Posted on 06/03/2022 11:13:06 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jun. 3, 2022) — Toward the end of Tuesday’s edition of Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL1) told host Tucker Carlson that a “whistleblower” informed him that for at least a decade, the FBI has maintained a “working space” within the Washington, DC office of the international law firm Perkins Coie.
Not only did the FBI have its “working space” at the firm, Gaetz said, but the arrangement was also “operated” by then-Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann, who earlier Tuesday was acquitted by a Washington, DC jury on one count of lying to the FBI.
Sussmann’s indictment accused him of lying about his motive for requesting a meeting in September 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker and specifically, whether or not Sussmann represented a client.
According to Baker’s testimony in last week’s trial, during the meeting Sussmann told Baker he did not represent a client in the matter and had requested the meeting only to “help the Bureau.”
Prosecution exhibits released during the course of the trial allegedly show that Perkins Coie billed the Clinton campaign for the time involved in Sussmann’s meeting with Baker.
In its May 24 coverage of the trial, The New York Post reported that as it pertained to the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign stemming from Sussmann’s meeting with Baker and the now-infamous Steele “dossier,” Sussmann’s identity was placed on a “close hold,” meaning it was not revealed.
Perkins Coie has long represented Democrats in one of its specialty areas, “political law.” Former Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias, who last year launched his own “mission”-driven firm with several other Perkins Coie colleagues, served as counsel to Organizing for America (OFA), Barack Obama’s political organization. OFA later became a non-profit, “Organizing for Action,” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Yeah, it's called the dissent. As you say, DUH!
Cruz was born in Canada. Had dual citizenship until he was running for pres, he claimed he didn’t know.
Not eligible. Not honest.
Did you want some exact pages or do you want to try it yourself?
They only decided he was a citizen, they never said he was a natural born citizen.
The words of Art II Sec. 1 makes clear there is a difference.
I agree 100% with that statement.
The words of Art II Sec. 1 makes clear there is a difference.
I'm well aware of that.
No, I do not have to go thru that 1868 record and find what Bingham said. That is all discussed in the 1898 WKA case. They talk about Negroes, slaves, white people and Indians in the case! All of that stuff!
On a nincompoop would go back to the 1868 debates (and again, debates are not law. Logically, how could they be, since OPPOSING sides are presented in a debate.)
Or if a person were truly lazy, they could simply read the actual language of the 14th Amendment which clearly says, “ALL PERSONS” - it don’t say all former slave persons. It says ALL PERSONS.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If you are NOT getting this either you are:
1) Sincere, but severely reading impaired;
2) Not sincere at all, and you simply wish to engage in fantasy law; or
3)Stupid. I mean really really stupid, to the point where the term “All Persons” equals “Former slaves.”
Hogwash. Read the decision:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Wong Kim Ark became a citizen at the time of his birth. That is what a natural BORN citizen is! It is not the only way to become a natural BORN citizen, but it holds true for what we are talking about.
No, citizen is not the same as natural born citizen as evidenced by the words of Art. II sec. 1.
Born a citizen was considered and rejected as not restrictive enough to assure no one with foreign nationality could be President.
Natural born citizens are NATURALLY citizens because they have only ONE nationality and could not be anything else.
Any interpretation that allows for anyone born with foreign nationality directly contravenes the stated purpose of the clause.
blah blah bah blah blah. Read Wong Kimm Ark. What you said is just a bunch of blather.
But the language did not say that the 14th was limited to former slaves.
You can show me that in the debates?
(I even helped you out with a great link)
...it don’t (sic) say all former slave persons. It says ALL PERSONS.
The bill didn't need to say that because it is spoken about IN THE DEBATES! They ALL knew in Congress that the Amendment was about freed slaves. They didn't have to say it in the Amendment.
You need to go read the Congressional Record!
A query...
Why does the 14th specify in Section 2 - ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Not "fractions" of a person, the whole number of persons. Doesn't that mean that the former slaves, who only counted as “three-fifths” of a vote in the original Constitution were now counted as one vote and gives credence that the Amendment was for former slaves?
Criminy, dude.Read the case. And, it is stupid to presume that everybody in Congress meant former slaves when they said all persons. Guess what? The all persons language is discussed in Wong Kim Ark! Imagine that! What a wonderful case! It just keeps giving and giving!
Why don’t you just cut out your BS and get off this nonsense. You know you are wrong. I mean.look at yourself. Trying to convince a bunch of white people that all persons don’t mean all persons and flopping out a Congressional debate that took place over 30 years before the case trumps the case. Laughable!
And then your specious over reach statement. Ridiculous. The WKA Court presumed that the word all persons meant all persons. You are throwing out legal terms that you have no clue what they mean. You can not have any self respect if you do stuff like this.
Read the Congressional record...
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Page 2498 (middle column, a little over half way down)
And it keeps on being wrong time after time.
It's a bad ruling, just like Roe vs Wade was.
Look at the damage that case has caused.
Read the debates. Section 1 only applied to former slaves. Deal with it.
Given that, doesn't it seem likely that I've read the case and you sound
like a loon when you repeatedly tell me I need to read the case? Too funny!
You see on the left column where it says "Reconstruction"?
This was the first day of the debates and the very first speaker brought this subject up.
Come talk some more smack after you read 93 and 96.
Do you see yet that there is no presumption on my part?
First rattle out of the box and the man is talking about
getting out the black vote!
All there in black and white.
Here is something else you may not know and knowing it will help explain why the subject of black votes came up so early in the debate.
The Joint Committee on Reconstruction
Everything had already been covered in a Joint Committee.
All the Joint Committee was doing was bringing it to the floor.
Don't tell me that everybody in Congress at the time didn't know Section 1 was only for former slaves.
Ark was wrongly decided and it helped seat an unqualified person to the position of POTUS.
My apologies. I didn’t mean to monopolize your thread.
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.