How Close were the FBI and Perkins Coie when the Obama “Birth Certificate” was Released?

The Post & Email ^ | 3 Jun 2022 | Sharon Rondeau

[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,” ...

[rxsid]

Yup. I guess they figured if they can put a documented fraud who isn't eligible into the Presidency...twice, they can move on to stealing national elections without much pushback.

Not paying attention to this stuff has clear consequences.

[philman_36]

I am not sure what you mean by USC 8. The whole title?
United States Code - Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality

Obama, if born inside the U.S. or its territories, is a natural born citizen by operation of the 14th Amendment.
Obama was a slave? The 14th Amendment doesn't govern anybody but freed slaves.
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)

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. Don't bitch at me, it's the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's words.

[philman_36]

Now, if you have a relevant case, then present it. BUT, it has to be an American case that is AFTER Wong Kim Ark, not before, and of a USSC level.

Why bother? As I've just shown, the 14th Amendment was
for former slaves. Was Mr. Ark a former slave?
As you yourself said earlier...Courts are wrong all the time
Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly.

[Penelope Dreadful]

So in other words, you ain’t got nothing.

And you, opining that “the 14th Amendment was
for former slaves. Was Mr. Ark a former slave?”

Wow, that is rich! NO, Mr. Ark was NOT a former slave, and yet the Court found that the 14th Amendment applied to him.

Rather than you having a learnable moment and saying, “Gee, maybe I do not know what I was talking about, and the 14th Amendment does not just apply to former slaves - rather than you saying that and admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about - you will simply state Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly.

Dude, you are living inside your own head. You would make a great Democrat! You know - Men can get pregnant too! Go for it! You are well on your way!

[philman_36]

I know Ark too. It's always about the questions...

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.

The question presented by the record is 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, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.' Know what I mean? Like I said, it was decided wrongly. Ark was never a slave.

[philman_36]

NO, Mr. Ark was NOT a former slave, and yet the Court found that the 14th Amendment applied to him.

And the courts are never wrong...right?

[philman_36]

That's why I asked if you thought 8 USC was what granted NBC status.
You went the other way. That's cool.

[Penelope Dreadful]

You are not a sane person. Your personal opinions do not make law. You say that the 14th Amendment does not apply to anyone but former slaves, and 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.

The WKA Court traced the 14th Amend back to a bunch of white folks in Jolly Old England. It is all there for you to read, in great detail. I hope that you are not driving around with paper license tags, and without a drivers license because you think you are a corporation or something.

Because I think there is a form of mental illness related to people who hold bizarre legal theories.

[spacejunkie2001]

I recall the discrepancy of the SS form was that odumbo’s team took the ‘08’ from 2008 and turned it upside down to make ‘80’. People were able to prove that it was upside 08 and also that the other forms were stamped with the 4 numbers but his just had the 2 number (80)

[philman_36]

You are not a sane person.
Did you stay in a Holiday Inn last night?

You say that the 14th Amendment does not apply to anyone but former slaves...

I don't say that, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration said it.

...and 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.
blah, blah, blah...MORE blah, blah, blah...
You're turning into nothing more than a smear merchant.

[Penelope Dreadful]

“I don’t say that, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration said it.”

Where, and when. Cite it. Give the date. Give details. Was it prior to the WKArk case?

And as far as smears, let me give you a good one! You know who your counterpart is on the Left? It is the person who says that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to assault rifles, or guns that hold more than one bullet at a time. You know how stupid we think those people are? You know how frustrated we get when we cite a Supreme Court case to them, and they say, “The Court was wrong!”

Or the people on the Left who say that the First Amendment does not cover Disinformation Speech, or Hate Speech. And Court Cases do not matter to them, because their stupid opinion is all they need to cut thru all that law.

Those people are YOU! You are their mirror image on the Right side of things.

[philman_36]

You say that the 14th Amendment does not apply to anyone but former slaves...
“I don’t say that, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration said it.”
Where, and when.
Today, 6:59:55 PM o FR.
Cite it. Give the date. Give details.
Reply 62.

Was it prior to the WKArk case?

I think you went off on a tangent. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration didn't exist at that time so it couldn't be prior to that.

[philman_36]

Bless your heart, your 14th Amendment canard got shut down and now all you have is smear.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Thank you for responding! The date said 1868, and that was 30 years prior to WKA. Oopsies No. 1. Opposed No. 2 was, the language only said that it granted the right to former slaves. Which it did DUH! But the language did not say that the 14th was limited to former slaves. The WKA court cleared all that up in 1898.

Are you truly that facile???

[philman_36]

Btw, while you attempt to smear me you're exposing yourself as a judicial activist as you condone the court over reach, which is something most conservatives don't like.
It's legislating from the bench.

...and yet the Court found that the 14th Amendment applied to him.

You know.

[philman_36]

But the language did not say that the 14th was limited to former slaves.
Oh, you can show me that in the debates?
I've got some GREAT links from the Federal Register if you need one.
What if the debate said it did apply to just the freed slaves? Would such evidence change your mind?

The WKA court cleared all that up in 1898.
That sounds like an opinion. Case dismissed!

[Penelope Dreadful]

It would not matter legally what Congress said in 1868, if Court did not say it did. But there was also debate of sorts in 1898. Between the majority of the Court and the minority of the Court. Try reading that. And remember, debates are not law. The law is what was passed and subsequently interpreted by courts. See Wong Kim Ark!

[bitt]

p

[philman_36]

The law is what was passed and subsequently interpreted by courts.

Laws are upheld by the courts they don't interpret them. They can read the intent from the debates.

And I correct myself. My great links are to the Congressional Record pages of the debates.

As a matter of fact...here ya go...
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History

[little jeremiah]

Lawyers from Perkins Coie defended 0bola in every single court case about his non-eligibilty.