I posted that DNC doc yesterday on this thread - post #19.
After I did, I did another search and found ANOTHER one on Count Us Out, and I saved that because it was cleaner and clearer and not smudgy. Initially, the first version showed an overwrite of the N in Nancy .. and I thought it looked like it was started with a faulty pen and then written over.
I was just going to delete the first smudgy version and keep the 2nd one in my image account. THEN I READ THEM BOTH!
***THE LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED IN THE 2ND VERSION. I've had the first one for awhile, have no clue where I found it. This is the money clause:
".... the following were duly nominated as candidates for said Party as President and Vice President of the United States respectively and the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
The Cleaner, 2nd Version
".... the following were nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively."
What's that all about ?? Pelosi re-thought her liability in the language of the first version and altered the text?
Correction on the 2nd: were DULY nominated
The second one has a stamp on it (Received August 29,2008)
but the first one doesn’t?
Nothing the DNC does surprises me anymore.
Does the later one supersede the other document? I don’t see where it says it supersedes the previous document. If that was Pelosi’s intent, then the DNC should have destroyed the one that says “Legally qualified to serve” document before it got out into the public domain.
The curl of the T in Travis is different too. One curls straight up the other curls inward.
...and the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:Since I assume the version with the
is the official one, he was never officially certified as Constitutionly eligible to hold office.RECEIVED
AUG 29 2008
SC ELECTION COMM.
Why the change? Nancy knows the truth and wants plausible deniability when TSHTF.
MOO.
the notary has the same date on both....
this could show intent to deceive....I see some smoke..
Very, very interesting.
If you haven’t yet - your find could use it’s own thread!
WOW!! They were both sworn out and signed the same day. What is going on with the democrat party? Do a few select know the truth and are getting nervous now? Remember..Nazi Pelosi did not sign that stupid resolution in the house about Obama’s ‘Hawaii birth’ either.
please post a thread on these 2 images and their content differences.
Regards,
3
This is crazy stuff! Keep digging!
Great find! To my untrained eye, it appears the signatures have been overwritten. Why? I can only guess it may be because an over-written signature is a poor attempt at hiding the fact that the document previously signed, was a photo-copied.
Then, the wording was changed. And photo-copied again. By that time the signatures would have faded...
Please make a post of these two documents. It’s a stunning find.
From Speaker.gov
Seems to be some differences to me, just sayin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2130641/posts?page=20#20
THE ‘SHORT TEXT’ VERSION:
20 posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:46:07 PM by bert
Are these real?
Check your properties for the first one or put it through a hex editor, it may show you where you originally grabbed the image.
You’ve got to get copies of those two forms to all the attorneys working on the eligibility issue, Andy Martin etc.
That’s a bombshell if we can bring it to light.
Look at the signatures on the one that says constitution... the signatures have been traced over. You can see a fainter line and the writing is shaky as if trying to not make a mistake.
Starwise,
Do we feel pretty good about the integrity of both docs, i.e, the dates of creation of both?
Trying to be sure that one wasn’t altered for wild goose chase purposes by the Left.