Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
I didn’t answer because I’ve answered them before.
Your answers are good. I disagree with #1 because there is no Plebiscite and voters do not determine de facto eligibility. They assume it through the process of party candidate selection, Secretary’s of states approving the candidate for their states ballots and on through election certification then oath of office.
Baker vs Carr pretty well much points the way the judicial branch will go — hands off, it’s Congresses job. Invoking the political doctrine question and leaving the issue where it belongs — in the political realm.
Eligibility is not a political question within the meaning of Baker v Carr, there is no separation of powers issue. The Judiciary has exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
When a case is brought a Court finds facts and applies law. Sometimes this results in elected officials being removed from office. For example, upon being convicted of a felony North Dakota Governor William Langer was removed from office. Likewise for Alabama Governor H. Guy Hunt.
Eligibility is a question of law & fact. The facts regarding an individual are discoverable. For example, a persons age and residency are discoverable facts.
North Dakota Governor Thomas H. Moodie was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet residency requirements specified in the North Dakota Constitution.
The law applicable to determining eligibility to the U.S. Presidency is U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. When a case is brought and a determination is made that a person does not meet residency requirements specified by the U.S. Const. that person is removed from office. Likewise for the other provisions: age, and “natural born citizen”.
I could have made clearer that by "election" I had in mind more the entire electoral process, including the things you mention. Voter affirmation is a key (but not the only) part of that. The results of that process are not easily overturned afterward either by judicial or congressional action. We may not have that much actual disagreement.
“I didn’t answer because I’ve answered them before.”
That doesn’t explain why you didn’t provide me with the link I asked for. It was a simple request. A six or seven-yo could have understood it. All you’ve done is dance desperately, wildly around, dodging the issue. If you don’t have a link, then admit you made a statement you can’t back up. Otherwise, how about the link? You’ve dissembled and obfuscated long enough; produce.
7. Does occupancy of office confer eligibility?
‘It’s better to say that occupancy is evidence that eligibility requirements have been met and accepted.’
Occupancy can also be evidence of fraud and dereliction.
Thanks, btw, for revealing either your mind-numbing stupidity or your hopeless, staggering, over the top bias. The idea that occupancy can be evidence of one thing & one thing only is astonishing either in its clueless naivety or its pro-Obama bias. & Obama apologists call birthers stupid and/or biased [well, most call us racist, but it’s the same difference ultimately; they think we’re biased because we’re racist]. Projection, anyone?
It’s as if, in your mind, no one in the history of the world has ever occupied an office through some combination of fraud or dereliction. Every single person who’s ever held office has been totally, completely qualified, and every person who’s ever been responsible for vetting has been completely, scrupulously and energetically honest and diligent.
Really?
Have you ever considered living in the real world, or does anti-birther lalaland suit you better?
I’m sorry if the tone sounds acidic. I’m just sick and tired of anti-birthers who are so brainwashed they can no longer think or analyze. I don’t care what you believe or who you support, you should never sacrifice your ability to scrutinize and evaluate. Yet so many anti-birthers have done just that. My patience on the point is shot. I’d love to meet a reasonably intelligent anti-birther who can still think logically, analyze, and objectively examine facts and evidence. I don’t think even *one* exists.
The idea that occupancy can be evidence of one thing & one thing only is astonishing either in its clueless naivety or its pro-Obama bias. & Obama apologists call birthers stupid and/or biased
I think it is evidence (certainly at the Presidential level, which was the only office in view throughout my entire post) that the electoral process has validated the bona fides of the winner. It's circumstantial evidence. When in every past presidential election the winner has been accepted (then and now) as eligible, when there has been (then and now) a vigorous opposition party hell-bent on seeing THEIR guy get the office, when there is (certainly now) a wealth of information available to not just the media, but many other persons -- then the probability is very high that the outcome reflects that the winner was eligible.
It’s as if, in your mind, no one in the history of the world has ever occupied an office through some combination of fraud or dereliction.
But Ray's questions and my answers only pertained to the office of U.S. President. I wasn't including some election for Mayor of Podunkville where the stakes aren't as high and where there's far less scrutiny. So for you to bluster on here about offices somewhere else proves either you have a basic reading comprehension problem or else you dishonestly exaggerate to erect your strawman argument. Take your pick.
I’m sorry if the tone sounds acidic.
No you're not. You eagerly jumped on your soap box and held forth. And this was in response to a post that wasn't even directed at you.
I don’t care what you believe or who you support, you should never sacrifice your ability to scrutinize and evaluate.
Coming from you this statement is utterly laughable. You have demonstrated (indeed, perfected) the art of ignoring any evidence contrary to your view -- to the point that you simply don't even acknowledge it, let alone consider it and reply.
Case in point: our discussion in April about your theory that prior to "Dreams" there was to be some alternate biography which directly put Obama's birth in Kenya. To that I offered the fact that in 1990 (the year prior to the agency bio being drafted) Obama had told three national newspapers that he was born in Hawaii! This, as I pointed out, makes it rather difficult for you to maintain that a year later Obama was part of some biographical narrative stating something quite different. And I made this same point about 3 or 4 different times.
So what was your reply to this "inconvenient truth" about the 1990 Harvard Law Review newspaper accounts? Simple: you ignored it. Repeatedly. You just stuck your head in the sand in perfect ostrich position and pretended it wasn't there. You didn't mention them at all, didn't acknowledge they occurred, and certainly didn't attempt to explain how your theory was viable in light of that earlier, contradictory evidence. You managed a complete intellectual cop-out. (And I surmise history is about to repeat itself here.)
So if you're going to level the charge of "bias" or detachment from the real world or lack of objectivity, you should look first in the mirror.
Physician, heal thyself.
So the fact of occupancy itself rules out even the possibility of fraud and dereliction as a means of achieving that occupancy?
No. "Evidence" is simply something that tends to prove (or disprove) a matter. One bit of evidence doesn't preclude the existence of contrary evidence. (In a legal case, both sides can submit evidence that points to differing conclusions.). I'm saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That's not to say there can't be counter evidence.
The common Birther narrative (a massive conspiracy or wholesale intimidation of everyone by some unknown, unseen Evil Force) while theoretically possible, has to be rated by the reasonable, objective mind as "highly unlikely."
‘the media versus all’
Surely you tossed that in there as a joke.
Your answer was a twofer, Hook. First, you invalidated your point. The media was not “versus all”. Among smart far left liberals, that is an overt lie. Among stupider moonbats it is a delusion. In fact, the media is all in for the Dem and acts towards the GOPer as an extension of the Dem Party—the Hatchet Man extension.
So your point is entirely invalid. The media doesn’t vet or challenge the Dem; it reserves all its considerable firepower for taking down the Republican.
Second, obviously you reveal yourself as a far left activist. No conservative, repeat, NO conservative, would suggest that the parties oppose each other while the media opposes both. Not even the milquetoast moderate GOPers believe that. We have known for decades the media is all in for the liberals/Dems...and it gets worse every cycle. So you helpfully outed yourself as a far lefty, while at the same time destroying your argument. Nice going.
Oh, & as far as your Great Unanswerable Question. I & others have answered it so many times we’re sick of it. Just because you liberals ask us to answer it ‘just one more time’ doesn’t obligate us. You either never listen to or even notice the answer, or you’re incapable of grasping it. In neither case do I or anyone else have to repeat the answer every time you demand it.
However, just this once more I will give you your answer. Not expecting you to be able to figure it out, but whatever:
“here’s another point. People say, ‘But Obama also claimed to be born in HI.’
As indeed he did. He had two sets of documentation, one real, one created by his relatives in HI. He could claim birth in either location as it suited his purpose, and if challenged, could ‘prove’ the location in question. The idea that because a con-man/snake oil salesman/pathological liar at one time tells the truth—if, and ONLY if, it suits him—and at other times tells a lie proves anything is silly. All it proves is that liars lie.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3205877/posts?page=125#125
PS: What evidence to you have that McCain opposed Obama in ‘08? McCain fired a staffer for merely citing, in passing, Obama’s full name. Summarily fired the guy just because the name ‘Hussein’ came out in a comment that included the words, ‘Barack Hussein Obama’.
Oh, but surely the same McCain who so severely punished his own staffers for the mere mention of Obama’s actual name could be trusted to challenge Obama’s fraudulent credentials.
Surely.
Are you really this daft, or is it all a put-on act?
Before you took one sentence in a discussion that was solely about the office of U.S. President and dishonestly tried to make it sound like I was saying occupancy of any office anywhere at any time in history precluded any fraud or error. So, having been caught trying to pull that one, you pretend that didn't happen and make another distorted post about something else.
The media was not “versus all”.
Here you take one 3-word phrase out of a parenthetical comment I added to my main point and you exalt that into a reply that purports somehow to make that my main point. Parenthetical expressions are side comments, brief annotations to the main point. I was hardly trying in 3 words to give a summary on the role and impact of the media in presidential elections. But just as you took a single sentence out my post to Ray and built a 4-paragraph blustering retort, here to you take one 3-word phrase and build a 3 paragraph reply. The distorted emphasis is dishonest.
"Twofer" indeed.
Let's draw the timeframe back a bit (as I wasn't talking just about this last election). Woodward and Berstein achieved journalistic immortality (and I'd surmise a whole lotta money over time) in taking down a president. The silliness of the Birther worldview is that it posits this massive conspiracy, this "fraud of the century," with all this "evidence" kept just out of the mainstream view, with the "damn ready to burst" type imagery routinely employed. Yet, quite oddly, there is not a single intrepid reporter, even from conservative outlets (the media today comes in many more forms and directions than 30 years ago) who is willing to chase this? Imagine the money that could be made on that book deal. Even media reporters with political leanings are subject to the common and powerful human emotions of greed and ego. A theory that rests on the belief that everyone in a position to blow the cover on the fraud -- including not only the media but every person involved over time in the Great Conspiracy -- is resisting the temptation to money, fame, and honor is a stupid theory.
So is this supposed to represent your response (finally) to my repeated point about the 1990 media reports? You didn't answer it in April -- I can link my posts and your replies to show you stayed mum completely.
However, just this once more I will give you your answer.
Gosh, given 6 months to come up with something, even you can manage.
People say, ‘But Obama also claimed to be born in HI.’
This is progress. At least you acknowledge that in 1990 Obama himself told the national media that he was born in Hawaii. What you still haven't acknowledged is that those reports circulating nationwide in 1990 make it rather difficult the next year to conceive and launch some book saying "born in Kenya." The supposed "buzz" Obama was trying to create in the eyes of the publishers (nothing about a Kenya birth is in "Dreams") would get killed immediately the moment someone at the publisher does a Lexis/Nexis search.
So on the one hand, we have Obama telling the media he was born in Hawaii, in publications known to get wide distribution. On the other, we have this agency bio, which was only circulated in a pamphlet along with the bios of some 80 other authors to handful of publishing houses.
So, viewed in context, it does seem the likely explanation for the discrepancy is just as it's been given: the agency made a mistake, and no one was paying attention because it was something initially seen only by a small group and not the general public.
He had two sets of documentation, one real, one created by his relatives in HI.
We can fairly attribute to his relatives the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements the Indonesian school application listing his birth in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. One might also include in "family-created records" statements by Obama, Sr., and Stanley Ann located in their INS and State Dept records. There is also, as Hawaii states, an original birth record with information matching the WHLFBC indicating birth in Honolulu, Hawaii (though that isn't family created).
But what during that time -- in fact, what at any time before 1991 -- are you saying constituted the "real" records?
You used a lot of words to claim you didn’t say what you said. But to make you happy, here’s the entire sentence:
“I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated.”
That is the lamest, most moonbat comment I have ever read on this site. I cannot believe an adult wrote it. Do you honestly believe “the media” is “versus all”?
Do you really believe that?
The media is not “versus all”. The media is versus Republicans. The media is all in for Dems. It has been this way for decades and every cycle it gets worse.
What I said was perfectly true. When you make a brain-numbed assertion like that, you do two things. First, you underscore for all of time that you are NOT a conservative. No conservative believes the media is “versus all”. We live day in and day out with the fact that the media is in the tank for Dems/liberals and actively hostile to conservatives. That is our reality. As a liberal, it isn’t yours.
Secondly, you did indeed destroy your argument. If the media is all in for Obama, and is actively seeking to smear, attack and discredit Republicans, then Obama was NOT vetted. He was NOT vetted by a fawning, knee-pad media, and he was not vetted by a whipped and submissive GOPe that got tired long ago of being vilified as ‘racist’ and worse. He was not vetted period.
In Obama’s case, ‘occupancy’ represents the culmination of fraud and dereliction. & your idiotic idea that the media is “versus all” only serves to illustrate that you have No Clue. Your only POV is the liberal, Obama-justifying POV, and you couldn’t grasp the issue from a conservative POV if your very life depended on it.
Oh, and McCain wasn’t vs Obama. He was vs his own staffers. Otherwise he would not have fired a loyal, hard-working, dedicated staffer for the ‘crime’ of using Obama’s name. McCain only wanted to suck up to Obama. Had he wanted to win, he’d have run an entirely different campaign. But his weak, pathetic, impotent and neurotic response to his own staffer revealed that he cared more about respecting Obama and pleasing the MSM than winning.
‘So, viewed in context, it does seem the likely explanation for the discrepancy is just as it’s been given: the agency made a mistake, and no one was paying attention because it was something initially seen only by a small group and not the general public.’
I don’t/can’t accept that you actually believe this flimsy explanation. I don’t think you’re *that* stupid.
‘So, viewed in context, it does seem the likely explanation for the discrepancy is just as it’s been given: the agency made a mistake, and no one was paying attention because it was something initially seen only by a small group and not the general public.’
Let me put it this way. If I were a full-on Obot anti-birther, I would ***still*** see the fundamental, game-killing problems with the agency’s explanation. I would pretend to the birther community that I couldn’t see any problems at all. This is because if I were an Obot, dishonesty would be my stock in trade. So I would think nothing of lying and claiming the agency’s explanation made sense. But on a personal level I would know it didn’t.
I don’t get that with you. You seem so all-in for Obama, you can’t even perceive the most obvious problems with his narrative. I guess even if you actually can see them, you couldn’t admit it. So I’ll just say this: if you see these painfully basic issues, you do a bang up good job of concealing that fact.
Too good a job, if you ask me.
‘Let’s draw the timeframe back a bit (as I wasn’t talking just about this last election). Woodward and Berstein achieved journalistic immortality (and I’d surmise a whole lotta money over time) in taking down a president. The silliness of the Birther worldview is that it posits this massive conspiracy, this “fraud of the century,” with all this “evidence” kept just out of the mainstream view, with the “damn ready to burst” type imagery routinely employed. Yet, quite oddly, there is not a single intrepid reporter, even from conservative outlets (the media today comes in many more forms and directions than 30 years ago) who is willing to chase this? Imagine the money that could be made on that book deal. Even media reporters with political leanings are subject to the common and powerful human emotions of greed and ego. A theory that rests on the belief that everyone in a position to blow the cover on the fraud — including not only the media but every person involved over time in the Great Conspiracy — is resisting the temptation to money, fame, and honor is a stupid theory.’
When you post things like this, it’s flabbergasting to think you might be serious. I’d like to think you know the truth, and are just needling me. I.e.: you know how far left the media is, and how far down Obama’s hip pocket they have snuggled, and so, secure in that knowledge, you taunt me over it. Not nice, but at least not moronic.
The moronic angle is more worrisome. The question here is, can ***anybody*** be stupid enough to believe what you wrote above? Hopefully the answer is ‘no’.
In case there is an exception, I’ll explain.
Nixon’s sin was in being a Republican, & thus being hated, as in viscerally, all-consumingly, pathologically hated, by the media. That was his biggest crime.
To suggest any possible parity between exposing wrong-doing on the part of a liberal and a hated conservative is either off-the-charts stupidity or certifiable madness.
In case you don’t believe that, consider what Clinton did. He sold our nuclear secrets to China, sold our coal industry to Indonesia, and assaulted Kathleen Willey in the WH. What did Nixon do to compare to any of that? Squat. Nixon was a patriot who never waged a long, ugly, vicious war on women. Clinton was no patriot, and he actually raped a woman. But it doesn’t matter. Clinton was a liberal Dem & Nixon a hated Republican; that’s all that matters.
Consider Hillary. One of Nixon’s aids went to prison for possessing a single FBI file. Hillary possessed ~ a thousand of them. What happened to her? What happened to the reporter/reporters who broke the story? They aren’t exactly household names, are they?
Now take Obama. He & Holder forced taxpayers to buy illegals arms, they *gave* the arms to the most dangerous killers in the Mexican drug cartels, they purposefully didn’t even try to trace the arms, & they stood by while thousands of Mexicans and some Americans were murdered with those same arms. Nixon did nothing, ***nothing*** that illegal or monstrous. But no journalist looking into Fast and Furious has received any notable awards, fame, fortune or other honor. They are simply ignored and/or blacklisted.
Nixon floated the idea of using the IRS against his enemies. He never succeeded in doing so. The Obama administration has not only done so on a large scale, but continues to do so. Are accolades pouring down on the reporters who have dug into this story? Is Obama resigning in ignominiousness? It’s a crime racket such as the US has never witnessed, but all it warrants in the media is a yawn.
Benghazi is a heinous crime. Americans were put at deathly & unnecessary risk, & then left to die. Had Nixon done something similar, he would be a byword on the order of Hitler. But Obama & Hillary get a pass. Oh, & do you know, off hand, the names of the reporters who have put in the most hours on this story? You do not. Nobody else does either. They are simply traitors, since they are racistly attempting to impugn our first black president. Oh, and surely they’re misogynists as well.
What about the bombshell that Obama didn’t write Dreams from my Father? That in fact, it was written by a terrorist. A terrorist, moreover, whom Obama had lyingly claimed to have barely known. On top of everything else, it wasn’t even a conservative who broke that story. It was a pro-Obama liberal. For his trouble, he was nearly denied a book tour, and in the end only allowed to appear in public on the condition he not mention Bill Ayers. He really got the royal treatment, didn’t he? No wonder other reporters are lining up to break similar stories.
How about Jack Cashill? He established that Dreams from my Father is a work of fiction. He certainly earned high praise for that bit of heavy-duty journalism, didn’t he? In fact, he is despised and denigrated almost universally. But according to you his fate should inspire many more journalists to go a similar route.
There are many more Obama/Holder scandals also. Big ones. Scandals that, if committed by a Republican, would be HUGE news. There would indeed be $ & fame to be gained from reporting them. But since they were committed by liberal Dems of color, there is no gain in reporting them. There is only mockery, criticism & rejection. This is the way it works, and unless you are an intellectually challenged teenager, you should have figured this out for yourself by now.
Iow, no intelligent, informed person would have written what you did. It’s so divorced from reality as to raise fundamental questions. Of course, you are the only one who actually knows why you wrote it. I don’t expect ever to learn the truth. But I do know that it was moronic on its face. And that’s putting it kindly.
No. I made that initial statement to Ray, and the problem since then has been how you've taken that an run with it. First, you wrested what I said from its context and dishonestly tried to make it sound like I was claiming occupancy of every office everywhere throughout history is evidence of eligibility.
Second, your continued, exclusive emphasis of this one answer to Ray (out of 10 I made) suggests I gave great weight to this point. I didn't and don't.
Here's Ray's question:
"Does occupancy of office confer eligibility?"
The answer to that is "No," which is what I was saying, though adding in a corrected expression relating occupancy and eligibility. I didn't then purport to assign the significance or weight of that evidence. And it's low. Such is evidentiary only in an indirect way, being as it merely affirms a consensus as to eligibility which existed prior to the election. On a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high), I'd give occupancy perhaps a ranking of 5 - 10. It's after-the-fact and indirect evidence at best.
By contrast, looking at the 2008 and (especially) 2012 elections, the COLB and the verifications of Obama's birth certificate by Hawaii rate a 95. They are the things that comes with a Constitutional significance under the Full, Faith & Credit clause. They are the things that if ever eligibility were to have been formally tested would carry the day, be it in a court of law or before the Congress.
So your winding on about if and how much the election process is adversarial by the press or opposition party is to challenge a point I don't give all that much weight to in the first place.
I don’t/can’t accept that you actually believe this flimsy explanation.
I do. Is it possible to have been otherwise? Sure.
But if "born in Kenya" came from Obama himself, then there are two difficulties for your position. First, it's rather difficult to explain (and you've so far failed to answer what are the "other records" in your "two set of records" theory) how Obama figured he could pull that off when the year prior his "born in Hawaii" statement circulated nationwide? Second, if this is supposedly such a critical point -- one that the agency would for sure seek to get right -- then it's puzzling why no one (neither Obama nor his editors/publisher) sought to make that point either in the text of "Dreams" or on the dust jacket. If that was supposedly meant to make Obama look "exotic" and create buzz among the publishers, why not create that same buzz for the reading public.
So, yeah, I think simple oversight is quite possible.
If I were a full-on Obot anti-birther, I would ***still*** see the fundamental, game-killing problems with the agency’s explanation. I would pretend to the birther community that I couldn’t see any problems at all.
Game-killing? LOL. The State of Hawaii has verified (three times) Obama's birth there. The agency bio is at most a gnat buzzing around that anti-birthers have occasionally need to swat away.
This is because if I were an Obot, dishonesty would be my stock in trade.
Given how you tried to manipulate my statement about "occupancy as evidence of eligibility" (which was clearly limited just to the office of U.S. President for anyone with half a brain) into some sweeping assertion making that apply to every office everywhere, it's fair to say that when it comes to dishonesty you lead the way.
Though, truly, were I a Birther, I'd have to give absolute weight to this pithy agency bio that was sent only to a handful of publishers. But if Birthers didn't have that, they'd have nothing. I understand why you have to pretend that it's the "Great-Thing-That-Cannot-Be-Denied."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.