Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.

Those who think Trump is unfit for office, or who otherwise oppose him, might carry more weight if they publicly acknowledge that they chased their tails for two years and, when they finally snagged it, realized they hadn’t captured the enemy. Then, they could more credibly move forward to another focus, such as targeting the Trump policies they find objectionable.

In the end, Trump wasn’t the liar on this major point; instead, his critics were the ones who were sorely mistaken. They accused the president of the worst sort of treachery but, according to Mueller, Trump was telling the truth all along when he said there was no collusion with Russia.

I’m no political expert but, to me as an Average Joe, the continued focus on supposed obstruction of a crime that wasn’t committed simply smacks of desperation.

What they are desperate to keep under wraps is that the Kenyan from Indonesia was never eligible to be President.

How so? Let's walk through the possibilities and see where we are on this.

One either accepts or does not accept his standard biography.

Assume: Standard biography is TRUE. Assuming that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii to his American-born white mom and his Kenyan-citizen black father then the only issue left to deligitimize him is somehow a new consensus being created that the fact that his father was not a US citizen means he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore ineligible.
I think there is Zero chance of that happening. When the issue was HOT and being talked about in the press the nuances of the NBC clause were impossible to get through people's thick skulls. What would cause people to suddenly change their mind.
The hard interpretation that people on FR want to apply to the NBC clause, which I myself favor, has been further deligitimized by non NBC person after non NBC person running for President and their legitimacy being accepted by press, courts and party officials in every case. Nikki Haley, Marko Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tulsi Gabbards, Kamala Harris and on and on.
In my opinion that train left the station when the GOP officials failed to challenge Obama in 2008, and essential the de-jure law is now that NBC means "Citizen at birth", which is at least easy for simple people to understand.
Assume: Standard biography is FALSE
Given the above, even if Obama were born in Kenya most people would say "so what? his Mom was American, so he's still a citizen". Now, again, those of us who lived thorugh the NBC wars of the 2000s know that the immigration law at the time was quite different than it is today, and in fact specifically designed so that "war babies" could not claim citizenship. Mother and fathers were not treated identially in immigration law in 1960.
And again, no way there would be widespread calls to view Obama as illegitimate even if his Kenyan birth were proved.
Now if you could prove Stanley wasn't his mother AND he was born in Kenya, you would have something. But no one has suggested that.

OK, that's my analysis of where we are regarding Obama legitimacy. It's in the rear-view mirror, in my opinion, and I can't see what facts are going to change that.

Can you explain what you think could happen?

“If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone,”

I think a huge sector of the American public either does not understand that investigations are usually investigations about a crime that has occurred, where there is no question a crime occurred, and the question is “who dun it?”, or at least where you know someone did a specific thing, and the question may be “was that specific thing we know was done actually a crime?”.

A murder investigation starts with a dead body, or at least a missing body. In other words, it is determined that there has been a crime BEFORE any investigation.

Even in Watergate there was a crime FIRST. A burglary. In fact the burglars had already been convicted, or plead guilty, before Watergate really got going.

Now there are situations where you know someone did “X”, and “X” may or may not have been a crime, such as with very tricky statutes related to white collar crimes, so you get more facts to figure out whether all the i’s were dotted and all the t’s crossed, or whether illegal shortcuts were taken, but even there, there’s an “X” that you know someone did.

Not so with Trump.

In the case of Trump, it was “We don’t have any evidence of anyone having committed any crime, we don’t have evidence of anyone doing a specific act that MIGHT be a crime, depending on the circumstances, but Let’s investigate Trump, and see if we can find a crime in there somewhere.”

de-jure law is now that NBC means “Citizen at birth”, which is at least easy for simple people to understand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is what the Uniparty wants.
It is a bastardization of the intent of the founders. They specifically rejected “citizen at birth” in favor of the more restrictive natural born citizen.

1. Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”:

When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.

Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.

John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.

Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.

Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]

So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

...the immigration law at the time...
...immigration law in 1960.
How does a natural born citizen fall under ANY immigration law?

I'm not sure if your question is actually an ironic comment, or you are actually asking a question. I've assumed the latter, and will try to answer it.

It happens that the status of foreign born people and their acquisition of American Citizenship has changed over time, and those changes have taken place as parts of the immigration laws.

If we were dealing with the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" which many knowledgeable Freepers hold, as it was always intended by the Founders, then: A person, to be a Natural Born Citizen has to have no dual citizenship and no plausible divided allegiance to the USA.

Ideally this means both parents are American citizens (and only American citizens) at the time of birth, and they were born in the USA.

If one acknowledges that this definition is the correct one then we can accept Obama's official biography and it's quite clear, regardless of the location of his birth, that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Obama's father was not an American citizen, he was a British Subject. Obama was born a dual citizen of the USA and Britan, and became a dual citizen of Kenya at the time of their independence. (He lost this dual citizenshp on his 23rd birthday because (as far as we know) he failed to do what was required by Kenya. But that does not change the circumstances of his BIRTH, which is what the NBC clause is all about.

In that case there is no question as to their citizenship and, indeed, the immigration laws have nothing to say about them.

If, on the other hand one believes the Obama was born in Kenya, the first issue for Obama isn't "is Obama a Natural Born Citizen" it's "is Obama a citizen at all?".

If he isn't really a citizen then obviously he's not an NBC.

If he was born in Kenya he could still be an American citizen, though. Lots of Americans are born overseas and are still citizens at birth.

Under the correct originalist interpretation of the NBC clause most of them would not be "Natural Born Citizens" though, possibly depending on the country in question and their particular circumstances.

Under the current de-facto interpretation anyone who was a citizen at birth is a Natural Born Citizen (this is my summary of what we are told by the media and what the people have apparently accepted).

The question of whether or not a baby born in a foreign country to one American parent is a citizen at birth, or not, has varied a lot over time.

PS: If you meant this as an ironic aside then please forgive my pedantic answer. Maybe someone else will find some value in it.

Obama is not, and has never been, a natural born citizen.

Yes, because the courts and election officials and GOP "leaders" failed to contest his election the actual value of the term "Natural Born Citizen" under law has been degraded.

So, under the originalist interpretation, you are quite correct: he was never a Natural Born Citizen.

But according to most everyone else: He was our elected President, and of course he was an NBC. "NBC just means "a citizen at the time of birth"".

That's not my personal view, but it's the new de-facto understanding of the term.

Which is why other than a few curmudgeons here and there no one is object to all those other non-NBC but born-with-citizenship types: Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Bobby Jindal, etc.

That ship (of originalist interpretation of the NBC clause has set sail, I am sad to say.

Do you agree that he needed a law of some sort to make him a Citizen?

Assuming his standard bio is true: he was born in a hospital in Honolulu in 1960, shortly after Statehood. So, no, he didn't need a special law to be a citizen. Everyone born in that hospital that year was a citizen. Everyone born to an American mother that year was a citizen too.

I believe golng all the way back to the Founding being born in a State and having an American mother has always been enough to guarantee citizenship, except for American Indians and black slaves, prior to the 14th Ammendment.

Seeing as he isn't slave-descended or Indian I can't think of a law that was needed (or indeed exists) that makes him a citizen. Can you?

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.