Harris County grand jury indicts pair behind Planned Parenthood videos

Anderson perhaps doesn't want to run again for DA. . Originally Posted by LexusLover

Perhaps you are wrong yet once again. You obviously have not donated to her reelection campaign. JD and now you does not seem to understand that from the Grand Jury's perspective there was probably cause to indicate. It was not because Devon Anderson is Pro abortion, quite the opposite. Maybe Anderson is pro law and the law is not on the side of these fucking loons who are lying to gain entry into PPH and releasing misleading video's that had been heavily edited.


http://www.andersonda.com/category/news/
Devon Anderson files for Reelection

Posted on November 17, 2015 by admin
Devon Anderson, Harris County District Attorney, filed paperwork yesterday for her place on the March Republican Primary ballot. Anderson was first appointed to the office in 2013 and was elected to fill the unexpired term in November 2014. “Serving as District Attorney in the third largest jurisdiction in America is a tremendous honor,” Anderson said. […]

Perhaps you are wrong yet once again. You obviously have not donated to her reelection campaign. JD and now you does not seem to understand that from the Grand Jury's perspective there was probably cause to indicate. It was not because Devon Anderson is Pro abortion, quite the opposite. Maybe Anderson is pro law and the law is not on the side of these fucking loons who are lying to gain entry into PPH and releasing misleading video's that had been heavily edited.


http://www.andersonda.com/category/news/
Devon Anderson files for Reelection

Posted on November 17, 2015 by admin
Devon Anderson, Harris County District Attorney, filed paperwork yesterday for her place on the March Republican Primary ballot. Anderson was first appointed to the office in 2013 and was elected to fill the unexpired term in November 2014. “Serving as District Attorney in the third largest jurisdiction in America is a tremendous honor,” Anderson said. […] Originally Posted by WTF

Investigative journalists are not compelled to reveal their true identity in order to perform an investigation. All videos get edited.

I don't know how you can "indicate" them for that.

"JD and now you [does] not seem" I would have used "do".

Investigative journalists are not compelled to reveal their true identity in order to perform an investigation. All videos get edited.

I don't know how you can "indicate" them for that.

". Originally Posted by DSK

They tampered with government documents it appears. Maybe they should have hidden their true identity a different way.

Can journalists tamper with government documents just because they are journalists? And I am not conceding the point that they are indeed true journalists. I do not think they are.

So you're admitting that PP planned to SELL body parts....isn't that against the law?p Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, I didn't admit that at all. If I go up to you and say "I'd like to buy your jacket" that does not mean you offered to sell it. The people making the video offered to buy, after reviewing the video, the grand jury found no evidence that PP broke the law. So it appears there was an offer to buy, but no offer to sell.

Intent you say,

Yes, I talked about intent of the filmmakers. I do not believe they intended to buy organs. However, that doesn't change the fact that they intentionally "offered to buy," which is a violation of (at least) the letter of the law. I'm just curious if there was no real intent to buy organs, if the law will be interpreted in such a ,way with consideration of free speech rights, that they didn't violate it. But I'm not sure. It's kind of like soliciting a prostitute: you don't have to have sex with her for it to be a crime.

[SIZE=3]Perhaps you are wrong yet once again. You obviously have not donated to her reelection campaign. Originally Posted by WTF

"Wrong yet once again"? We'll see.

And I wouldn't donate to her "re-election campaign."

Let's see ... you are now "educating" me on the "grand jury" process?

Or are you just "yet once again" trying to appear intellectually superior on all subjects by pronouncing you are capable of educating someone else on a topic?

Anderson perhaps doesn't want to run again for DA. . Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, you said that perhaps Anderson will not run for reelection.

I presented the fact below, that she indeed is running for reelection.

Perhaps you are wrong yet once again.

http://www.andersonda.com/category/news/
Devon Anderson files for Reelection

Posted on November 17, 2015 by admin
Devon Anderson, Harris County District Attorney, filed paperwork yesterday for her place on the March Republican Primary ballot. Anderson was first appointed to the office in 2013 and was elected to fill the unexpired term in November 2014. “Serving as District Attorney in the third largest jurisdiction in America is a tremendous honor,” Anderson said. […] Originally Posted by WTF

"Wrong yet once again"? We'll see. ? Originally Posted by LexusLover

There is no We'll see. She is in fact running so you were not perhaps wrong, you were wrong. She is indeed running for reelection.





.

. But I'm not sure. It's kind of like soliciting a prostitute: you don't have to have sex with her for it to be a crime. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Interesting point....


JD can not grasp the fact that PPH can sell fetal tissue but not for profit. , PPH's cost to store fetal tissue like the one's these Loons requested.... I read was somewhere in the 10-25 dollar range. These loons offered 1500 dollars and PPH ceased communication with them and contacted PPH's legal counsel.

So these loons tried to get PPH to do something illegal and PPH did not do it , yet JD wants PPH arrested!

Now it is about time for 2Dogs to imply that the Pro Life DA attorney Devon Anderson is up to no good!

LL, you said that perhaps Anderson will not run for reelection.

I presented the fact below, that she indeed is running for reelection.
Originally Posted by WTF

You presented a link to the "fact" that she filed for re-election.

There's a difference, but, of course, you wouldn't understand that difference, or admit that you didn't understand. Regardless there is a difference. We'll see how it plays out over the next 10 months.

Kind of like her indictment of the journalists.

JD can not grasp the fact that PPH can sell fetal tissue but not for profit. Originally Posted by WTF

Word games. In the "analysis" non-profit organization don't "make a profit"!

Well, unless it's a Clinton "Not-for-Profit" Foundation.

Were they "indicted" for offering to buy "tissue" above a "nonprofit" level? Is that why it makes any difference? Or is that just something to piss and moan about to appear "correct." Once "PPH" gets looked at with a fine tooth comb, then perhaps there might be a re-assessment as to exactly what is meant by "nonprofit" as it relates to "PPH." But it won't be during the current administration or a Hillarious administration for sure.

WTF,

I does appear that these boneheads, in an attempt to get other people to break the law, we unable to get them to do so, broke the law themselves and then tried to spin their unsuccessful attempt into something damning. They should have been smart and cut their losses and not possibly publicly incriminated themselves.

Word games. In the "analysis" non-profit organization don't "make a profit"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

He misspoke. They can only sell the tissue at cost. It's in one of the news articles listened in this thread. So it isn't word games, they literally cannot sell tissue for more than it costs them to handle/deliver it.

Were they "indicted" for offering to buy "tissue" above a "nonprofit" level? Is that why it makes any difference?

Yes, they were indicted for violating the law.

Or is that just something to piss and moan about to appear "correct." Once "PPH" gets looked at with a fine tooth comb, then perhaps there might be a re-assessment as to exactly what is meant by "nonprofit" as it relates to "PPH." But it won't be during the current administration or a Hillarious administration for sure.

Why would PP be looked at with a fine-toothed comb? You think that because someone else allegedly committed a crime they are going to dig into PP records? That makes no sense and should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in the US legal ideals of just caused needed for a search.

LL is throwing a hissy fit the inquiry didn't go his way, must have been a bunch of democrats on that grand jury.

You presented a link to the "fact" that she filed for re-election.

There's a difference, but, of course, you wouldn't understand that difference, or admit that you didn't understand. Regardless there is a difference. We'll see how it plays out over the next 10 months.

Kind of like her indictment of the journalists. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes she filed for re-election because she is running.

I've been to her fundraiser(s)....she is running. Are you speculating she will exit the race?

There is a difference between her running and you speculating that she will quit running. The fact of the matter is that she is presently running.

Yes, they were indicted for violating the law.

That makes no sense and should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in the US legal ideals of just caused needed for a search. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Who was indicted for violating the law?

And "what law"?

Apparently the Harris County Grand Jury just "looked at" PP. The problem is we don't know, and won't know, what was "looked at"! So, the "fine tooth comb" and then by the IRS to determine the "profit" issue ...

.. my "focus" on the "profit" had to do with the "costs" ....... particularly those "costs" that are attributed to "processing" the "order" that are "inhouse"! Since they get government funds there is a "low bar" to investigate their internal finances. There reports of expenditures must match their receipts and disbursements....and they have to segregate the receipts and expenditures. I doubt seriously the Harris County Grand Jury conducted any such an "audit"!

I also doubt the IRS has, since it's been busy beating up on conservative organizations (and please don't toss out the retort that the IRS reported they "also" looked at liberal nonprofits ...l)

LL is throwing a hissy fit ..... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What a drama queen, you are!

It's unfortunate when people get indicted for bullshit stuff ... fake DL? Really?

When was the last time you heard of an 18-year-old co-ed being INDICTED with a 2nd degree felony for using her older sister's ID to get into a disco .... or the California DL she bought down at the local flea market??????

How many "hobbyists" on here have fake ID's and use them, turning a potential misdemeanor bullshit charge into a 2nd degree felony!

He misspoke. Who, WTF?




Yes, they were indicted for violating the law. Who and what "the law"?


Why would PP be looked at with a fine-toothed comb? To assure they are in fact selling baby body parts "at cost"!

the US legal ideals of just caused needed for a search. Since the "PP" received substantial government funding "just cause" exists ... Like all "entitlement" programs and "free money," part of the "deal" is "auditing," WHICH CAN BE SELF-AUDITS under the cloud of a "visit" from the oversight agency!
Originally Posted by eatfibo

I doubt the Harris County Grand Jury did even close to an "audit."