirety to maintain the context either as an approved comment or in the body of a special post, should you feel the argument warrants such:

In addition to the statute title, which does not have the force of law but can be taken to indicate the intent of section, the phrase not taken out of context that applies from subsection (a) is "accept from a contributor". This statute has nothing to do with reporting requirements which trigger specific listing of the individual source of a contribution. That is covered under reporting requirements and could provide a separate cause for civil penalty under the Ethics Commission rules.
The following stand alone statue is the primary basis for claiming that passing a $240 cash political contribution through a car window into the hands of a candidate was, in fact and as a matter of law, illegal. Were a contra-positive argument made assuming that the amount was in some way legal due to bundling of individual donations then the law was broken regarding the registration and reporting requirements of a political action committee that also, once again, is bound by the $100 reporting period limitation on cash contribution.

https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/statutes/11title15.html#253.033

§ 253.033. Cash Contributions Exceeding $100 Prohibited

(a) A candidate, officeholder, or specific-purpose committee may not knowingly accept from a contributor in a reporting period political contributions in cash that in the aggregate exceed $100.

(b) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Anonymous said...

Not necessarily a comment for posting, but thank you.

BobbyWC said...

Thanks for providing the statute to augment your argument. But you are still wrong. It says exactly what I said it says.

It is your argument that if I collect $240 cash from various people for a particular candidate and then give that money to the candidate after telling him/her it was from several people, the candidate has a duty to report I gave him the entire $240 which would be a lie.

You actually argue the law commands candidates lie about the true source of the money.

"
§ 253.033. Cash Contributions Exceeding $100 Prohibited

(a) A candidate, officeholder, or specific-purpose committee may not knowingly accept from a contributor in a reporting period political contributions in cash that in the aggregate exceed $100.

(b) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor."

The key words are contributor. If Ayala told Rick that he had $240 cash from several contributors where in the law you quote does it says the person who collected the money is considered the sole contributor? It also says knowingly - if Ayala told Rick it was from several people then how would Rick know it was not.

Second aggregate here is used to avoid people form giving $40 a day during any reporting period. Your argument is absurd. People go around collecting cash for candidates every election cycle.

The courts have already found that if the language in .
033 is not clear it is not a crime. WHere is it clear that I cannot collect cash for a candidate. Or that if I collect cash it must all be reported in my name. I does not say that.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921422830SW2d592_11357.xml/FOGO%20v.%20STATE

Anonymous said...

How do you know it was money collected from various contributors ? How do you know it wasn't from one contributor and Ayala skimmed some for himself ? No name -calling necessary .

BobbyWC said...

You are very confused about how our criminal justice system works. All the woman said is she saw Ayala give Longoria $240. I have never challenged her claim.

I am not saying it was from various individuals - I am saying there is no evidence it was all from Ayala versus various individuals.

People are on line saying there is a crime. The burden is on them to prove a crime not for me to prove there was no crime.

No one has posted an ounce of evidence or even a claim that the money was all from Ayala.

If you are saying a crime was committed on what evidence are you forming the opinion? In this country the burden is on the accuser - what is your evidence that the odd number of $240 was all from only Ayala? I have not said it wasn't. All I am saying there is no evidence it was.

Why would Ayala give an odd number live $240? Had it been $300 - eh - people might be able to think a problem.

But the burden is not me to prove the money came from various sources, it is on the accuser to prove it all came from Ayala, and even the accuser has not made that accusation.

So all you have at this time is innuendo and assumptions which thank god in this country is not evidence of a crime.

Bobby WC