Posted on 01/23/2012 1:38:02 PM PST by edge919
This looks like Obama is trying to float a test excuse as to why he won't be showing up at the ballot-eligibility hearing in Georgia on Thursday.
Carney: Obama sees ‘regrettable level of hyperpartisanship’ in Washington
"Even though he promised to bridge partisanship before coming into office, President Obama “accepts that there is still a regrettable level of hyperpartisanship,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday.
Carney said there were “instances” in which the tone on Pennsylvania Avenue “got in the way of moving forward.”
No lawyers needed. Actually if I send an additional sixteen bucks they will FedEx my certified birth certificate the next day.
Then comes failing to appear and on and on. I could live with that..
So let me see. The motion quash was in part because the pResident is a busy man.....and then the judge will see a "Vegas" stop on the day he is to appear before him....not good.
Barry’s got to meet with his bookie on his Super Bowl picks. Important business.
I must have missed where the GOP insisted Obama release his BC. I guess he thinks if he says that people will think it is the GOP asking him to show up in court in Georgia.
Precisely. But from a legal standpoint, I am wondering what his options actually are. What sort of immunity does he have?
I remember that a judge in some courtroom in California took it upon himself to issue an injunction that prevented the entire US Navy, worldwide, from continuing to test a sonar device some years back.
Does any American citizen (which Obama supposedly is) have the right to ignore a judicial subpoena?
Heh heh ... just did an internet search for “obama blames” and my gosh ... so many hits. Even saw one where Rush reads his Obama Blames Diary.
Just getting that in right now to nail things down as to what was and wasn’t said. I have to go do dinner and I’ll be back later. This is too good to let it lie. (pun intended)
I thought we were the enemy Zero?
Didn’t you say we were the enemy?
It would be interesting to here the MSM ask about or mention the following:
“Minor v. Happersett”
These words seem to be the 3rd rail in the MSM-sphere right now. They will not touch it.
“It would be interesting to hear the MSM ask about or mention the following:
“Minor v. Happersett”
These words seem to be the 3rd rail in the MSM-sphere right now. They will not touch it.”
They will avoid discussing Minor for as long as possible, because that simple definition of NBC is impossible for him and his enablers to wiggle out of. That’s why over two dozen cases related MvH were jacked around on Justia.com prior to the 2008 election. Whomever is responsible for that bit of chicanery knew the importance of that case vis a vis the definition of NBC.
Either he’s telling the truth about his origins and he’s shown to be automatically constitutionally ineligible to hold office based on his foreigner father, or the entire life narrative that “Obama” has sold to the world is shown to be complete garbage. Either way, he’s screwed if the story gets legs, which I think it’s beginning to. Been seeing LOTS more MvH citations around the web.
Much like Cousin Itt of Addams Family fame you can't tell which way Jay Carney, or Mr. Dunham, is going. As far as the birth certificate question goes it is laughable to lay this at the feet of the GOP and hyper-partisanship now. As Dan Pfeiffer said in April of 2011...
And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.
Now if this had been, as Carney said today, a regrettable level of sort of hyper-partisanship in Washington then why wasn't he aware of it back in April of 2011? If it was "in Washington", as he's now portraying the issue, why didn't he or Pfeiffer say so way back then? When did it get "in Washington"? Was it in the last week? Did it just get "in Washington" today as more news of the Georgia subpoenas got out?
This was supposed to be something that was essentially coming "from the nether regions of the Internet"! Not a word about it being an issue "in Washington". The issue was coming from outside of Washington.
In fact, Washington has been doing everything in it's power, on both sides of the aisle, to squelch any discussion on the matter of eligibility, even going so far as to divert attention to the birth certificate and away from an actual Article II discussion.
So, no, Cousin Itt Carney, it's plain to see which way you're going, and it isn't in the direction of truthfulness. Watch out for the hole that you've dug, it's awful deep.
cite for as long as I can remember. It even says...WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court right at the top.
“Such a non-issue.”
You mean the Justia.com cases getting “mangled”? Why would that be a non-issue? My understanding is that the Justia.com site is the most extensively used online resource by laypersons and others who can’t afford the expensive pay-to-use sources, and is the first to come up in most cases when one uses Google to search for this type of legal info.
Has the integrity of the case information at Cornell been consistently sound? How long is “as long as I can remember” if you don’t mind my asking? Not trying to be contrary here; just curious.
I've got lots of respect for his tenacity and insights, so I'm not "dissing" the man.
However, Leo, despite his knowledge, didn't figure out on his own that the oft used quote in question came from the opinion until many months after the debate started and he started writing about it, so I've got little pity for him.
Sure, Justia.com's actions were wrong, but who is going to do anything about it? It's a non-issue and Leo should have tried multiple sources to compare things instead of using the same one all of the time.
It really comes down to this...Leo is just pissed off that he got duped, plain and simple!
Oh, okay. Hadn't considered that angle. Thanks for the fresh perspective.
I remember before Watergate slowly exploded that it started out with little remarks by Nixon’s press sec just like Carney’s was with the press yesterday. I think he was testing the waters on the eligibility issue to be frank and don’t think this eligibility issue isn’t being discussed between Carney and White House council right now. It is and they’re plotting strategy and damage control. To blame Republicans is the first sign of options they are going to use. Again, this was a test.
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.