 |
| "If you top off that tithe with another 10%, I can toss you a nice riverfront property from the Detroit Land Bank Authority." |
Who in congress did not use their public office, federal resources and private constituent data for personal inurement through a political campaign?
According to Wikipedia:
According to Wikipedia:
The Latin phrase quid pro quo originally implied that something had been substituted, as in this instead of that. Early usage by English speakers followed the original Latin meaning, with occurrences in the 1530s where the term referred to either intentionally or unintentionally substituting one medicine from another. This may also have extended to a fraudulent substitution of useful medicines for an ingenuine article. By the end of the same century, quid pro quo evolved into a more current use to describe equivalent exchanges.
In 1654, the expression quid pro quo was used to generally refer to something done for personal gain or with the expectation of reciprocity in the text The Reign of King Charles: An History Disposed into Annalls, with a somewhat positive connotation. It refers to the covenant with Christ as something "that prove not a nudum pactum, a naked contract, without quid pro quo." Believers in Christ have to do their part in return, namely "foresake the devil and all his works".
The "foresaken" part is in reference to circumvention of the laws of the land, the U.S., to adhere to the laws of the heavens, or rather ecclesiastic law, more intuitively recognized as private law of the Vatican, a jurisdictional issue.
The Covenant with Christ is now recognized as the UCC, the children's trust funds.
TRANSLATION: If I give you lots of money while you are in office, to your campaign, through corporate layered NGOs and PACs, where I was only able to make this large sum political campaign contribution by procuring a federal government contract, with the help of your Chief of Staff, who then changes your congressional votes for more money deposited into their credit union account, monthly, to make sure Bills are put on committee hearing agendas, so I do not get busted doing what I am doing, like stealin', is this considered a violation of the Hatch Act if I run my ops through a foreign corporation with a children's trust?
Yes, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voting rights, well, some, until Nancy Edmunds started stripping their right to vote.
What if I gave you money to your political campaign by donating to an arm of the Vatican, like Bethany Christian, and you did some congressional, or even executive or judicial stuff for me like launch the Christian Children's Crusade of Faith Based Funding, Medicaid Expansion and Title I chattel re-interpretations, to "save the savages" at the border by funding child welfare propaganda operations, is that an Hatch Act violation or would that be an act of insurrection?
Better yet, what is the proper jurisdiction to address the act of a staffer, and or public official, who has not just taken money, but foreign money, to participate in the construction and continuance of money laundering operations in overseas economic development of infrastructure for the private inurement of a privateering UCC?
So, did Kellyanne make any money running ops from her office, and if she did, where is the U.S. Treasury and is stealin' from the U.S. Treasury an act of treason?
I guess the only way to find out is to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Dilly dilly!
On a side note, Raskin's new hairstyle is rather complimentary to him.
The Covenant with Christ is now recognized as the UCC, the children's trust funds.
TRANSLATION: If I give you lots of money while you are in office, to your campaign, through corporate layered NGOs and PACs, where I was only able to make this large sum political campaign contribution by procuring a federal government contract, with the help of your Chief of Staff, who then changes your congressional votes for more money deposited into their credit union account, monthly, to make sure Bills are put on committee hearing agendas, so I do not get busted doing what I am doing, like stealin', is this considered a violation of the Hatch Act if I run my ops through a foreign corporation with a children's trust?
Yes, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voting rights, well, some, until Nancy Edmunds started stripping their right to vote.
What if I gave you money to your political campaign by donating to an arm of the Vatican, like Bethany Christian, and you did some congressional, or even executive or judicial stuff for me like launch the Christian Children's Crusade of Faith Based Funding, Medicaid Expansion and Title I chattel re-interpretations, to "save the savages" at the border by funding child welfare propaganda operations, is that an Hatch Act violation or would that be an act of insurrection?
Better yet, what is the proper jurisdiction to address the act of a staffer, and or public official, who has not just taken money, but foreign money, to participate in the construction and continuance of money laundering operations in overseas economic development of infrastructure for the private inurement of a privateering UCC?
So, did Kellyanne make any money running ops from her office, and if she did, where is the U.S. Treasury and is stealin' from the U.S. Treasury an act of treason?
I guess the only way to find out is to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Dilly dilly!
On a side note, Raskin's new hairstyle is rather complimentary to him.
Jim Jordan asked the most important question to OSC: "Who filed the complaint?"
I know who filed the complaint.
Do you know who filed the complaint?
Probably not, but I do see a transposable model.
Jim identified CREW as one of the groups that filed the complaint.
Cummings is asking OSC to name the other groups.
Kelly is questioning OSC social media rules and the correlation of donations and media activities.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment