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 ...
It doesn't define it. It uses examples of its uses.
Thank you!
Sooo, you will not answer a simple question? Gee, that is not fair. I have answered a lot of questions for you, while you pretty much just copy and paste blurbs from a script.
Let’s see, you said, “Wong Kim Ark was a decision that has nothing to do with NBC.”
OK, so why then do they discuss NBC, back to the 1300s in England, and then trace it forward to 1898? Here is one blurb for example, and there are any others:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
If the WKA case was NOT about NBC, then why did the WKA case spend so much time on it. In your opinion.
Second Observation: You said, and I quote, “
“Arkeny relies on a case that has nothing to do with NBC and you tout it. Got it.”
Assuming that to be the case, then why did the Ankeny Court bring it up so much. Can you discuss that? Can you discuss why the Ankeny Court thought that WKA was relevant and controlling law? From your point of view.
Thirdly, you said the other night that WKA was wrongly decided. If you believe that WKA was NOT about NBC, then what part of it was wrongly decided??? In your opinion.
You said, “How did the Wong Kim Ark define Natural Born Citizenship?
It doesn’t define it. It uses examples of its uses.”
Ok, what is an example of where they used it, and why did it use such examples? In your opinion.
Why should I? You just keep lying about me so I'm turning uncivil to you.
You want to talk smack so I'm talking smack today.
You post the examples and why. Don't ask me.
Make your case!
How did the Wong Kim Ark define Natural Born Citizenship?
It doesn’t define it. It uses examples of its uses.
I wasn't supposed to be able to answer that question.
You attempted to trap me by asking for something that doesn't exist.
I'm just exposing your scam.
THEN, you immediately shifted gears...
Ok, what is an example of where they used it, and why did it use such examples?
You're so busted.
Your acquiescence is sufficient evidence to prove to you that I've read the f*****g case!
I do believe that you have read the case. I am
simply asking you why you think the case was NOT about NBC, when the term was defined over and over by them.
I am asking you to explain your reasoning, why you then think that the case mentioned it so often, and I am asking you to explain what you thought they “decided wrongly.”
Are you unable to explain your reasoning??? Frankly, if you are not able to explain your reasoning, I would not be surprised.
Sooo, why don't you simply tell me the answer to your
simple question since it's SO easy to answer, instead of
playing some "gothca" game?
That's not what you were spouting yesterday.
It is all there for you to read, in great detail.
Between the majority of the Court and the minority of the Court. Try reading that.
1) Sincere, but severely reading impaired;
blah blah bah blah blah. Read Wong Kimm Ark.
You can DAMN WELL come up with an apology!
Why do you think it is a “gotcha” question? Are you extremely paranoid or something. You made a statement, that WKA was not about NBC, and yet, NBC is found all through the case. I am asking you why you think the NBC language is there if the case is not about NBC. I am also asking you to explain what you think was “decided wrongly.”
Those are your statements, so how do they become my “gotcha questions? Are you unable to do anything but post copy and paste Birther blurbs??? If so that is fine. A lot of people just “believe” stuff with no reasons behind what they believe. They just go around spouting off what somebody else told them was true. Of course, they are often found in cults of one sort or another. . . just sayin’.
I am not apologizing. I think you read the case, but I think that either you do not understand it, or that you do not want to understand it. Or you may simply have a reading disability of some sort. Personally, I think that you understand it just fine, but that you pretend that you do not for some unknown reason. But I could be wrong. Sovereign Citizens have created a whole slew of Fantasy Laws, and some of them are true believers, and some are whatever.
I guess you haven't been on this thread and have not
read a single reply of mine else you would not have to ask that question.
Did you forget this reply of mine already?
62
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.
I've explained my reasoning in that reply and others.
You just don't want to hear it.
And yet, miraculously, despite it's many mentions and despite how badly you want it to say Ark was made a NBC it isn't in the decision and nobody was declared a NBC in the case.
The VIRTUE of the 14th Amendment made him a citizen.
Ark had to utilize an appeal to the 14th Amendment for a grant of citizenship.
Does a natural born citizen need something to make them so?
Then I'm not going to be nice and I'm not going to apologize either.
You want the defame and shame game, @boy, you got it!
Remember, you started this.
Yes, you did say, Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.
But no, you did not explain your reasoning. You never explained why “all persons” did not mean “all persons.”
The WKA court did, though, several times:
“”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.”
But the opening words, “All persons born,” are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race — as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited.”
I notice that you have a problem when it comes to explaining things. You just state something as if it were a fact, and then you go blank when confronted with what a legal case said.
Are you a Sovereign Citizen???
Do you still say the 14th Amendment is just about former slaves? If so, why would you say that if the WKA court said that “all persons” meant “all persons.” Do you think the 14th Amendment had an ending date? If so, where did you get that idea?
If you do think the 14th Amendment had an ending date, do you think the 2nd Amendment had an ending date too??? That it only applied to people who were alive at the time of its passing???
None of that addresses the meaning of “natural born Citizen” - which is not the same as a “natural born Subject,” nor the same as a mere “born citizen.”
Citizens are not subjects. Subjects owe allegiance to a sovereign. Their “allegiance” is an obligation, not a willing affinity. In a republic, citizens are the sovereign. Blackstone’s definitions cannot apply to a nation whose people are their own masters, who cannot be bound to serve an overlord. Citizens are willingly allied to one another, and to the nation that they together, equally, constitute.
The allegiance of a citizen to his country is voluntary if the citizen was naturalized, implicit - natural - if natural born. A naturalized citizen enjoys equal rights and privileges to a natural born citizen - as if natural born - but does not, cannot, enjoy an equal presumption of natural affinity to the nation that is possessed by a natural born citizen.
And a “born citizen,” depending on the circumstances, can be presumed to have ambiguous loyalties. See, e.g., 8 U.S. Code ç 1401 g), which automatically bestows citizenship-at-birth upon “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien...” What is the nature of allegiances that can be expected of such a citizen? Such a citizen can be expected to harbor multiple compelling “natural” allegiances. A “natural born Citizen” cannot. A natural born citizen can have only one natural allegiance - an allegiance to the nation of his birth, the nation of his parents at birth. Of one land, of one people - no others.
“WONG KIM ARK WAS A CITIZEN AT BIRTH, ALSO KNOWN AS A âÂÂNATURAL BORN CITIZENâ”
Not. A “citizen at birth” is not also known as a “natural born citizen.” A “citizen at birth” may be defined in law, a “natural born citizen” may not. A “natural born citizen” is born a citizen by nature, above and apart from any enacted law. A law may define whomever law makers may decide - rightly or wrongly - to regard as “natural born,” but no law of man may determine who is, in fact, “natural born,” for to be natural born is a matter of natural fact, not legal fiat.
8 U.S. Code ç 1401 (g) - established in 1952 by Sec. 301 (a) (4) of the McCarran-Walter Act - made persons “born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien...” citizens at birth. No person so-born before passage of the act in 1952 was ever, legally, a “citizen at birth.” Winston Churchill, “born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom [was] an alien...” was never a United States citizen, much less a “citizen at birth,” much less a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Congress always had authority to “make” him a citizen at birth, but never the authority to make him a natural born citizen (although it could have declared him - rightly or wrongly - to have been so born.) To be natural born is a matter of natural fact, not legal fiat.
Whatever could be natural about a condition subject to legislative now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t action? Only conditions not subject to legislative action can be considered to be natural, unwritten, and independent of any written law.
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.