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 ...
90
...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!
We had further conversation with that.
Here, you follow with the smear...
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.
Lies and smears...tsk, tsk.
The debates took place BEFORE the 14th Amendment was passed. So irrelevant. The plain language of the Amendment trumps the debate, as WKA found.
You are citing USC 8 in regard to people born OUTSIDE the United States. NBC in the case of people born outside the United States is a whole different thing than what the first part of the 14th Amendment applies to. You are relying on the wrong laws. That is why they have those parts of USC 8 or whatever. If they were born inside the US, then the 14th Amendment applies, and USC 8 is pretty much irrelevent.
“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.” says YOU!
WKA said otherwise. You ain’t a court. I ask again, are you a Sovereign Citizen? Do you not think that the holdings of the Supreme Court apply to you?
How quaint. A rhetorical question dressed up as interest
with the real intent being to cast a negative aspersion upon the target.
This person has no intent in doing anything but lie and smear, distract and distort.
It's not paranoia, IT'S IN YOUR FACE when you know what to look for.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Tell me something I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that the debates didn't SHAPE the Amendment?
You are citing USC 8 in regard to people born OUTSIDE the United States.
WHOA there, @boy, don't go putting words in my mouth.
You post what I wrote and THEN comment. Don't go saying "You said..." and then it's another of your lies.
I referenced USC 8, I didn't cite it or anything within it. This...62..was my reference.
I cited nothing. You've intentionally inserted something into the conversation.
I mention Sovereign Citizens because like two citizen parent Birthers, they have created a whole fabric of Imaginary Law. If you are not a Sovereign Citizen, then that is OK, I was just curious what you thought about them, and their invention of Imaginary Laws, or Pseudolaw.
There are a lot of similarities.
“Are you going to tell me that the debates didn’t SHAPE the Amendment?”
No, debates almost always shape laws. And then the laws are written and passed. And the laws are written in these thingies called, “words.” And words have meanings, like “all persons.” Which is how the 14th was passed. ALL PERSONS.
Do you think the 14th Amendment had an ending date? If so, why was that not mentioned in the Amendment?
No, it isn't OK because you used it to try and smear me.
In order of posting from above...
...that is about as goofy as those Sovereign Citizens who are convinced that the fringe on the courtroom flag is a matter of great importance.
Two citizen parent Birthers are on the level of your average Sovereign Citizen, which is to say pretty low.
...then you went into Full Birther Mode and created a whole Bunch of Fantasy Law, -— just like Sovereign Citizens do.
It's what you do.
Remember, you started this.
You’re so full of >poop emoji< I don’t even have to ask to know that your eyes are brown!
Rhetorical questions will get you nothing.
LOL, you copied where I asked you, and then said I never asked you.
OK, you do not want to answer whether you are a Sovereign Citizen. FWIW I am neither a Sovereign Citizen nor a Birther.
Let’s try something new! What does the WKA court say, or present as the legal basis, are the requirements to be a NBC?
Here's some words for you...
Amdt14.S1.1.1.1 Citizenship Clause: Historical Background
The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case,1 however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of "persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body," the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been "born outside the dominions of the United States," had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein.2 Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.
The Court further held, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status
[[that status being the freed slaves with no "category"]]
a citizen of the United States. Even a free man descended from a former slave residing as a free man in one of the states at the date of ratification of the Constitution was held ineligible for citizenship.3 Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 14 of the Civil Rights Act of 18665 and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.6
"All persons" are the people who fit into that "category".
And look (footnote 6) what is considered the "traditional" precepts of citizenship by birth...
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)
How interesting.
1857 Dred
1868 14th
1898 WKA
How can you restore a tradition that doesn't exist yet?
Why do you keep asking questions others do do your lifting?
Present it yourself.
Ark created a new "tradition".
Civil Rights Act of 1866
It was mainly intended, in the wake of the American Civil War, to protect the civil rights of persons of African descent born in or brought to the United States.[2]
Snip...The act had three primary objectives for the integration of African Americans into the American society following the Civil War: 1.) a definition of American citizenship 2.) the rights which come with this citizenship and 3.) the unlawfulness to deprive any person of citizenship rights "on the basis of race, color, or prior condition of slavery or involuntary servitude"[3] The act accomplished these three primary objectives.[3]
There's your "all people".
And you believe that something that applies to former
slaves applies to a Chinese man who was never a slave?
My BFF told me to look up this article by here, from way back in 1898. It is from the American Law Review:
Very interesting, and what she said-
Indeed. Here ya go, @boy.
As you said...words have meanings.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
Shall have. Past tense, not present or future tense.
I don’t give a damn what your BFF says and I’m not going to your link.
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.