There is only one conclusion: Obama and friends admit that - contrary to their public posturing over the last four years - there is a real problem with his constitutional eligibility for POTUS.
I wonder........so the MSM films this, but keeps it dark. They hang on the the tapes for use in future reporting if this ever does blow up in obamas face.
There is only one conclusion: Obama and friends admit that - contrary to their public posturing over the last four years - there is a real problem with his constitutional eligibility for POTUS.
There isn't any doubt that they are concerned about the issue. I will continue to stand on my estimate that out of various pockets with various different lawyers, they have spent in the $10mm range managing their exposure--a significant amount of money even in this league.
But until you find out what the real facts are, you don't know exactly what issues they think they are defending. They certainly have not "admitted" anything; they clearly have not yet admitted that their concern is eligibility.
His poll numbers are not very attractive for an incumbent President so their concern could equally well emanate from a political judgement about the impact of disclosure on his electability for other reasons.
At present, I take it as a given, that at a minimum, he was not born in Hawaii. So where he was born is a significant issue.
From what I have seen, not all of which is yet in the public record, I have concluded that Barack H. Obama was not his father; and it appears very unlikely that Stanley Dunham was his mother.
So to some extent, the current effort from our side of the table still needs to be focused on what the actual facts are because to the extent you think there is a legal issue involved, you cannot pursue it without knowing the facts.
The current fact pattern forcing the issue is the absence of proof he was born in Hawaii coupled with the fact that any independent trier of fact who looks at the birth document record concludes immediately that the documents are false.
But the best legal conclusion on those facts is going to be to strike him from the ballot on the grounds that he has not demonstrated he is eligible. Yes, the court could come up with a bunch of verbiage about reasons he might not be eligible but that would become the legal issue on appeal--if I were the judge, I would just say he hasn't proven he was eligible; I subpoenaed him to come in a show me and he stood me up; so I conclude based on the facts that I have seen a bunch of fraudulent documents originating with him and the fact that he won't tell me the real story that he is not eligible. Out he goes.
However if you think he was born in the USA and that he is eligible under the Natural Born Clause, the character of the defense they have conducted suggests that there is some significant issue that they view as eliminating him from the reelection race.
I speculate that there is a wide and increasing group in DC and New York that knows exactly what the issues and facts are. Whether or not that is true, there are at least two people who do know--Pelosi; and William Jefferson Clinton.
And looking at the gossip, you can also indulge in some informed speculation that both of them believe that whatever his problem is, it would result in his effective exclusion from candidacy.
So winning a battle to keep him off the Georgia primary ballot (and maybe thereby getting a leg up to exclude him on the final election ballot) is a positive development but it does not achieve your final objective of getting him out of office.
Illinois is not going to talk to you about it. Depending on the pleadings and procedural status (did the action address overall eligibility including the final election ballot), there may be an effective appeal, there may not be.