[holden]

It seems to me there needs to be more care given to avoid saying "Kerry did not receive an Honorable Discharge," inasmuch as that is probably a falsehood, since he apparently belatedly, in 1978 from Jimmy Carter or at least by March of 2001, just to mention two of his so-far, four claimed dates of his discharge, did have his discharge upgraded to "honorable."

It seems we need to be clear (assumedly, only if true) that in 197x, Kerry received, e.g., an "Other Than Honorable Discharge, (e.g.) which only through Democrat President Carter, contemporaneously with his draft dodger and AWOL amnesty program" was done this favor from his party's comrade, the President.

What becomes important is the reason for such OTH discharge. If it was stated anywhere that "he gave aid and comfort to the enemy," the man is simply ineligible to be President, and must be removed from the ballot, even if after the fact.

HF

[snopercod]

If it was stated anywhere that "he gave aid and comfort to the enemy," the man is simply ineligible to be President, and must be removed from the ballot, even if after the fact.

[OldSgt.]

"removed from the ballot, even if after the fact."

You mean Him getting elected then would mean he'd go to jail, PLEASE SAY YES, PLEASE!!!! Wouldn't this be a Fed fraud??

[CaptainVictory]

What becomes important is the reason for such OTH discharge. If it was stated anywhere that "he gave aid and comfort to the enemy," the man is simply ineligible to be President, and must be removed from the ballot, even if after the fact.

This is where my knowledge gives out. Is that a bright-line rule? If so, I agree that's the bottom line.