Any chance we could get him on a perjury-like charge similar to what was prosecuted with Clinton? Has he ever been under oath when he has provided information that would normally be used to verify eligibility and which is technically wrong?
How about technical issues related to fraud? For instance, I’m sure the President receives some kind of health, and/or life insurance. Can he be prosecuted for fraud if the information he has provided the government FOR that insurance is not accurate?
Could he be taken down like Capone for some sort of tax evasion scandal due to the Social Security number inconsistencies?
I’m beginning to wonder if the thing we will have to use to expose him might have NOTHING to do at all with his eligibility, but in a technicality where the repercussions for perjury and/or fraud are explicitly laid out - something that’s a condition of employment, or benefits, or something of the like that would constitute a felony and is ongoing, or can be specifically proven.
Honestly, I’m curious to see what, if anything, Sheriff Joe announces in the next week or so. I’m wondering if looking at this from a slightly different perspective than bringing a lawsuit will bear fruit - the criminal angle on Obama’s activities might be even more interesting and compelling than his most recent attempts at fraud (which I do believe he IS guilty of in several ways - even if it’s never proven).
*****************
One other question I have (a rather silly one I should know the answer to personally)... I remember talk about this years back when I was working for a 3rd party on a Presidential candidacy, and I saw it mentioned here in the last few days as well. Does a candidate need to be on the ballot in ALL 50 states to qualify - or in just enough states to mathematically have a chance at actually being able to win a majority? I do know that Presidential Electors are not bound to vote for the “winner”, but instead can vote for whomever is on their state’s ballot when they actually sit down and vote some days after the election. I can’t remember if it was a *required* things in regards to ballot access, or if it was a *crazy to bother if you’re not on all 50 states as a 3rd party* type of thing? (Thanks in advance for any answers on that question, or the stuff I wrote about above. It’s been hard for me to stay up-to-date lately.)
Let’s not be troubled over the dicta claim..we’ve heard it before. Jefferson told us they will come hither and make a mess of everything we have built.
We have Vattel’s Law of Nations in our back pocket. The Supreme Court told us in 2006 “it’s been a part of our nations laws for 200 years”. The court referenced Vattel.
I am not a lawyer but I have had numerous er, encounters, with the law over the years and from that perspective it seems that there is adequate information about O’Bummer to go after him. You have listed quite a few.
The issue to me is WILL. We need to find some people in authority who have both the skill and the will to take a shot at the Pretender.
Sheriff Joe may be effective and may give the project another shove in the correct direction--we can be hopeful.
As to ballot access--my comments on this thread have been based on a limited review of the papers in two of the five cases. I don't see the global remedy of getting him off the ballot in both the primary and the election but it may be there in papers I have not seen.
The reason you might proceed on only the primary is because you think you have a better shot at avoiding creating a federal question. Maybe you can proceed on the general as well without creating a federal question although the Supreme Court didn't have a problem getting in to the case in Bush v. Gore.
It isn't clear how many states you need to remove him from the ballot on to affect his ability as a candidate. It might be enough to just get him off the primary ballot in half the states to cause the Dem's to decide he is a problem.
In fact, I think something like that is at least being discussed in DC at present and it may well bear fruit if we see more progress.
As a judgment proposition, I don't think he can afford to lose very many of these arguments and remain an effective candidate.
When you are as divisive a political factor as Obama has been, you tend to attract adversaries who increase the level of problems you have being effective.
I would feel better about our chances if we had more effective and better coordinated legal help. But the Georgia case at present at least is moving in the right direction.