Skip to comments.Rahm Stays Cool at Residency Hearing
Posted on 12/15/2010 6:55:53 AM PST by PBRCat
Illinois law is quite clear on this residency issue.
It simply states that anyone wishing to run for mayor of Chicago must have lived in the city for at least a year prior to the election. And we know Rahm did not.
For weeks now, and again Tuesday, Emanuel and his lawyers have been arguing that he never relinquished his claims to residency because he always intended to return to Chicago.
But intent is something you want to do. It's not something you've actually done. And there's the problem for Rahm.
Facts are stubborn things. As chief of staff for President Barack Obama, Emanuel filed a 2009 tax return stating he was only a part-time resident of Illinois.
"My accountant prepared the tax return and I signed the tax return that he prepared. That's the answer to that question," he said.
One law Emanuel's team relies upon was written during the World War II era to protect the rights of U.S. military personnel so they wouldn't lose their rights to vote.
But as far as I can tell, the law about soldiers and their right to vote has nothing to do with qualifications for candidacy for mayor of Chicago.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
In the end, just as with the Usurper, the Legal Requirements will be brushed away, and an illegal Socialist bastard will get elected by the “piece o’ da pie” crowds.....
Come on, Tribune.
This is your city.
Corruption is your middle name.
You are the prime reason that we’re gonna have a civil war soon.
Get used to it, ‘cuz you are the first place that’ll get its power cut off.
Freeze to death in the dark, libtards.
This is all show. The deal’s in.
But you signed that return under penalty of perjury stating that it was accurate.
Dems always “reinterpret” the law to suit the occasion. Witness the New Jersey Supreme Court.
That means nothing to a liberal.
“Dems always reinterpret the law to suit the occasion. Witness the New Jersey Supreme Court.”
Exactly. “Well, I amended it.” — So, there. Case closed. What are we even arguing about? Oh, Rahm left his most “valuable possessions” at his old house (in a box, in a basement, that he had no access to)... and those are, of course, his wife’s wedding dress and the clothes his babies wore when they came home after being born. Oh, Rahm! Such a good guy! Strike up the violins! How can the people’s will POSSIBLY be denied?! Rules were made to be broken, after all.
Anyone else out there think they can’t get any more sickened by these people?
I don't think "reinterpretation" is a part of the process. For the MSM perhaps. But for Dem politicians the law is irrelevant. The do what they do with impunity, unless it's so corrupt that it can't be overlooked (Conyers, for instance...and then it's nothing more than censure).
Let's face it. They succeed in this because they own the system.
Should be something of a problem for Murkowski, too.
Of course he’s cool. He knows laws don’t apply to elites like him. So does everyone else.
Oh please...laws are for the little people and republicans.
Bart Simpson says: “Laws are for suckers!”
If a man is willing to commit perjury on his tax return, he’s willing to lie about what’s stored in his basement.
Absolutely correct. The fix is in.
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.