Posted on 04/12/2011 11:12:10 AM PDT by American Dream 246
There isnt any trial. He was not eligible to run. The crime was committed before the fact.
Therefore it goes to the states.Since there is no clear case and since he was not supposed to run and because not any of it is clear in the Constitution, it goes to the states.
You really think the US Senate with a democrat majority will convict?
Which part? It was public knowledge that the Obama administration gave millions to Kenya when it rewrote its Constitution. I suggest you Google it.
As for the other, I don’t remember where I read it.
LMAO
You tell em Danae....
I hope you are feeling better now! At least this should help get your adrenaline going so you can knock that cold right out of your system. hahaha :)
If research is of high quality, the the investigator should be able to summarize the results in a brief blurb.
There's a reason all scientific journals require investigors to provide an abstract of 100 words or less summarizing the results reported in their articles.
Technically yes. Except, Biden was chosen to run by a man who was not eligible to run. Therefore, it goes to the speaker of the house.
From what I have heard-from a retired fed judge, in his opinion, it should go to the states to adjudicate. And even he hasnt any idea the legal implications constitutionally. That is why they call it a constitutional crisis.
RAWR *COLOSSAL tissue shredding sneeze* hehe. No, I feel like a crap sandwich, but I also don’t suffer well. So.. I took enough theraflu to make my ears ring, but at least I can pop them again. I was actually hearing my own voice echoing in my head... I hate that, it makes me very grumpy. But the theraflu is making me sleepy.. so I am too tired to get out of hand... mostly.. ;)
It has been a good birther day!~
(Go Donald, Go Donald!)
Great. So Trump will look like an idiot when the DNC says “So what? We signed two different forms for both Kerry and Gore too.” The issue is not te two forms signed by the DNC. The issue is the different forms signed by the Hawaii Democratic Party. Those forms are different in 2000, 2004, and 2008.
The fact that a proported researcher can't, in a few sentences, summarize the gist of his evidence is a sure sign of a crackpot.
As I said in another post, there's a reason all reputable scientific journals require investigators to write up an abstract summarizing, in 100 words or less, the results reported in the article.
Bite me curiosity.
That has been done for you dozens of times, and you come back to point out what you perceive to be inconsistencies with out reading the original works! Not to mention question interpretations...
I had guessed that about you, but now I know it to be true.
Go back to your corner and shut it. If you aren’t willing to read the evidence FROM THE SOURCES then you aren’t even worthy of being paid attention to.
Go do your OWN homework instead of begging to read someone else’s cliff notes.
Lazy people suck.
“”An insider at the White House let slip the info that the First Family has money stashed in Dubai banks.””
Link for this info
Thanks. I suspected they have nothing.
Since the Notary is salaried by the DNC they probably have a stack of blank forms signed and notarized at the DNC.
See my post #65
Well, I am no constitutional lawyer thats for sure.
The power’s that be will be looking for the simplest legal remedy, leaving the office open for any length of time is NOT acceptable, and it puts us at GREAT GREAT risk. VERY dangerous to have ANY waffeling in the transfer of power.
I don’t have a link. Since 2008 I’ve been researching Obama’s background and much of what I documented has been wiped out by repeated hack attacks on my hard drives, all originating from Chicago and Washington, D.C.
But I remember much of what I’ve read, and the Obamas are rich. There is nothing to stop them from moving money to off-shore banks. The Clintons are reputed to have so as well.
Well that would be illegal. A notary must witness what is being signed by whom and when and record the necessary descriptions in a log book. (That’s not to say they didn’t photocopy her original notarization.)
It is a fascinating article. I was concerned about this statement, however: “Madelyn Dunham’s death was reported on November 3rd, 2008. It allegedly occurred at about 3:00 a.m. on November 2nd. No official medical documents, death certificate or coronor’s report of her passing has ever been publicly revealed.”
You can look up Madelyn Dunham in the SS Death Index:
http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi
It clearly states that her death occurred on Nov. 2, with the proof of this being: “(P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.” So unless someone fabricated an entry into an official database, there’s nothing “alleged” about her death on Nov. 2: it really did occur on that day. Moreover, a death certificate DOES appear to have been issued. I’m not saying that a fraudulent entry into SSDI is impossible, but what would be the motivation for doing this? The longer the chain of illegal acts required by a theory, the less plausible it seems to me, since with every illegality comes the possibility of a whistle-blower/exposure.
In short, unless Madelyn Dunham literally was murdered, it would appear that she genuinely WAS near death in late October. So while the author has crafted a believable timeline, set of actors and credible motivations, the one “hole” in this narrative relates to her illness. Obama would have been extraordinarily lucky for his grandmother to fall ill at so convenient a time. The implication throughout the narrative is that perhaps this was fabricated in some way and the specific implication of the quotation I cite above is that perhaps she did not actually die until many weeks later, making it appear that the “need” to visit by Oct. 23 was in doubt.
My reading of the evidence is that Obama’s grandmother genuinely WAS near death and the visit was “needed” if his goal was to be with her before death (since she did end up dying prior to Election Day). What would his excuse to visit Hawaii have been had she not been so near death? I’m not saying the theory is impossible—only that a theory that rests so heavily on such an amazing stroke of luck seems less credible than one that didn’t. It bothers me that the author tries to bury this amazingly fortuitous event by implying that the event/”need” was invented rather than genuine.
I don’t have the means to “fact check” every assertion in this lengthy account, so when a fact I can readily check doesn’t quite pan out, it makes me nervous about whether I’m being “played” by the author on other less easily confirmable facts. I was well aware of the discrepant OCONs even before reading this. And I will concede this is the most coherent account of how and why those documents emerged and were signed by Nancy Pelosi. As I say, the theory may be true, but I also have a “caveat emptor” feeling after locating this SSDI information that should have been as readily available to the author as it was to me etc.
LOL!!
Don’t take buckeye’s word for it; go read the article yourself. There is more there than hearsay.
Go read it lazy curiosity.
Only the lamest of individuals cites a document from its Abstract or summary, and only an IDIOT would cite it before reading it in it’s entirety.
I know that for certain. I write research papers. If I cited something as you suggested I would be getting the “C’s” that level and quality would rate. I am a straight A student, and it is exceptionally rare that I ever even lose a point on any paper I write.
There is a reason I will be graduating with 5 cords and a sash. That’s just what I have earned so far! I have a year yet to go!
Do your own research curiosity. Your nitpicking doeswen’t even have the credibility it did an hour ago now that we know you never read the original works in entirety.
No wonder you are such an ignorant rube when it comes to these issues, you are only relying on the briefest of snippets out of documents that maybe thousands of words long. LAME lamelamelamelamelame.
The media thinks it’s their job to fight the allegations rather than investigate them. If it was a president with an (R) after his name this would be a huge scandal. The msm thinks they’re Barry’s attorneys instead of the peoples reporters.
Irrelevant. The electors still voted for him to be VP, and that makes him the duly elected VP according to the Constitution.
The selection of VP candidates by major party nominees isn't a constitutionally mandated process, but merely a custom.
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.