WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
Saunders, Real Estate, Hamptons
27east.com

11 Comments by Bayman3142*


Sag Harbor Interdependence Walk Takes Place Sunday

*sigh*

@HHS

I just had a eureka moment. You do not have the capacity to understand what should be simple. Ergo I should not be frustrated, it is clearly not me, it's YOU.

"Trump clearly IMPEDED Comey's investigation by firing him. It his intent (Vide 18 USC 1505) in so doing was any of the reasons listed in that statute, then the impedance is criminal obstruction of justice."
highhatsize (4084), East Quogue on Jul 28, 19 3:56 PM

B***S***

"There is NO DOUBT that Trump "OBSTRUCTED" the Russian election tampering investigation by FIRING Comey" (emphasis added)
highhatsize (4084), East Quogue on Jul 28, 19 1:31 PM

Even more.

Verbiage vomit. Did he obstruct, did he impede, can't you pick SOMETHING?

wouldn't matter....because like I pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S MANUAL, THE F.B.I., AND ANY OTHER UNITED STATES CODE, THERFORE THE FIRING OF COMEY CAN NOT AND WILL NEVER BE OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT WAS AN F.B.I. INVESTIGATION.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Do some RESEARCH. I even GIVE YOU the material, it is a ground ball for anyone with the sense and intelligence to just READ.

THIS ends the debate PERIOD

“investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings” U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL.

No matter WHAT you SAY.

Whether you can accept your ignorance and move on or further your foolish, uneducated, misguided, and doltish comments is left to be seen.
" Jul 28, 19 5:17 PM

@HHS

You either have not read 1505 or you lack the mental capacity to grasp it's simple language. This is second grade reading comprehension. You ask for edited versions, I had already supplied same with sources on July 28 at 3:04 pm.

One more time, read S-L-O-W-L-Y and look for the key word "NOT" that distinguishes an INVESTIGATION from a PROCEEDING in relation to the F.B.I. and 1505. Because you are so completely lost F.B.I. stands for Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.

"investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings. United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455-56 (W.D. Ky. 1981); see also United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621-22 (W.D. Pa. 1956) (FBI investigation is not a 18 U.S.C. § 1503 "proceeding"). But cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510 and 1512(b)(3), (c)(2).

[cited in Criminal Resource Manual 1729; Criminal Resource Manual 1730]"

That is the LANGUAGE. That is the SOURCES. That is the COURT OPINION.

Your VERBIAGE VOMIT is all just a LARGE WORD HACKJOB when held to the letter of the law, spirit of the law and the TRUTH.

Apparently the stupidity, ignorance, laziness, and lack of investigation in your posts is the only consistency to be found in them, and it has no bounds. Your posts display a mental deficiency that you should address before posting further to save us ALL from the foolish, infantile ramblings.

Spin away.
" Jul 29, 19 5:43 PM

@HHS

REALLY?? It's the question we have debated for DAYS because YOU were so ADAMANT that I was "stupid" and "lazy" in my research and postings.

Here I will remind you, as I have stated you are LOST. I even asked you to STOP continuing because your post were getting more and more idiotic, infantile, and mindless.

This is gonna be a L-O-N-G post, only because I am enjoying spelling this out for you as you lack investigative skill, and apparently I lack the ability to make a case and cite sources.

1)
@ Bayman3142

18 USC 1505: "Whoever, with INTENT to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance ... " (emphasis added)
------------------------------

How can you possibly have read that statute and construe it to support your belief?

There is no doubt that Trump "obstructed" the Russian election tampering investigation by firing Comey. If his evil INTENT (mens rea) is proven, his behavior becomes criminal obstruction of justice.
HHS 7/28
----------------------'-----------------

@HHS

Please STOP.

The doltishness and ignorance of your last post is completely MIND NUMBING, and shows us all you are a verbiage hack.

"There is NO DOUBT that Trump "OBSTRUCTED" the Russian election tampering investigation by FIRING Comey" (emphasis added)

1) THAT is what YOU BELIEVE happened. (That is your opinion, not a fact)

2) apparently leading you to the truth is futile, you just love to mislead and out right lie. 18 U.S.C. 1505....perhaps you should have taken a closer look at the 3 elements
1 and 2 fit, 3.....nope. Spelling EVERYTHING out for you is tedious.

“investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings” U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL.

And once AGAIN I can use your own post to describe your gibberish...

"Like The Donald's tweets, your every post is a testament to stupidity and laziness."

Let's hear some more verbiage vomit, I can't wait.
By Bayman3142 (227), Southampton on Jul 28, 19 3:04 PM
________________________________________________________________________

Remember that one...only a few days ago you should.
_________________________________________________________________________

*key words and phrases composed by you "NO DOUBT THAT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE" which as stated is a FACT...then you went on to state..."YOUR EVERY POST IS A TESTAMENT TO STUPIDITY AND LAZINESS"....

Key words and phrases composed by myself "PLEASE STOP"...."THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVED HAPPENED (THAT IS YOUR OPINION NOT A FACT)...then I GAVE YOU the answer, but due to investigative deficiency, you remained IGNORANT.

"In other words, MAKE YOUR CASE dialectically rather than depositing a meaningless mass of verbiage and expecting us to infer your intent."
HHS


This is me laying out my case.
___________________________________________________________________________

2)

"@ Bayman

What can one say?

You apparently really believe that you are making sense no matter how inane your replies:

"Obstruct: to hinder from passage, action, or operation : IMPEDE"*

Trump clearly IMPEDED Comey's investigation by firing him. It his intent (Vide 18 USC 1505) in so doing was any of the reasons listed in that statute, then the impedance is criminal obstruction of justice."
"Once again you have demonstrated your thoroughgoing incomprehension both of what you read and of what you write."
------------------------------------------
@HHS

"sigh*

@HHS

I just had a eureka moment. You do not have the capacity to understand what should be simple. Ergo I should not be frustrated, it is clearly not me, it's YOU.

"Trump clearly IMPEDED Comey's investigation by firing him. It his intent (Vide 18 USC 1505) in so doing was any of the reasons listed in that statute, then the impedance is criminal obstruction of justice."
highhatsize (4084), East Quogue on Jul 28, 19 3:56 PM

B***S***

"There is NO DOUBT that Trump "OBSTRUCTED" the Russian election tampering investigation by FIRING Comey" (emphasis added)
highhatsize (4084), East Quogue on Jul 28, 19 1:31 PM

Even more.

Verbiage vomit. Did he obstruct, did he impede, can't you pick SOMETHING?

wouldn't matter....because like I pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S MANUAL, THE F.B.I., AND ANY OTHER UNITED STATES CODE, THERFORE THE FIRING OF COMEY CAN NOT AND WILL NEVER BE OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT WAS AN F.B.I. INVESTIGATION.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Do some RESEARCH. I even GIVE YOU the material, it is a ground ball for anyone with the sense and intelligence to just READ.

THIS ends the debate PERIOD

“investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings” U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL.

No matter WHAT you SAY.

Whether you can accept your ignorance and move on or further your foolish, uneducated, misguided, and doltish comments is left to be seen.
By Bayman3142* (2), Hampton bays on Jul 28, 19 5:17 PM
______________________________________________________________________

Here it got interesting because your little friend z tried to help, but clearly realized you were LOST and he was way out of his league.
______________________________________________________________________

I could go on....but I BELIEVE I made my point.

"I certainly think that the section applies to Trump's behavior."

Hmmmmmm.......

"NO DOUBT" you said...."CLEARLY IMPEDED".....was
Another term......and now....."I CERTAINLY THINK".

guess what hat....NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU CERTAINLY "THINK".

And all the while I was supposedly the one who STUPIDLY, LAZILY, with INCOMPREHENSION OF WHAT I READ AND WRITE, and giving my UNSUPPORTED BELIEFS. It actually happened to be YOU.

"And please make a stab at EDITING your comments. Posting l-o-n-g comments void of s-u-b-s-t-a-n-c-e (of which you are the unequaled master) in god-awful boring to readers"
HHS

A whole lot of substance here all pointing to one thing.....

The problem, highhatsize, is that you habitually embrace mindlessly prejudicial ideological BELIEFS and then try to validate them rationally by fabricating (using oversized verbiage) demented explanations that nobody accepts (or can even understand.)

And in that their is NO DOUBT.
" Jul 30, 19 10:54 PM

Zeldin Votes Against Massive Budget Deal, Along With Most House Republicans

Hey Fred

As a retired member of the NYPD I suggest you keep your mouth shut unless you walk a mile, I doubt you'd make 10 feet in the 42, 43,103. Not a single cop I worked with went to work wanting to get shot or shoot somebody, it was 9 times out of 10 a 911 call looking for police assistance. You're ignorant." Jul 31, 19 7:50 PM

Sag Harbor Interdependence Walk Takes Place Sunday

Good Lord....its a simple question...AGAIN....

Does 18 U.S.C. 1505 make the firing of James Comey a case of obstruction of justice?" Aug 2, 19 12:37 AM

@HHS

Great. FINALLY you answer the question as posed to you.

You have just proven that even when presented with FACTS contrary to your BELIEF, you lack the cognitive skill and cognitive abilities to process simple information into an educated conclusion.

BRAVO!

"Perhaps without collusion, there could be no obstruction, Shan Wu, a CNN contributor who previously represented Rick Gates in the investigation, said on Sunday. It's possible Barr didn't want to indict the President because an obstruction charge wouldn't stand without an underlying collusion case."
CNN

Straight from Mueller...
Firing of James Comey

Obstructive act (p. 74): “Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation.” Trump’s handling of the Comey firing and his actions in the subsequent days “had the potential to affect a successor director’s conduct of the investigation,” though removing Comey “would not necessarily … prevent or impede the FBI from continuing its investigation.”

OBVIOUSLY it did not, we have 448 pages to prove it.

And finally....it does not meet the 3 requirements of 18 USC 1505 because according to the F.B.I. and the U.S. Justice department.....

“investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings” U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL

State your case as to why it is obstruction or continue you "mental" ramblings.

Spin away.
" Aug 2, 19 1:12 PM

President Trump Attends Private Fundraisers On East End Friday

Stating one's statement is ignorant is not the same as stating the poster is. Take it as you will.

I guess your friend is an expert. Does he know that no damage was found to Gardner's trachea? Does he know Gardner did not die from asphyxiation?
Was he there to witness this choke hold? Or is he a monday morning quarter back who worked in east cupcake? Was Officer Pantaleo in a life or death struggle? Ask him. I have more factual answers to each of those questions ready.

I'd be biased if I didnt lay out the facts....facts dont lie. You can choose to believe them, as did a grand jury and the federal government, or you can pretend you know better than everybody as usually.

" Aug 22, 19 2:26 PM

Fred, now your just embarrassing yourself.

Did Pantaleo choke Gardner to death as you stated, or did it play a small part as the medical examiner, grand jury, and federal government concluded?

Have you even read the medical examiner's report or the ALJ's report?

You post such random bits of nonsense it's difficult to comprehend what exactly you are trying to prove. Try to clearly debate your argument and not be one "copy and paste" poster like mr. z.

IF.....and I can only assume this is what you are attempting to dismiss as one of my FACTS....by posting this:
"Chief Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson, though, refuted that assessment.

"It is false that crushing of the windpipe and fracture of the hyoid bone would necessarily be seen at autopsy as the result of a chokehold,” she said in a statement.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are attempting to disprove this FACT:

"There were no fractures nor indications of trauma to the trachea or the larynx. At trial, it was explained that such injuries are not typically observed in most neck compression cases. (Tr. 303-05, 334-39, 352. 371-72. 779, 809-11)"
ALJ page 12

You FAIL MISERABLY. No damage fred, none, zip. And if you had bothered to educate yourself by reading the report you would learn of these findings:

1."There were no external injuries around the decedent's neck. The experts agree that the absence of such injuries are "not uncommon" in cases where a forearm compresses the neck. (Tr. 287-88, 337. 773,811; CCRB Ex. l0E-F, l0H)"

2.The decedent had significant health problems that put him at risk and contributed to his death, including:
• A n enlarged heart that weighed 660 grams, which the medical experts concurred
was indicative of hypertension. (Tr. 291-92. 325, 776, 861, 886)
• Chronic asthma. The autopsy revealed that his lungs had experienced physiological changes that were consistent with asthma; that he bad required a prior intubation: and that anti-asthma medication was present in his bloodstream at the time of death. (Tr. J 13, 355-56. 789, 865-66)
• Obesity. He weighed 395 pounds and had a body mass index (BMI) of 50.7. A
BMI of 30 or above is considered obese. (Tr. 292, 323, 773, 861)

Of note....they were being kind.....Gardner was MORBIDLY OBESE according to his BMI.

3.• The cause of death was not asphyxiation from a chokehold. (Tr. 321, 358, 817, 860)

4.• The decedent's anterior neck muscles displayed fresh hemorrhaging across multiple muscle groups that was the result of pressure applied to the anterior neck. Specifically, a layer-by-layer dissection of the neck musculature revealed hemorrhaging in: the left and right sternocleidomastoid; the left and right sternohyoid; the left and right ornohyoid; and the right thyrohyoid. Hemorrhaging was also observed around the left submandibular gland. (Tr. 289-30 l, 779, 799-804; CCRB Ex. l 01-1 OT)

Now Fore pointed out this last little bit, but it is irrelevant. The anterior muscles of the neck are the ones closest to the skin's surface and ending at the longus colli muscle, which is closest to the trachea. No hemorrhaging at the longus colli.

See fred....Gardner was NOT choked to death.

My facts are doing just fine.

Now, why don't you tell me where your buddy worked so I can estimate his knowledge of big city policing, and how much training he may have." Aug 23, 19 12:53 AM

I believe there is a cognitive disorder that is preventing you from seeing what is directly in front of you. You may as well be living in "Candyland".

You do realize with your every "cite" you prove my point that Gardner was not choked to death, correct?

"When someone says they can’t breathe and someone is choking them, what’s that tell you?"
It tells me sufficient airflow is reaching the lungs that the subject can state "I can't breath" does it not take oxygen to speak fred?
FACT

"No I didn’t read the autopsy" so you are ignorant to what it contains, but yet speak on a subject you are self proclaiming ignorance.
FACT

"which was part of the cause of death" yes fred....perhaps PART...along with a bad heart, asthma, MORBIDLY obese. Not THE cause of death.
FACT

Then 7 minutes later for some unexplainable reason you double down on the ignorance.

“The chokehold is a significant initial factor of the cascade,” the chokehold was an acceptable use of force given the circumstances for the period of time Gardner had Pantaleo on his back at the plate glass window. (See NYPD Officer Vincent Guidice)
FACT

As far as your "verified published reports" let's find some more from the newspaper shall we?

1.Time Magazine cover featured a crying Honduran girl, claiming she had been separated from her parents.
LIE
The magazine tried to make it look like Trump’s America means separating illegal immigrant children from their parents at the border. But her father said the 2-year-old girl hadn’t been separated from her mother. Nor was her mother fleeing violence. Her mother had previously been deported from the U.S.

2. The media, starting with The Arizona Republic, used photos from 2014 taken under the Obama administration to show detained illegal immigrant children in cages.
LIE
The photos were reported as if they were taken during the Trump administration. The Arizona Republic titled the article with the photo “First peek: Immigrant children flood detention center.”

3.The New York Times claimed Nikki Haley put in $52,000 curtains at the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
LIE
A New York Times headline blared, ““Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” In response, California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu requested an oversight hearing on the U.N. ambassador and her deputy’s spending. The Times’ article buried an important fact. The Obama administration made plans to buy the curtains in 2016. No one consulted Haley. The Times was forced to change its headline and add an editorial note.

4.The news media, including The Washington Post, blamed the Border Patrol for the deaths of illegal immigrant children.
BIG FAT LIE
Two children died from the conditions they experienced crossing through Mexico with the caravan. They didn’t die because the Border Patrol failed to offer them medical treatment. The two appeared to die from similar flu-like illnesses after being taken into custody after illegally crossing the Mexico-U.S. border. Both were given medical care.
The 8-year-old Guatemalan boy, Felipe Gomez Alonzo, was diagnosed with the common cold and given prescription medication. When he continued to complain about feeling sick and started vomiting, his father did not return him to the hospital, but said he felt better.

The 7-year-old Guatemalan girl, Jakelin Caal Maquin, died of septic shock, fever, and dehydration hours after she was apprehended. She “reportedly had not eaten or consumed water for several days.”

5. CNN claimed Ted Cruz was too scared to come on the network.
CNN said Ted Cruz was too scared to come on the network to discuss gun control and the Parkland shooting. But the truth is Cruz had just did an interview with CNN about it the day before, which CNN didn’t bother airing.
LIE

6.CNN’s Jim Acosta said illegal immigrants wouldn’t climb a border fence.
At a press conference in November, Acosta said to Trump, “Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that.” But photos taken around that time show members of the caravan climbing over the fence.
LIE

7. A Der Spiegel reporter made up rude stories about a small rural U.S. town.
LIE from a CNN journalist of the year no less.

Der Spiegel reporter Claas Relotius admitted to making up interviews and facts in at least 14 articles. Relotius was once named “CNN journalist of the year” for his reporting. He wrote an article about the small town Fergus Falls, Minnesota, which contained 11 “absurd lies” according to people who live there. Relotius portrayed them as hillbilly, gun-obsessed racists.

8. The media claimed the migrant caravan did not contain any criminals.
LIE

One caravan member admitted there were criminals “everywhere” within the group. Homeland Security said there were at least 270 criminals.

There you have it fred...reputable publishers who aren't truthful. You use your "published reports" I'll stick to my actual documentation. I win every time.

If I were you, thankfully not, I'd use the national Enquirer and complete the picture for us." Aug 23, 19 10:54 AM

Freddy, why dont you show where I stated that so we can see who is a blathering fool...my money is on you." Aug 24, 19 9:16 PM

Oh freddy.....it's that cognitive thing AND a reading comprehension thing with you.

Your "cite"....

"Dr. Persechino, a veteran city medical examiner, stood by her finding that his death was a homicide caused by the officer’s use of force. “The chokehold is a significant initial factor of the cascade,” she said."

Two sentences.. ...

1) "Dr. Persechino, a veteran city medical examiner, stood by her finding that his death was a homicide caused by the officer’s use of force."

NOT WHAT SHE SAID AT ALL. IT WAS NOT A HOMICIDE CAUSED BY THE OFFICERS USE OF FAULT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. DO I NEED TO ANSWER IN ALL CAPS FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND THIS SIMPLE DIFFERENCE? THIS IS CALLED A LIE BY OMISSION BY THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE. THE MEDICAL EXAMINER NEVER....NEVER....NEVER SAID THE DEATH WAS DUE TO A CHOKE HOLD.

Damn freddy. This is like grammar school stuff here. The first sentence of your cite states the M.E. stood by her story that it was a death by CHOKEHOLD...

2) "“The chokehold is a significant initial factor of the cascade,” she said."

The second sentence, as I have repeatedly stated is EXACTLY WHAT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER SAID, States it was a INITIAL FACTOR in the death.

CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? ONE SENTENCE THAT YOU ASKED IF I WOULD ANSWER YES OR NO TO CONTRADICTS THE SECOND. SO THE ANSWER IS.....

NO, SHE DID NOT SAY WHAT YOUR CITE SAID.

I dont even think your village wants you back." Aug 24, 19 10:41 PM