It goes without saying that, where there is a story of constitutional or human rights abuse, Dick Cheney cannot be far behind. It is therefore little surprise to learn this week that, according to sources in the recent disclosure of a hidden counterterrorism program, the prior concealment from Congress was allegedly ordered by Cheney.
The Central Intelligence Agency reportedly withheld information about program for eight years on orders from Cheney, who continually fought any disclosures on a host of subjects to either Congress or the courts.
As I discussed on this segment of MSNBC Countdown, it is a crime to withhold such information from Congress — yet another crime that is not being investigated by the Obama Administration.
While covert operations can be limited to disclosures to the Gang of Eight, the National Security Act of 1947 requires such disclosure.
It was previously known that Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, (another dark character in these scandals) was involved in this matter as well.
Once again, it is astonishing that Attorney General Eric Holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the mounting allegations of criminal acts by the Bush Administration. The blocking of such investigations by the Obama Administration reaffirms the view that our intelligence services live beyond the reach of the law and that our leaders are unaccountable under the criminal laws that they apply to average citizens. While Obama insists that no one is above the law, he has ensured that we have two separate systems of justice for the powerful and the plebes.
In another story, Gen. Michael Hayden who carried out many of the presumptively unlawful programs during the Bush Administration insists that Congress was informed of this particular program, here.
For the full story, click here
Mike A.,
Let’s keep Ms. Taitz out of this. Determining what she would or wouldn’t due is pure speculation. I prefer to deal with what we do and do not know.
Information provided by politifact.org and factcheck.org are hearsay, and therefore not admissable.
So; we don’t know of any legal entity with which President Obama has filed his Certification of Live Birth as a document to support his claim of meeting the standard of qualification set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Since he won the election, and took the Oath of Office, it would be reasonable to assume that he has claimed to meet the qualifications for such office. Is not the burden on the claimant to provide supporting evidence? It is impossible to challenge evidence that has not been submitted, let alone the authenticity of such evidence. -Don’t you agree?
Our Constitution sets forth standards of qualification, but when the qualification is challenged, and no evidence is submitted to support that qualification, do we not have a Constitution that is merely a piece of paper?
But by saying Cook has never “admitted” his aim in filing suit, he has used a classic debating tack. Deny something irrelevant to divert attention from your own failure to respond to a relevant question.
The question is, why did Cook seek a TRO or PI for a deployment that HE HIMSELF voluteered for, and which HE HIMSELF could have cancelled at any time? Why?
The reasonable inference is that he wanted to set up a court case.
A student applies for Harvard and is admitted. Then he goes to state court for an injunction barring him from being admitted. Why?
Well, he wanted to challenge the legality of the appointment of the President of Harvard by the university’s governing board.
Huh?
Spock: Perfectly logical.
Sorry, he did not vote for McCain. Reporter will strike the question. The jury will disregard the question.
Awful lot of questions from Jim Byrne. How about some questions back.
Does he still think Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1961? He hasn’t gotten back on that one.
Does he still think the COLB is a forgery, even though World Nut Daily refuted this position late last year? Does he credit “Polarik-XXXXXXXXXXXX” and “Truthdude,” who arae both anonymous and have both been discredited.
Since he voted for McCain (who was, in fact born outside the 48 United States), did he ever see McCain’ birth certificate? Note that the birth certificate posted on the web showing him born in Colon City IS a forgery. Note also that I have maintained on this site that McCain was a natural born citizen.
What is the relevance of his meeting his wife to his natural born citizen status? If he did mispeak, or if the speechwrited mispoke, or he fibbed or lied, then it is certainly a fact to consider if he runs for reelection. But how does it affect his birth 20 odd years earlier?
How does he know about that microfiche? Does he think it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii, yes or no?
Jim Byrne, I don’t know where it has been filed. I do know, however, that the whole issue was vetted by FactCheck.org and Politifact.org. FactCheck even took photographs of the original. I also know that both the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics and the director of the Hawaii Department of Health have verified the authenticity of his birth certificate. His birth was also reported in the Honolulu newspaper contemporaneously with the event. That is certainly sufficient for any evidentiary purposes. If Orly Taitz has any contrary evidence, she has yet to reveal it.
I might also add, and this is solely my opinion, that if Ms. Taitz actually viewed the original, she would nevertheless claim that it was a forgery and that Honolulu newspaper archives for 1961 were altered by the addition of the birth announcement. When we talk about “evidence,” we are not talking about satisfying or “convincing” those who cannot be satisfied or convinced. Our entire legal system revolves around the concept of the “reasonable man.” This is a notion which is either unfamiliar to Ms. Taitz or which she is unwilling to accept. My gut instinct, however, supported somewhat by the nature of the groups backing her efforts, is that the challenges are primarily race based.
Mike A.,
To the best of my knowlwdge (I may be wrong), the only place President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth has been filed is with a few media outlets. -Am I correct?
Has it ever been filed with the U.S. House of Representatives, or with a U.S. Court of Law?
I’ll stop there so that we can stay on the same page.
Mike S.,
I asked a simple question, and expected a simple answer. I did not ask for an excuse. (Making excuses for someone else is the job of a protector, not an unbiased observer.)
I’m not trying to insult you or your intelligence. I just wanted you to recognize and acknowledge a truth from a falsehood. I’m not ready to impeach anybody, so don’t jump off the deep end.
“The Major has admitted that he requested an Afghanistan post, just so he would gain what in his mind was standing to sue.”
I’m not aware of Major Cook making that statement, but let’s say he did. As I have pointed out in a previuous post, undercover officers regularly by drugs in order to make an arrest, and prosecute the drug dealer. -It’s called “making a case”.
“Vince Treacy has been providing copious evidence of the fact that this “challenge” is spurious, yet you and the other birther proponents on this thread have continually ignored it.”
You have chosen to accept the information presented by Vince. I have not. I don’t find it to be conclusive. I am just another member of the jury.
“You are unhappy about the outcome of the election and your unhappiness overcomes any sense of loyalty to the American Electoral System.”
I’m not unhappy with the results of the election, and I can surely find more evidence of your complaints against our electoral system than any that I have posted. -Especially when I have never posted a complaint about our electoral system.
I didn’t vote for John McCain. As such, do you really think I have grounds to complain about Barack Obama winning the election?
Your accusations are unfounded.
–I treat you with respect. I expect the same in return.
Have you seen the microfiche containing Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth? -I haven’t either. -Instead of attacking me, or Major Cook, or Dr. Taitz; why don’t you try addressing the merits of the claim? That’s what court filings are all about.
Jim Byrne, let me say first that I have no idea where Pres. Obama met his wife, nor do I care. But with regard to the issue of citizenship, it is my position that the statutory definition of “natural born” citizen is clear. As you know, the first rule of statutory construction is to give words their ordinary meaning. Despite the fact that English may not be her first language, Ms. Taitz has the same obligations that you and I do when it comes to filing good faith pleadings. Second, suspicions are not grounds for injunctive relief, but the petition alleges nothing more than speculation. I have handled numerous injunction cases over the years and would be embarrassed to have my name associated with her filing. Third, there is a common pattern to all of the birther arguments, the false assertion that their expressions of doubt require the president to submit proof which meets their own standards of sufficiency.
Now let’s consider some fundamental evidence law. Among the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule is the provision that makes admissible certain types of public records, including records of vital statistics, and even church records relating to births, deaths, marriages, etc. A copy of a birth certificate, properly certified by the custodial agency, is prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. Accordingly, once a certified copy has been produced, as it was in the case of Pres. Obama, the burden of disproving the truth of that record shifts to the opposing party. I have yet to see a single instance in which a birther has produced an authenticated document or other credible evidence even suggesting that the president’s birth certificate is invalid, or a forgery. A mere assertion that the president’s background includes the use of “39 different social security numbers,” without more, does not even merit a response, let alone contrary proof.
Finally, let me address your comment regarding standing. You and others have repeatedly suggested that there is something vaguely conspiratorial about efforts to challenge a person’s standing to sue. Indeed, the insinuation is that the government withdrew Maj. Cook’s orders solely to eliminate standing and moot the case, thereby precluding the possibility of a determination on the merits. That in fact is what Ms. Taitz is claiming at present, that somehow this is a “victory” for her position. (Forget the fact that this guy just lost his employment and his career for the benefit of Taitz’ self-promotion.) The response to this is obvious to anyone who has a litigation practice. A lawyer’s duty in defending a claim is to seek its dismissal if there are legitimate grounds to do so. That’s all. There’s nothing more to it than that.
Jim,
Gee I guess he “lied” about that. You are so right when do we start the impeachment? Seriously though, do you really think I’m stupid, because playing this game implies so? The President oversimplified a statement to make a point, something we all may do on a daily basis. What is your intention in including this is the more important point? The answer to that, of course, is to impugn his integrity. The upshot of you using a tactic like that is propagandistic, rather than argumentative. Now let’s look further at your being a propagandist, rather than an arguer for your beliefs.
“1. Every effort is being made to remove the plaintiff from having “standing”. Why?”
The Major has admitted that he requested an Afghanistan post, just so he would gain what in his mind was standing to sue.
He was playing games with the military and never sincere in his original request. You, more than most, should know that you don’t try to manipulate the military without reaping the consequences. Why is the fact that he falsely volunteered so hard for you to grasp, unless it fits in with your pre-conceived notions and anger at who clearly won the Presidency.
“2. The authenticity of President Obama’s reported “Certification of Live Birth” has been challenged.”
Vince Treacy has been providing copious evidence of the fact that this “challenge” is spurious, yet you and the other birther proponents on this thread have continually ignored it.
This isn’t debate Jim, it is the childishness of ten year old’s going Nyanh! Nyanh! Nyanh! on the schoolyard. You are unhappy about the outcome of the election and your unhappiness overcomes any sense of loyalty to the American Electoral System. It’s not a football game Jim, it’s our country and you and the other birthers don’t care because you’re angry your side lost. That is sad for the state that political discourse has fallen to and said because of an inability to understand that the people have spoken, no matter how much you don’t like their opinions.
Mike S.,
You are as vulnerable to “cached thought” as the next person. Instead of making excuses, why not address the merits of the claim?
President Obama did not state that he met his wife while he was still in school, or while interning. He stated that he met her “in class”. -That is not the truth. Is it?
This is a yes or no question. Please answer the question.
‘In addition, President Obama has stated that he met his wife in school.Only problem is…they never attended school together.”
Jim,
Seriously, this is an issue, or is the result of grasping at straws and sour grapes? The President met his wife while he was interning at a Chicago Law Office in the summer and still in School(a common practice which my son-in-law and his friends did while attending law school)and wanted to make some tuition money. they discussed this on 60 Minutes during the campaign. Michelle was the lawyer he was interned to. This practice is used by top law firms, since it costs them relatively little and helps them review the possibility of prospective new lawyers.
I’m sorry to say this Jim, but using these kind of tactics, especially when you are in ignorance of the situation, are really quite tacky. You have tried to maintain an air of being merely an interested citizen above the fray in this and looking for truth and it seems you are having a hard time maintaining that pose.
I’m coming in late to this thread because when Vince Treacy is on the case, I’m unable to surpass his logic, dogged determination and thoroughness. He has made mincemeat out of all those he’s argued with and what could I add. However, there is an aspect to this that I must comment on.
It seems to me that when Democrats, liberals, or centrists win office, there is always a concerted effort to de-legitimize them. In the case of Bill Clinton for instance, Richard Mellon Scaife gave tens of million$ to support these efforts and make spurious claims, none of which materialized. Al Franken, who clearly won a close race was prevented from taking his seat for months. Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign for using call girls, while David Vitter who dressed in diapers for his prostitutes stays on as Senator, not to mention John Ensign and Mark Sanford.
Then we have John Kerry, a legitimate war hero, disparaged by a well financed “truth” squad and Republican who mostly never served wearing purple band aids on the fingers to mock his purple heart at their convention. The fact that he was running against two men who had dodged the draft in Viet Nam, while supporting the war, was little mentioned.
Now we have a new President, elected overwhelmingly and out of the woodwork comes the same well financed efforts at under
mining him with totally spurious charges. There simply is no there, there, no matter how many words are parsed. The election is over and your side lost fair and square. If you
birther types really are the patriots you profess to be, then you will put this nonsense aside. If you don’t then despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not patriots who support the American system, but akin to a bunch of disgruntled football fans, view every call against their team a bad one and glory when the referees call it wrongly for your team. That’s not patriotism.
Please don’t come back with the specious argument that Democrats did it in 2,000 with GW Bush, because the effort put in is nothing compared to the underground million$ being
used to finance the de-legitimization of our President.
Mike A.,
While I do agree that some of the language contained in the petition is not in the style of which we have become accustomed, we must remember that English is not the first language of Dr. Taitz. The meat of the petition is sufficient to permit the court to comprehend the claim.
For those that would like to read the petition; HERE IS A LINK.
Dr. Taitz has filed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice. A California complaint is inflammatory and irrelevant. -Instead of attacking the attorney and her client(s), I would suggest attacking the merits of the claim.
You stated “She has publicly asserted that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of one’s parents be citizens, a blatant falsehood.”
To the best of my knowledge, determination of natural-born status has never been determined in a U.S. Court. As such, her claim may have as much merit as the next.
Two things bother me:
1. Every effort is being made to remove the plaintiff from having “standing”. Why? Who would have standing to challenge the constitutionally mandated qualifications of President Obama?
2. The authenticity of President Obama’s reported “Certification of Live Birth” has been challenged. The remedy to such challenge is easily obtainable. The “Certificate of Live Birth” is reportedly on file with the Hawaii Department of Health. It is reported to be on microfiche. -If validated, the questions become moot…now, and forever.
The questions regarding the background of President Obama are not unfounded. We know the person reported to be his father was not a U.S. Citizen. We know that he lived in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro. We have not seen his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his Illinois State Bar Association records, or his adoption records (living as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia).
In addition, President Obama has stated that he met his wife in school. -Only problem is…they never attended school together.
“I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.
But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989. Obama was a summer associate (essentially a legal intern) there and Robinson was an attorney completing her first year at the firm. Both attended Harvard Law School, but Michelle graduated in the spring of 1988, while Barack Obama did not arrive at the Cambridge, Mass., campus until that fall.
—I’m not a religious man. I don’t believe anything based solely on faith. To me, enough darkness, and enough inconsistencies exist to make me question the honesty of the man. I know some may not like that, but I would be dishonest if I didn’t admit such.
Just briefly, the two citizen parent requirement is not supported by Donofrio’s argument. Leo wants Obama out because at his birth he was a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. That does not translate into a requirement of two US parents. Put donofrio into Search at this site for full treatment.
Also, the citizen grand jury petitions were kicked out of court summarily by the high respected Chief Judge Royce Lambert of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/229768/june-08-2009/obama-orders-stephen-s-haircut—ray-odierno
Do military obey Obama? Ask General Odierno:
http://www.thedailytube.com/video/18379/president-obama-calls-on-the-military-to-shave-colberts-head
Seen Colbert’s haircut lately?
Jim Byrne, I apologize, but I logged off after my last post on this thread and have only now seen your reply. With regard to the petition itself, it would honestly require more time than I have to detail the numerous deficiencies. Have you read it yourself? If not, you should. But to summarize, I note the following: 1. The petition does not set forth facts in support of each of the elements necessary to establish the grounds for an injunction. 2. The petition does not show that the plaintiff has standing to bring suit. 3. The petition is rambling and disjointed, mixing various legal arguments with speculation and wholly conclusory statements. 4. The petition cites cases which do not support the assertions for which they are cited. (Taitz even cites Roe v. Wade, for Pete’s sake).
I could go on, but if you read it, you will see for yourself that the petition is not something a competent lawyer would put his or her signature on. Vince Treacy has also pointed out some glaring problems with the pleading. A complaint was recently filed against Taitz with the State Bar of California. I will be surprised if this lady is not ultimately disbarred.
With respect to Major Cook, I believe that he is a dupe. Taitz has been actively soliciting members of the military from all over the country to become parties to her suits. She has publicly asserted that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of one’s parents be citizens, a blatant falsehood. She has publicly called for armed insurrection if her demands are not met. She has convened a wholly illegal “citizen’s grand jury” to indict the president and others. She has been practicing law in states in which she is not admitted to practice. She has demanded the resignation of authorities, including judges, who disagree with her views. How does this affect Cook? First, he has an obligation to proceed in good faith, particularly if he is challenging a facially lawful command. Good faith means more than simply relying on what some crackpot lawyer feeds him. Second, he signed the petition under oath, affirmatively stating that he had investigated all of the allegations and that they were all true. I’m confident that he hasn’t investigated anything.
bdaman posted Health Care Post:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
Response is posted at the new health care thread:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/16/democrats-unleash-huge-tax-proposals-with-some-rates-threatened-to-go-as-high-as-57-percent/
Health Care Post
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
Byrne asked: Would you do us the courtesy of quoting what you find to be “a mess”, “incoherent” or “delusional”?
Fair enough. Take a look here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Keyes-Obama-07-15-09.pdf
Note the small print that says that is was filed July 14, 2009, Bastille Day. Bastille day is relevant to this court pleading how? This is the start of the delusional parts.
Page 18, paragraph 46, repeats the canard that travel to Pakistan was barred to Americans in 1981, although the official State Department notice in 1981 said that visas were available. That document has been linked at this site.
Proof of service is by Charles Edward Lincoln. Seen his name before.
Lawyers and law students, consider FRCP pleading requirements in Rule 8(a):
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
(a) Claims for Relief.
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Then read as much of the 38-page complaint as you can and see if it contains any, repeat any, short and plain statements. Any short and plain statements at all.
Remember the old adage: Nothing is totally worthless: it can always be a bad example of how not to do something.