‘I respectfully disagree. It’s NOT losing GA that matters; it’s how the liberals are going to explain that 0b0z0 couldn’t “prove his eligibility” in court!
Well, that would lead back to Brian Schatz (Chief of Elections in Hawaii) who is now the Lt. Governor of HI as to why in 2008 he originally denied Obama access to the state ballot. And would lead to why Nancy Pelousi had to step in.
Was the fact that both Obama and Pelosi in Hawaii over the Christmas holidays anything to do with “coordinating” their future testimony with HI officials???
The way I read what happened in Hawaii is that Brian Schatz did not ‘keep him off the ballot’.
But what he did was submit a document that did not meet the legal requirements for which the document was submitted. That being a written statement confirming eligibility.
His action was one of omission - not commission.
But someone caught the omission before the election and thus forced Ms. Pelosi into action.
So one of the following happened:
1) It was an innocent omission. Sloppiness, forgetfulness.
2) Brian Schatz did not want to be on the record, in writing claiming Obama was eligible.
That’s it - pick one or the other.
Arguments against 1) - the form used in 2008 was the same format as 2004. And the 2004 form had the right language and met the legal requirements. The form in 2008 was not created anew in 2008.
Arguments for 2) - William Gilardy was Stanley Ann’s lawyer during her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. He was (is?) HDP legal council. He has access to what is behind the magic curtain. He would be in a position to advise Schatz on actions to avoid possible charges of fraud in the future.
That could be interesting. If they were there attempting to get Hawaii to approve him for the ballot without any funny documents and different wording, the events in Georgia might scare them enough to refuse to comply with their wishes.
A funny document given to Hawaii this year, but not the other states would confirm fire where currently we only see smoke.