Video: Ohio Congresswoman Tells Supporter that Obama is Not a Citizen and Can’t Be President

Republicans may want to just keep away from open mikes for a while. After a ranking Republican in California was caught describing in disgusting detail sex with a lobbyist, Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was caught whispering to a constituent that she agrees that President Obama is not a legitimate president due to his birth.

On the tape, a clearly unhinged supporter is insisting the Obama can’t be a president because of his birth. Schmidt is heard saying “M’aam, m’aam. I agree with you, but the courts don’t.”

It still beats relations with a lobbyist, but Schmidt is in the unenviable position of stating either than she believe Obama is a foreign-born, constitutional pretender or say that she will say anything to constituents.

131 thoughts on “Video: Ohio Congresswoman Tells Supporter that Obama is Not a Citizen and Can’t Be President”

  1. B: “Judge Land should be impeached.”

    So write to your Member of Congress, already.

  2. No need to call the teacher, birther. As I said above, it was Orly HERSELF who said in the pleading that it was timely filed on September 14, 2009, 60 days after the entry of the final order.

    But the docket said it did not get in until the 15th.

    She is hoist by her own petard.

  3. Especially relevant is footnote 3. The judge seems to agree that impeachment is the proper remedy if there were any credible evidence in support of the birthers.


    [3] The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008, (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).

    Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.

    Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). UNQUOTE

  4. Judge Land should be impeached.

    The amount of money spent has nothing to do with the allegations presented.

  5. Mike Appleton,

    The day of the judgment IS NOT COUNTED, nor is Labor Day. It was filed on the 60th day.

    As far as your legal prowess goes, you didn’t even know who had the burden of proof in a quo warranto action.

    Perhaps we should let Prof. Turley settle the argument.

  6. More from the judge:

    “(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,” Land states in his order. “Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”

    Rhodes, who filed her complaint Sept. 4 in the Columbus Division of U.S. District Court, argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant.

    “This plaintiff cannot in good conscience obey orders originating from a chain of command from this merely de facto president,” Rhodes’ complaint states. “This plaintiff cannot be lawfully compelled to obey this de facto president’s orders.”

    In his order, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a “grueling” primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign.

    “It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought,” Land says.

    The judge adds that Congress hasn’t started impeachment proceedings against Obama, appears satisfied that he can hold the office and has rejected the suggestion he isn’t.

  7. Gee, birther, you really go for the jugular.

    I am still bleeding from this latest thrust of your vorpal blade.

    I am sorry, Birther, that you do not seem to grasp or understand the concept of the term “synonyms,” that is, two different words that MEAN THE SAME THING.

    The words “on” and “by” in this context are synonyms, since they mean the same thing, just like the words “sole” and “only.”

    So, I did not lie when I paraphrased “on impeachment” as “by impeachment” because both phases mean exactly the same thing.

    But I guess I will have to leave that for the jury.

    And I was summarizing the clause by paraphrase, since I did not put it in quotation marks. When I put it in quotes, I preserve all the words and capitalizations of the original. But not in this case.

    I don’t want you banned. This is too much fun. I do not care what you post by yourself. All I said was that I do not care to call anyone insulting names on this site.

    And on those constitutional scholars. I think I will let you do that research yourself and perhaps learn a thing or two about the history of the impeachment process.

  8. Birther, you misread my post. The appeal is untimely because it was not filed until 61 days following entry of the dismissal. My statement was that since an appeal in a standard civil case must be filed within 30 days, she’ll be hard pressed to come up with a showing of excusable neglect to explain how she couldn’t manage to prepare and file a one page document within the 60 day period prescribed for appeals in which the U.S. or a federal agency are parties. I have a hunch that I’ve handled more federal appeals than you have, and I certainly don’t need to be directed to the rules by someone who believes that unauthenticated pieces of paper constitute “evidence” in the courtroom or that mere allegations somehow shift the burden of proof to a defendant.

  9. Come on, Vince. Jimmy has to show some work product to get that paycheck and you’ve about exhausted his room to argue. What else does he have left in his arsenal? He’s boxed in. That’s his standard M.O. upon retreat. You are as ever the very portrait of restraint, but letting him loose it is mildly entertaining and part of what brings the truth seekers back would be my guess. You’re a great straight man, but you work better with comic relief on this subject. That’s just my take.

  10. Vince,

    It should be clear to all the readers that you don’t know the difference between being truthful and being a liar.

    You said; “The Constitution says the President shall be removed by impeachment.

    The U.S. Constitution says; “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment.

    The answer is; You did lie! That’s not a personal attack. That’s the truth. A snake is a purposely deceptive person, and it’s obvious that you’re being purposely deceptive.

    Where are the quotes from the “constitutional scholars” you claim to rely on?

    If Prof. Turley wants to ban me for pointing out the truth. so be it.

  11. BIRTHER Vince states; “The Constitution says the President shall be removed by impeachment”. That’s a lie Vince -I hate snakes, and you’re a snake.

    THE CONSTITUTION: “The President…shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Artile II, sec. 4.

    ME: I said the words “President,” “shall be removed,” and “by Impeachment” in the Clause that I quoted, in that order, and invite all readers to look them up for themselves.

    Exactly how did I lie? Every word I used is in the Constitution [except “on” for “by”] and I put them in the same order. The answer is that I did not lie.

    As for BIRTHER/TROLL/Byrnes growing anger at snakes, I follow the Turley Rules and do not engage in name calling at this site.

    [I have always assumed that there are two rules at this site:
    1) Turley makes the rules.
    2) See Rule 1.]

  12. Mike Appleton,

    Please take the time to learn the federal rules.

    When the United States is a party, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require filing the notice of appeal “within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.”

  13. Vince said; “Virtually every constitutional scholar and jurist in the history of the Constitution has assumed that impeachment is the sole method of removal.”

    Support your claim Vince. Provide us with the name of the “constitutional scholar” and quote the passage.

    Vince states; “The Constitution says the President shall be removed by impeachment”.
    That’s a lie Vince -I hate snakes, and you’re a snake.

  14. Here was the “Written prediction™ ®” over at the Retired General thread, September 14, 2009 at 9:13 am.

    It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.

    Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.

    Rhodes has already had a day in court in another federal district court, and her claim was dismissed.

    Read the article.

    The hearing is set for today, Monday Sep 14.

    Written prediction™ ®: case dismissed.


    News – Breaking News
    Wednesday, Sep. 16, 2009
    Judge tosses out Army captain’s complaint questioning president’s birth; Orly Taitz on notice

    U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land today tossed out a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.

    Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national “birther” movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever files a similar “frivolous” lawsuit in his court.

    Check back with for more on this story.


    Just as predicted on the Turley blog.

  16. Vince, your math is correct. The notice of appeal is untimely. Taitz may file a motion for an extension of time, of course, but she will have to establish excusable neglect, which ought to be a significant problem for her. After all, had this been a standard case, she would have had only 30 days to appeal. Since she is clueless about the burden of proof concept, perhaps she’ll argue that the president has to prove that any neglect on her part was not excusable.

  17. Birther: “There’s a reason you copy and paste everything you find, but always fail to do the same with the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution would support your assertion.”

    That is an outright lie, and every reader of these posts can see it. I have cited and quoted the relevant clauses of the Constitution in Articles I and II, chapter and verse, over and over again. Everything I have cited supports my assertions. Note that he does not say that I have not found express language. He says “nothing in the Constitution” would support my assertion. That is a false statement. All my citations and quotations support my assertion. Some may disagree, but my position is NOT without support.

    BIRTHER SAYS Nothing? Nothing at all? Virtually every constitutional scholar and jurist in the history of the Constitution has assumed that impeachment is the sole method of removal, on the basis of the same clauses I have cited.

    If he cannot understand that the word “sole” means “only,” and that the House is the only body empowered to impeach a President, he is beyond the reasoning process.

    Everybody. The Constitution says the President shall be removed by impeachment. Who, you may ask, can do this impeaching? Well, the Constitution then says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. In words of identical meaning, the House has the only power of impeachment. The Senate has the SOLE power to try impeachments and of removal. If the House has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sole power to try, convict and remove, then this is the “sole” method of removal. Therefore, the President may only be removed by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. QED

    Byrne is as dense as that guy Boyle who argued that a woman cannot be President because the Constitution refers to the President as “he.”

    Turning BIRTHER’S logic back on him, where in the Constitution is there any other provision for the removal of a President? Nowhere. Since Article II is the only provision in the Constitution for removal, it follows that it is the sole provision for removal.

    BIRTHER has not cited a scrap of language anywhere in the Constitution that would expressly or implicitly allow such an end run around the impeachment clauses. He has not pointed to any history or case law to support this bizarre theory, while I have cited the compelling evidence of 220 years of consistent constitutional practice and common understanding of all three branches of the Government.

    Why would the framers have created such an elaborate impeachment process, if they then allowed Congress to bypass it by the simple means of letting a single judge in the District of Columbia remove a President?

    he answer is that they did not. They carefully crafted a process that preserved the choices of the people. They provided that impeachment was exclusive, and that any effort to evade its requirements would be a blatant violation of the constitutional process.

    Has anyone EVER tried this writ successfully against a President, judge, or Member of Congress? The answer is no, not ever, never.

    Still waiting for any case that ever allowed such a writ.

    We will all be waiting a long, long time.

  18. “September 15th. A date that seems to be a day late.”

    You know the rules, and you know how to calculate dates. You imply one thing, but cover yourself by using the word seems.

    I don’t care much for snakes.

Comments are closed.