politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Reporter Who Exposed Hillary’s Secret Intel Operation: Who Authorized & Financed It?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... on-who-authorized-financed-it/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2015-03-29 23:27:47 by out damned spot
Keywords: Intel, operation, Hillary
Views: 105468
Comments: 168
One of the reporters who exposed what appears to have been former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s clandestine and rogue intelligence service said that there are more questions than answers regarding the operation, which was exposed in the hacked emails of Clinton’s longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125, Jeff Gerth, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that he still wanted to know “who authorized or tasked this network to do what they did” and “who was paying for this?” Gerth, the former New York Times reporter who now works for ProPublica, co- authored the report on Clinton’s rogue intelligence operation with Gawker’s Sam Biddle. He said the intelligence operation revealed in the Blumenthal emails reminds him of the Ed Wilson scandal in Libya and the Iran-Contra scandal. He noted that in both cases people were sent to jail or convicted of various crimes. “You don’t just pick this stuff up from the Internet,” he said, noting “there were human intelligence sources inside of Libya that were gathering this information” and relaying it to Blumenthal, who then forwarded the accounts to Clinton’s private email account. Gerth emphasized that the Blumenthal emails are “just a minor tiny percentage of what was going on here.” He said “we got a few pieces but don’t have anywhere near the full puzzle” because journalists have to work “with what the hacker chose to download” and take screenshots of two years ago. According to the Gawker/ProPublica report, “starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer.” Blumenthal’s emails “include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations” and they came to light when a Hacker called Guccifer posted them in 2013. On August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, an email, according to the report, cites “‘an extremely sensitive source’ who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.” As the report points out, Hillary Clinton claimed “that U.S. intelligence officials didn’t have advance knowledge” of security threats in Benghazi, but Blumenthal’s email “portrays a deteriorating security climate” even if the memo, according to Gawker, “doesn’t rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats.” On the day after the Benghazi attacks, Blumenthal reportedly sent an email sent an email saying a “sensitive source” said that interim Libyan president Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf “was told by a senior security officer” that the Benghazi attacks were “inspired by an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S,” which was the Obama administration’s preferred spin. The next day, though, Blumenthal reportedly sent an email that “said Libyan security officials believed an Islamist radical group called the Ansa al Sharia brigade had prepared the attack a month in advance and ‘took advantage of the cover’ provided by the demonstrations against the video.” Another email in October of 2012 notes “that Magariaf and the Libyan army chief of staff agree that the ‘situation in the country is becoming increasingly dangerous and unmanageable’ and ‘far worse’ than Western leaders realize.” The report notes that though the intelligence notes were sent under Blumenthal’s name, they “appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005.” He has since reportedly established a consulting firm– Tyler Drumheller, LLC. The emails also show that “Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton family operative,” was also in “close contact with Blumenthal.” Blumenthal’s hacked emails also show that “he and his associates worked to help the Libyan opposition, and even plotted to insert operatives on the ground using a private contractor.” The emails reveal that Blumenthal and Shearer were negotiating with former Army General David Grange “to place send four operatives on a week-long mission to Tunis, Tunisia, and ‘to the border and back.'” Grange, “a major general in the Army who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999,” according to the report, “subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence, security training, armament sales, and other services.” The Libyan National Transition Council and Grange’s Osprey Global Solutions, according to documents, agreed that Osprey would “‘assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country’ and train Libyan forces in intelligence, weaponry, and ‘rule-of-land warfare.'” Another email reportedly shows that Drumheller appealed to “then-Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan offering the services of Tyler Drumheller LLC, ‘to develop a program that will provide discreet confidential information allowing the appropriate entities in Libya to address any regional and international challenges.'” In addition to intelligence information from Libya, the Blumenthal memos, according to the report, “cover a wide array of subjects in extreme detail, from German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s conversations with her finance minister about French president Francois Hollande–marked ‘THIS INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE’—to the composition of the newly elected South Korean president’s transition team.” A Clinton spokesman reportedly told the outlets that the Blumenthal emails were part of the nearly 33,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. As the report notes, “Blumenthal, a New Yorker staff writer in the 1990s, became a top aide to President Bill Clinton and worked closely with Hillary Clinton during the fallout from the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton family.” Hillary Clinton even reportedly “tried to hire him when she joined President Obama’s cabinet in 2009, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly nixed the idea” because of Blumenthal’s attacks on Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary. On Breitbart News Sunday, Gerth also reminded listeners how close Blumenthal is to the Clintons–he was the last person, for instance, Hillary Clinton spoke to before she went on the Today show during the Monica Lewinsky affair to allege a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against the Clintons. The emails raise more questions about whether all of the more than 30,000 emails that Clinton deemed to be “personal” were really not “work-related.” Clinton refused to turn her email server over to a third party and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chairs the House Select Benghazi Committee, revealed on Friday that Clinton had wiped her email server “clean.” Gowdy, citing “huge gaps” in the emails that his committee has received, has indicated that there may be many relevant emails regarding Libya that Clinton may not have turned over, which is why he has indicated that the House may take legal action to get access to Clinton’s email server. “There are gaps of months and months and months. And if you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand, we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip, Gowdy said on a recent appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “So, it’s strange credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy that there’s not a single document that has been turned over to Congress. So, there are huge gaps. And with respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what is a public record and what’s not.” Gerth pointed out that “these things these usually have layers to them” and there is a lot more that needs to be unearthed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-128) not displayed.
.
.
.
#129. To: sneakypete (#124)
Evidence Links Cocaine Abuse And Parkinson's Disease Sex, Drugs and Parkinson's Disease Etc.
You're still mad that you had to marry a woman,ain't you? Isn't that at the core of your extreme hatred towards homosexual marriages,and why you think they somehow make your marriage less valid? Tell us all,are there any other groups of citizens in America that you demand be treated like Second Class citizens that have fewer rights than the rest of us?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
How do you khow? Did you see him in your closet with you? I saw him passing love notes to you. And just how shrewd are you to think I would be in the closet when of the two of us,*I* am the one that demands homosexuals be treated like everyone else and admit to having homosexual relatives?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yes, great voice. I wore out many of her tapes.
I think thou protest too much. BTW,you DO know that males and females can commit sodomy with each other,right? In YOUR mind,does that make them homosexuals?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I guess that makes me safe,because I never did care much for cocaine,and wouldn't have given you 5 dollars for a dump truck load back when I was getting high. Tried it several times,and it never did do anything for me. BTW,I have no evidence at all that Linda Ronstadt ever did a lot,or any,cocaine back in her glory days. I am just assuming she did a fair amount based on her lifestyle,occupation,wealth,and "the 60's". Even if she did a pound a day,she was still woman with an incredible voice and it is a shame she has lost it.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"Linda Ronstadt, who did her share of cocaine during her heyday as the leading female rock singer of the '70s, thinks marijuana and other drugs should be legalized..." www.celebstoner.com/news/...ll-drugs-should-be-legal/ Yep. www.amazon.com/Whats-New-Linda-Ronstadt/dp/B00006LSRY It's tragic. And what's more tragic is that her opinions and the gift of her voice were rendered into the bleating of a drug abusing Judas goat.
Look Closer. EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. NIXON: Huh? EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage. NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]? EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over. NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again. EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants. NIXON: Jesus Christ.
"8-1984 - Lawrence King [Homosexual and alleged Pedophile] throws a lavish party in Dallas, Texas, after singing the National Anthem at the Republican National GOP Convention." http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
Uhhh,I don't consider Nixon and Ehrlichman to have been the most alert people on the planet back then. As far as that goes,San Francisco and The Bohemian Grove crowd were a small crowd most Americans had never even heard of,and would have ridiculed if they had. They were almost exclusively a rich,trendy,trust fund crowd. I pass through San Francisco a couple of times in the 60's thanks to my army travel agent. The first time was in 65,and the second time was in 68. Both times I was wearing Army dress greens and a Green Beret with jump boots,and not a single hippy tried to hassle me. I got invited to parties,and everybody wanted to talk to me and ask my what I thought of the VN war. Let's just say they heard a different take on it than the one they were used to hearing,but they all politely listened to me and we had a non-hostile debate. The only trouble I had was with a black shoeshine guy on Market street. I ended up knocking him on his ass and kicking him in the head inside the Doggy Diner. Some people you just can't reason with,so you have to use other methods. BTW,if I saw a homosexual during either of my visits to San Francisco I didn't know it. All I really remember seeing was young males and females wanting to get together and hump their brains out.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ok,so a home sang the National Anthem at a Republican even in Dallas in 1984. Big deal. It was a local event,and he was the hired help. Maybe Boy Jorge hired him so he wouldn't feel lonesome?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The NATIONAL GOP convention is "local". LOL. GeeOpie - Eyes Wide Shut much?
[sneakypete #105] I love the way you state they are "absurd claims" yet never come right out and say they are not true. I have stated many times previously that the absurd claims you puked up, as posted by others over the past years, are not only absurd, but absurdly untrue. If they were true, they would not be absurd. If they were possibly true, they would not be absurd. They are not possibly true, have been proven utterly untrue for ten years, and are utter garbage. They are completely indefensible, therefore you cannot make any real effort to defend the claims you made by your supposed recall of the news.
Why, no. You must have been in a coma for at least 20 years, since the Nixon tapes started getting released and removed any and all doubt. The “partisan” committee voted for the articles of impeachment, Article I (27-11), Article II (28-10) and Article III (21-17). That was before the smoking gun tape was released. When it was about to come to vote of the full house, Nixon resigned. He had almost no support in the House and was informed by the leading Senators that he faced certain conviction in the Senate with less than 15 senators still supporting him. Hearing him commit crimes in tape recorded conversations removes doubt in all except those who refuse to hear. Perhaps it was House Resolution 803 that passed 410-4 that you find partisan. RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
I will not ask for citations because none exist. Despite the descriptions of Hillary’s presentation of procedures to the committee, the transcript of the proceedings indicate she did not say a mumbling word. The junior counsel do not get speaking roles in the high drama. The presentations were made by John Doar, Special Counsel, and Joseph Woods., Senior Associate Special Counsel. I did find one place where Hillary Rodham’s name came up. In Book I where the Impeachment Inquiry Procedures were presented to the subcommittee, Rep. Kastenmeier (chairman) presiding. From page 378: Mr. WOODS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left is Hillary Rodham and John Labovitz; on the far right John Davidson of the inquiry staff. The following is the draft of procedures to which the chairman referred. Mr. KASTENMEIER. It is captioned “Impeachment Inquiry Procedures,” is that correct? Mr. WOODS: That is correct, sir. The document referred to is herein titled “Impeachment Inquiry Procedures.” The Committee on the Judiciary states the following procedures applicable to the presentation of evidence in the impeachment inquiry pursuant to House Resolution 803, subject to modification by the committee as it deems proper as the presentation proceeds. [Reading:] On page 400, it shows that the procedures, as amended, were adopted unanimously. To see how the Impeachment Inquiry Staff actually functioned, and how the neophyte attorney Hillary Rodham was actually assigned “grunt work” see the following from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. In Joseph Woods recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, October 27, 2011, the Richard Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, one finds: At ii: Joseph Woods served as Senior Associate Special Counsel to U.S. House of Representatives Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974. Woods headed the Constitutional and Legal Section of the Inquiry Staff. At 6-7: Woods: Of course, he was the ultimate decider of all issues that had to do with the functioning of the staff. [...] Woods: … The organization of the inquiry staff was quite different. Each task force within the operation was made up of committee staff and minority staff so that Weld and Davidson, for example, who were on the minority staff were members of my unit, my task force, and Weld was involved in the writing of the grounds of impeachment memo. As I recall it, Davidson was not. He was involved with other projects. I think we worked effectively. [...] And [keep] in mind that there were no criminal statutes of the United States at the time that the Constitution was adopted but the Constitution had in it high crimes and misdemeanors. It couldn’t have meant crimes as it came to be defined in the criminal statutes of the United States because there was no United States and therefore there were no such statutes. There were no federal crimes. At 8: Woods: Yes. The Grounds of Impeachment report was issued in February 1974, printed by the GPO, and the foreward was signed by Peter Rodino on February 22, 1974. At 10: Woods: She did not work on the memo. Her principle role came later in working with me to draft the procedures that the committee would follow in conducting its hearings on the evidence. She and I essentially did that. Obviously with John Doar’s approval, but Hillary and I wrote those procedures. [...] Woods: Well, the starting point is the rules for the conduct of those procedures could be whatever the committee decided they were going to be. They dirivited from the fact that the sole power of impeachment is lodged in the House of Representatives is the proposition that the House can make its own rules. And those rules could be as restrictive and as secretive, provide for secrecy. Then there’s the liberal cast of the Democrats on the committee who were firmly committed to the proposition that there has to be due process about everything and that open hearings and the opportunity to confront witnesses, the opportunity to present a rebuttal case, and all these things that are part of what the United States are all about. At 11: At 15: Woods: I knew about it and I knew that Hillary had a key role in that project but I did not – and I met Dr. Woodward when he was down at the staff offices at one time but no, I did not have anything to do with the decision to retain him or with the project with him as it went forward. Naftali: Can you recall what role Hillary Rodham played in that? Woods: Well, I think she was the liaison with Dr. Woodward. Beyond that, I can’t answer the question. Naftali: Was this Mr. Doar’s idea do you know? Woods: That, I don’t know. Certainly, it was one that he approved of or it wouldn’t have happened. At 21-23: Woods: Well, she was an excellent person to work with. She is the one person that I asked for to be on my task force. I was very much impressed by her when I met her the day that she and I both reported for duty back then and I specifically requested John Doar to put her on my task force, which he did. She would do what you asked her to do. I never heard her express any reticence to undertake a task that might seem mundane given that she had recently finished a prestigious law school. She was a very diligent worker. Was easy to work with. I give her very high marks all around. Naftali: Since she did not write or help write the memo on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, what were her first tasks? Woods: John Doar was very distrustful of computers and, in any event, they were in their infancy at the time. When I got there in January of ’74 there was not such a thing as a memory typewriter in the organization and I believe that was probably true in the Congress but I’m not sure about that. It certainly was a fact in the inquiry staff and I was able to, after some argument, to get an IBM Selectric typewriter for my secretary and whenever people had things they wanted to be able to revise they were forever seeking her assistance because she had the one machine in the office that was capable of any sort of memory. Against that background, we had to have some kind of system to try to make a given bit of information available to people in various categories of inquiry. Let’s take an incident that took place that both John Doar and I had great significance. It took place in Key Biscayne when Mr. Nixon learned of the Watergate report of the apprehension of the Watergate burglars. He threw an ashtray across the room. Both Doar and I thought that that was the disgust of a person who said they blew it. That it was not the anger of someone who thought it was the wrong thing to have done. Now, that makes very nicely the distinction between the Statement of Information and the fact, if you will. And so the Statement of Information ultimately would be just a report of the throwing of the ashtray without any comment as to what the significance of that might’ve been. With that particular incidents could’ve had ramifications for different people looking into little bits of this and that somewhere in the factual investigation so, if we had computers, it would’ve been easy to bring up that information. It certainly would be now and I think it would’ve been then, to bring up that information in various context. But we didn’t have that capability. So what we did was to develop a system of punch cards where we put these pieces of information on the card and then we notched out things that it didn’t apply to and assigned little holes to different categories of inquiry and then if you wanted to find all of the incidents that fell within a certain category, you ran a long knitting needle through the holes at the end and you pulled up the cards that hadn’t been notched out. It was that primitive. And as a way station toward developing those cards, we had a system of little, not even 3X5, even smaller than that, coupons that were produced in carbon in numerous copies and these were filed in different databases, if you will. And designing those little coupons and working out the system of the cards that were going to be picked up by the knitting needles was something that Hillary and I worked on. And that’s what she was doing, which is essentially grunt work, while some of the other people had the fun of writing the grounds memo. And she never complained. Naftali: Then you gave her the more interesting task of working on the procedures. Woods: Well, that’s true. Naftali: By the way, this whole process emerged because Mr. Doar didn’t like computers. Woods: Well, I’m not sure what the capabilities of computers were at that time and I’m not sure I understand what they are yet. But I’m gradually getting there, but very gradually. Naftali: So you and Hillary Rodham worked then with the library. With Maureen, because the library – wasn’t that where all these coupons were placed in the end? Woods: Beats me where they were. I don’t remember. I simply don’t remember. I get the general impression that the system was not very successful. That it didn’t serve the purpose very well. But of course I’m not sure that the computers of that day would’ve been that helpful either. Naftali: I’m just wondering, where you got the idea for the knitting needle and the – where did that come from? I know it’s been a long time, but do you remember where that came from? Woods: No. No, I do not. Naftali: But anyhow, you and Hillary basically distilled the material down to these cards which would then be transferred to these punch cards. Woods: No, I’m not trying to say that she was making the entries on the cards. I’m saying that she and I worked on trying to figure out what the system was going to be. I think it was a mighty a labor to produce a mouse, to define one now. It was just not a successful thing.
I did not cite any claim challenging the Clintons. There are so many valid claims that the claims made by sneakypete are unnecessary, and as inexcusably absurd as the claim that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, or that Nixon committed no crime other than the coverup of “the break-in”. The proof that Obama did not lose his citizenship in Indonesia is that it was legally impossible. Indonesian law provided that adopted children under the age of 5 years could automatically obtain citizenship. Obama was not 4 years old. So, it did not happen under Indonesian law, which also prohibited naturalization if it resulted in dual citizenship. Even if Obama had been eligible and Indonesia officially had granted him Indonesian citizenship, there is not an act a parent can do which relieves an American born child of his or her citizenship. Remarriage to a foreigner does not do it. The parent cannot revoke citizenship for a minor child. There appears to be no evidence of an official adoption but it is irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf 66 Stat. 267, PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952 LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by— (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or .... http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf See the scoresheet for birther futility in court (0-220) for decided cases.
Why should this thread have over 1,200 views? Why should anyone believe someone who posts urban legends? Why should anyone believe someone who cannot post any documentation for his or her claims? Cited and linked relevant official documents are not “documention”, they are just documentation. Presumably, you prefer fiction to fact.
His job is to find ONE detail in ANY argument or discussion that hasn't been proven to be true in court,and then imply if that one detail is not proven to be true,the whole argument MUST be false. Actually, I did not contest “ONE detail.” I contested every single detail in the 10-year old debunked urban legend that was puked up on the board by sneakypete. It is all false or baseless. The source is urban legends spun from and exaggerated from a Dan Calabrese column. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days. Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future." Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) Nixon was guilty of much more than a coverup. There is no evidence the Clintons committed treason in their college days. Hillary was not caught manufacturing evidence. Hillary was not caught hiding evidence favorable to Nixon. Hillary was not fired. Archibald Cox was the former Special Prosecutor for the Senate. The alleged recomendation is a fairy tale. Of course, Hillary had a secret intel operation. She wiped her server clean. The Guccifer hack shows intel reports being sent to Hillary’s server. The events of Benghazi could still use some explaining. There are probably a few hundred other real items worth discussing.
“THE” BREAK-IN August 28, 1971 September 3, 1971 May 26, 1971 May 27, 1971 May 27-28 June 17, 1972 Of course, the above list of actual break-ins does not include the break-in of the Brookings Institution ordered by President Nixon. On the White House Tapes, Conversation Number 533-1, on June 30, 1971, Presdent Nixon is heard saying to H.R. Haldeman, “The way I want that handled, Bob, is to do it another way. I want—I want Brookings—I want them to just break in.” The head/co-chair of the White House Special Investigations Unit put a sign on the door of his office, Room 16 in the basement of the Old Executive office Building, DAVID R. YOUNG, PLUMBER. Thus, the unit became known as the plumbers. David Young was at the White House on July 1, 1971 and the Special Investigations Unit came into formal existence on July 24, 1971. Its existence as an extra-legal intelligence service was a crime. Everyone involved in bringing it into existence and supporting its continued existence were members of a criminal conspiracy and equally guilty of every criminal act entered into by any member of the conspiracy. While the break-in of the Brookings Institution was called off, the initial concrete step or overt act did occur. The formation of the criminal conspiracy was complete and it included President Nixon. He was subsequently criminally liable for their criminal existence, criminal funding, and all crimes committed by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether he had any advance knowledge of the acts or whether he approved the acts or not. Nixon’s criminal acts predated the break-in of June 17, 1972. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview Charles Doyle April 30, 2010 7-7500 At 9: In the 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House Report No. 93-1305, “Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States,” August 20, 1974, at page 3, discussing impeachment Article 2, the report states, (4) He has failed to take care tat the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impete and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial, and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry ito the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities, including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveilance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practice of the Committee to Re-elect the President. (5) In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed. At page 35, under “Prior Covert Activities” is found, At 36, Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers in June 1971, the President created a special investigations unit which engaged in covert and unlawful activities. (Book VII, 620-23, 651) This organization (dubbed “the Plumbers) by its members) was based in the White House, under the immediate supervision of John Erlichman. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy worked in the Unit. (Book VII, 651) The Plumbers acquired from the FBI information about the Pentagon Papers investigation (Book VII, 952-53)), twice requested the CIA to prepare psychological profiles of Daniel Elsberg (Book VII, 898-99), 1401-03), and formulated a plan to acquire derogatory information about Ellsberg to leak to the press for political purposes. (Book VII, 1126-28) In August, 1971, after obtaining Ehrlichman’s approval for a covery operation, provided it was not traceable, Plumbers co-directors Egil Krough and David Young authorized Hunt and Liddy to undertake an operation to gain access to Ellsberg’s psyciatric records. (Book VII, 1240-44) On September 3, 1971, a team consisting of Bernard Barker, Felipe DeDiego and Eugenio Martinez (all of whom subsequently participated in one of the Watergate break-ins), acting under the direction and immediate supervision of Hunt and Liddy, illegally broke into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. (Book VII, 1281-87)
Article IV (failed 12-26 because “most Committee members believed that Nixon’s false tax return was a ‘personal,’ non-governmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President.” (1) He, during the period for which he has been elected President, unlawfully received compensation in the form of government expenditures at and on his privately-owned properties located in or near San Clemente, California, and Key Biscayne, Florida. (2) He knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the year 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000. In all of this Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Impeachment Inquiry, Statement of Information, Book X, Tax Deduction for Gift of Papers, page 19: On April 17, 1974, the President and Mrs. Nixon paid by check the amount of deficiency and penalty for 1970, 1971, and 1972, totalling $284,707.16. Nixon was not legally required to pay the amount for 1969 which was $148,080.97. He announced he was paying it but did not do so. The House Judiciary Committee rejected proposed Article 4. The evidence of fraud was overwhelming. The Statement of Information sets it forth in detail with supporting exhibits. That was not why Article 4 was rejected. It was rejected because filing fraudulent tax returns was not considered relevant to Nixon’s performance of his office. Congressional Record – House, V. 144, No. 154, December 19, 1998, pp. H11932 - H11933 [Mr. Brad Sherman speaking] Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court, but that would be an insult to marsupials everywhere. December 17, 1998. News Flash 1974: Judiciary Determined Lying Under Oath In Private Matter is Not Impeachable—a Review of Nixon Tax Perjury Article Dear Colleague: In 1974 the Judicary Committee established a precedent that a crime committed in private life (i.e., Richard Nixon's tax fraud) does not warrant the impeachment of the President. 1969 tax fraud, the Committee was swayed principally by the legal principles defining an impeachable offense, not by the lack of factual evidence against Richard Nixon. The crimes which the Judicary Committee found did not warrant the impeachment of President Nixon are virtually identifical to the two perjury charges against President Clinton. President Nixon knowingly filed a 1969 tax return which fradulently claimed that he had donated pre-presidential papers before the date Congress eliminated the charitable tax deduction for such donations. President Nixon, knowing his return was false as to this $576,000 deduction, signed his name under the words: ''Under penalty of perjury, i declare that i have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.'' In July 1974 Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced an Article of impeachment alleging that President Nixon had signed ''Under penalty of perjury'' a tax return which Nixon knew was false. while Mezvinsky argued that filing the tax return was an abuse of public power because Nixon knew his red-flag $576,000 deduction would not trigger an audit because he was President. However, most Committee members believed that Nixon's false tax return was a ''personal,'' nongovernmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President. The Judiciary Committee voted 26 to 12 against impeaching Nixon for his false tax return. Technically, Nixon committed ''tax fraud'' not ''perjury'' and was subject to prosecution under the Internal Revenue Code. Yet Nixon's crime (covered by his pardon) was almost identical to the perjury of which Clinton is accused (and is referred to here as ''tax perjury'') 1. Nixon signed a document under the words ''under penalty of perjury, i declare 2. He presented false information to a federal agency. 3. Nixon lied when he had a legal obligation, enforceable by federal felony statutes, to tell the truth. 4. Nixon's false statements related to a private matter—his personal liability for federal taxes. (Clinton testified regarding his personal liability to Paula Jones.) 5. Nixon ignored the ''rule of law'' and his legal obligation to tell the truth. Some have argued that the Judiciary Committee did not pass a Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Nixon only because the facts were unclear. A review of the Committee Report shows that some members thought the factual evidence against Nixon was weak, while other Members thought that a criminal act in the conduct of personal affairs did not warrant the impeachment of the President. (see attached excerpt.) Most of the Members of the Judiciary Committee did not speak on the record on the Tax Perjury Article. So how are we to know the reason for their vote and the precedent the 26 to 12 vote established. The person most aware of the reasoning of the Committee Members regarding the Article is its author Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), who lobbied his colleagues on both side of the aisle to get his Article adopted. I called Mr. Mezvinsky yesterday and talked with him at length about his efforts in 1974 to convince his colleagues to vote for his Article. He told me that the clear majority of those who voted against his Article did so because they concluded that a crime committed in private life, which did not relate to an abuse of Presidential power and was not as heinous as murder or rape, did not warrant the impeachment of a President. Mr. Mezvinsky is a Democrat. Is he remembering or interpreting the vote on his 1974 Article of impeachment to establish a precedent favorable to our current Democratic President? Has his memory faded with time over the last 24 years? Fortunately, in 1975 Mezvinsky wrote an article for the Georgetown Law Journal describing the thought process of his colleagues and providing a contemporaneous statement of the legal conclusions reached in 1974 by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mezvinsky first explains the staff guidance the Committee received, and then the conclusion of the Members of the Committee, which followed that guidance. ''The staff nevertheless injected a requirement of substantiality into the impeachment formula: to constitute an impeachable offense, presidential conduct must be 'seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.' [Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 26-27 (Comm. Print 1974).]'' ''Most opponents of the Tax Article felt that willful tax evasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring removal of the President.''—Edward Mezvinsky, Georgetown Law Journal, 1975, Volume 63: 1071 at pages 1078-1079. The record on the Nixon impeachment process further supports the conclusion that impeachment of a President is warranted only for an offense against our very system, an offense subversive of the government itself. A memorandum setting forth the views of certain Republican Members (including current senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 similarly emphasized the necessarily serious and public character of any alleged offense: ''It is not a fair summary . . . to say that the Framers were principally concerned with reaching a course of conduct, whether or not criminal, generally inconsistent with the proper and effective exercise of the office of the presidency. They were concerned with preserving the government from being overthrown by the treachery or corruption of one man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended that the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution." [Nixon Report at 364-365 (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta) (final emphasis added).] A 1975 law journal article tells the story. In 1974 a Judiciary Committee, dominated by Democrats, was confronted with a President who had lied on a tax return signed ''under penalty of perjury.'' That crime dishonored President Nixon, undermined respect for law, and called into doubt Mr. Nixon's credibility on public matters. However the Committee applied the following formula: seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. That same standard should be applied to President Clinton. The first two articles allege that President Clinton lied ''under penalty of perjury'' and through that action undermined respect for law, and his own credibility and honor. Yet President Clinton's actions do not warrant the impeachment of a President under the standards formulated by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and applied by most Committee Members in rejecting the Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. I urge you to follow the standard enunciated and followed by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reject the first two Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. I hope you will also join me in voting against the third and fourth Articles as well. Very truly yours, Brad Sherman. EXCERPTS FROM HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JULY 1974, ON AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD M. NIXON, DEALING WITH TAX FRAUD/TAX PERJURY Mr. Railsback (R-IL)—I suggest that there is a serious question as to whether something involving his personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office of the President. (Pg. 524). Mr. Hogan (R-MD)—The staff report on grounds for impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: ''As a technical term high crimes signified a crime against the system of government, not merely a serious crime. This element of injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and the Constitution, was historically the criteria for distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one.'' (Pg. 541) Mr. Mayne (R-IA)—. . . even if criminal fraud had been proved, then we would still have the question whether its a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past six years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. (Pg. 545) Mr. Waldie (D-CA)—I speak against this article because of my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been enormous abuse of those powers . . . And though I find the conduct of the President in these instances to have been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been disgraceful even, I do not find a presidential power that has been so grossly abused that . . . [it is] . . . sufficient to warrant impeachment. (Pg. 548) Mr. Thornton (D-AR)—I think it is apparent that in this area there has been a breach of faith with the American people with regard to incorrect income tax returns . . . But it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course in the regular process of the law. This committee is not a tax fraud court, nor a criminal court, nor should it endeavor to be one. our charge is full and serious enough, in determining whether high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of government must be brought December 18, 1998 to the attention of the full House . . . (Pg. 549) Zeifman, with reference to the Douglas Inquiry where the question was posed, "… What then, is an impeachable offense?" relied on the claim of that legal giant Gerald Ford, who famously replied, See CRS Report 98-882 A, Impeachment Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials, Updated October 29, 1998, by Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist, American Law Division, at page 24. At pages 28-32, this same report presents some differing expert opinion: Charles Black “Omitting qualifications, and recognizing that the definition is only an approximation, I think we can say that ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ in the constitutional sense, ought to be held to be those offenses which are rather obviously wrong, whether or not ‘criminal,’ and which so seriously threaten the order of political society as to make petulant and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator. The fact that such an act is also criminal helps, even if it is not essential, because a general societal view of wrongness, and sometimes of seriousness, is, in such a case, publicly and authoritatively recorded. “The phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ carries another connotation—that of distinctness of offense. It seems that a charge of high crime or high misdemeanor ought to be a charge of a definite act or acts, each of which in itself satisfies the above requirements. General lowness and shabbiness ought not to be enough. The people take some chances when they elect a man to the presidency, and I think this is one of them,” BLACK, IMPEACHMENT: A HANDBOOK, 39-40 (1974). “The ‘President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Convictions of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was an English term of art that denoted political crimes against the state, and the choice of this phrase was a deliberate and considered action. By including that English phrase, our Founding Fathers intended to expand the scope of impeachable offenses beyond the scope of criminally indictable offenses. This language incorporates political offenses against the state that injure the structure of government and tarnish the integrity of the political office. As Alexander Hamilton observed, these political offenses include breaches of the public trust that a president assumes once he has taken office. Hamilton made this point in the Federalist, describing impeachable crimes as ‘those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuses or violations of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”, BARR, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 2 TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW AND POLICY 1, 9-10 (1997). “The concept of an impeachable offense guts an impeachment case of the very factors — repetition, pattern, coherence — that tend to establish the requisite degree of seriousness warranting the removal of a president from office. . . . “The most pertinent precedent in this nation’s history for framing a case for the removal of a chief executive may well be the earliest — the Declaration of Independence. In expressing reasons for throwing off the government of George III, the Continental Congress did not claim that there had been a single offense justifying revolution. Instead, it pointed to a course of conduct; it ‘pursu[ed] invariably the same Object’ and evinced a common design; it ‘all [had] in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States.’ It was this pattern of wrongdoing taken together, not each specification considered alone, that showed the unfitness of George III to be the ruler of the American people. . . . [T]he unfitness of a president to continue in office is to be judged in much the same way: with reference to totality of his conduct and the common patterns that emerge, not in terms of whether this or that act of wrongdoing, viewed in isolation, is an impeachable offense,” LABOVITZ, PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, 129-31 (1978). “It can therefore be concluded that impeachment is not a political tool for arbitrary removal of officials; that the standard for what constitutes an impeachable offense is not based on an inflexible historical precedent or on the judicial tenure clause; that impeachment is not limited to crimes, whether indictable or otherwise; and that the sanction of impeachment does not extend to noncriminal misconduct unless it involves violation of statutory law, the conduct of the respondent’s official duties or an abuse of his official position. “Within these limitations, it is extremely difficult to define the proper standard for an impeachable offense in affirmative terms. . . . “The only generalization which can safely be made is that an impeachable offense must be serious in nature. . . . “While there are no clear rules as to what constitutes a serious offense, there are a number of factors which are relevant. Thus an offense is more serious if it is a criminal violation or if it involves moral turpitude. In the words of one court, It may be safely asserted that where the act of official delinquency consists in the violation of some provision of the constitution or statute which is denounced as a crime or misdemeanor, or where it is a mere neglect of duty willfully done, with a corrupt intention, or where the negligence is so gross and disregard of duty so flagrant as to warrant the inference that it was willful and corrupt, it is within the definition of a misdemeanor in office. But where it consists of a mere error of judgment or omission of duty without the element of fraud, and where the negligence is attributable to a misconception of duty rather than a willful disregard thereof, it is not impeachable, although it may be highly prejudicial to the interests of the State,” Fenton, The Scope of the Impeachment Power, 65 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 719, 745-7 (1970). “Despite then-Congressman Gerald Ford’s well-known assertion that ‘an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be’, there is now wide agreement that the phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanor’ was intended by the Framers to connote a relatively limited category closely analogous to the ‘great offences’ impeachable in common law England. In addition to treason and bribery, the ‘great offences’ included misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on or contempt of legislative prerogatives, and corruption. “There have been only two serious attempts to impeach American Presidents. In both instances, the offenses charged reflected the impact of the common law tradition discussed here: offenses have been regarded as impeachable if and only if they involve serious abuse of official power,” TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 217 (1978). “I have dwelt the longer on this point because many seem to think that a public officer can be impeached for a mere act of indecorum. On the contrary, he must have committed a true crime, not against the law of England but against the law of the United States. As impeachment is nothing but a mode of trial, the Constitution only adopts it as a mode of procedure, leaving the crimes to which it is to be applied to be settled by the general rules of criminal law. “. . . [A]s there are under the laws of the United States no common law crimes, but only those which are contrary to some positive statutory rule, there can be no impeachment except for a violation of a law of Congress or for the commission of a crime named in the constitution. English precedents concerning impeachable crimes are consequently not applicable,” Dwight, Trial by Impeachment, 15 AMERICAN LAW REGISTER (6 N.S.) 257, 268-69 (1867). “Many attempts have been made to define this power, quite commonly by those who were trying to make the definition fit the facts to a particular case, rather than to have it accord with the constitutional provisions only. A notable exception to this, however … is what was said by Manager (afterwards President) Buchanan in the Peck Impeachment: “Perhaps that statement should be broadened to include offences of so weighty a character, and so injurious to the office, that every official is bound to know that they are of the same general character as crimes, and might well be made criminal by statute; but the terra incognita beyond, no one can properly be asked to explore under the existing constitutional provisions, if for no other reason than because it is a fixed and salutary principle that penal provisions shall be so construed that the persons to be affected by them may certainly know what things they are forbidden to do,” Simpson, Federal Impeachments, 64 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 651, 881 (1916). “The . . . problem is how to identify those nonindictable offenses for which certain high-level government officials may be impeached. Given that certain federal officials may be impeached and removed for committing serious abuses against the state and that these abuses are not confined to indictable offenses, the challenge is to find contemporary analogues to the abuses against the state that authorities such as Hamilton and Justices Wilson and Story viewed as suitable grounds for impeachment. On the one hand, these abuses may be reflected in certain statutory crimes. Violations of federal criminal statues, such as the bribery statute, represent abuses against the state sufficient to subject the perpetrator to impeachment and removal, because bribery demonstrates serious lack of judgment and respect for the law and because bribery lowers respect for the office. In other words, there are certain statutory crimes that, if committed by public officials, reflect such lapses of judgment, such disregard for the welfare of the state, and such lack of respect for the law and the office held that the occupant may be impeached and removed for lacking the minimum level of integrity and judgment sufficient to discharge the responsibilities of the office. On the other hand, Congress needs to be prepared, as then-Congressman Ford pointed out, to explain what nonindictable offenses may be impeachable offenses by defining contemporary political crimes. The boundaries of congressional power to define such political crimes defy specification because they rest both on the circumstances underlying a particular offense (including the actor, the forum, and the political crime) and on the collective political judgment of Congress,” Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits of Impeachment, 68 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1, 83, (1989). “Moreover, leaving aside historical precedent, to limit impeachment to the commission of crimes is bad policy, such a limitation is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad because some crimes have no functional relation to the problem of malfeasance or abuse of office. For example, if an official in the executive branch, a judge, or a legislator, had been arrested once for driving while intoxicated, that crime should not merit the drastic remedy of removal from office. “The proposed limitation is also too narrow, for the `civil Officer’ might engage in many activities which amount to abuse of office and yet not commit any crimes. For example, if the President abused his pardon power by unconstitutionally pardoning a judge who had been impeached or summoned the Senators from only a few states to ratify a treaty, the President may have violated no criminal law, but he or she has abused the office. . . .” Rotunda, An Essay on the Constitutional Parameters of Federal Impeachment, 76 KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL 707, 725-26 (1988). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1, page 978. Nixon faced all kinds of prosecutions for his well-documented multitude of criminal offenses. That is why, shortly after Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford pardoned him for all criminal acts he may have engaged in. Otherwise, the prosecutions would have gone in all sorts of embarrassing directions. Had Ford tried to specify all the offenses pardoned, he may never have finished writing the pardon. Nixon was guilty for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 tax fraud. He was saved by a pardon. The evidence is overwhelming.
Liar Pete. You are the chapmpion of faggot pretend rights on this site. You never miss a chance to stick up for immorality.
You write this stuff out with crayons,and someone else later posts it on the web,right? I've never seen a dog chase their tail so much. FACT,he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father,and had his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro. FACT,his mother,as his legal guardian,and his father had his citizenship changed to Indonesian. FACT,there is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Oboma. FACT,he traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport issued to Barry Soetoro,Indonesian citizen when he was 18 and Pakistan wasn't allowing US citizens to visit. FACT,there is no legal record every having denounced his Indonesian citizenship OR applying to have his US citizenship re-instated. FACT,he and his handlers,because he really is a dummy and has to speak from a script,refuses to even talk about any of this.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No matter how many lies you spin around it,Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in. What he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. You also seem more than willing to gloss over the fact it was the Republicans that told him they would vote for impeachment if he didn't resign. Probably because you don't want people talking about how the entire Dim Party rallied behind "Hit all depends on what the definition of "is",is." Bubba Bill Clinton,who CLEARLY committed perjury under oath and who was obviously guilty of a whole truck load of various felonies,proof of which the Dims refused to even look at after it had been gathered and presented to them. You are just Bubba and Bubbette!'s little bitch,playing your partisan little games in the hope the other little bitches will like you,and maybe pat you on the head occasionally.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He didn't "lose his citizenship",shithead. His mother gave it up for him,and he seemed more than happy to travel under an Indonesian passport as an Indonesian citizen as a young adult. No matter how much legalize you may spin around him,there is no getting around intent or the fact that his handlers won't allow him to address these issues to the point where they have spent millions of dollars to keep him from having to address these issues. He may have even received federal grant money to go to US schools. Once again,nobody knows because he runs the government,and his handlers will make sure nobody ever finds out.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I contested every single detail in the 10-year old debunked urban legend that was puked up on the board by sneakypete. It is all false or baseless. The source is urban legends spun from and exaggerated from a Dan Calabrese column. Blah,blah,blah. Your ADD is kicking in again,Bubba. EVERY one of your claims is spun around ONE detail you can refute,and then a virtual barrage of words to try to imply that since that one detail is not a proven fact,none of the others is valid. Simply put,you are a professional liar trying out for a slot with the professional liars connected to the DNC.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Remind us again what office Nixon is running for this election season,Bubba. He MUST be running for elective office,or you wouldn't be barraging us with details and professional spin on a former president that has been out of office and dead for decades,right? We all know this couldn't be part of an effort to get people writing and commenting about Nixon so they wouldn't be writing and commenting about Barry Obomer and Bubbette!,right? Hey,bubba! Nixon is old news,let's move on to discuss current events of national interest instead of flogging a dead horse and a dead man,ok? After all,hits fo de chil-runs!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I don't lie,you fucking cretin! Unlike you,I am a champion of the RIGHTS of American citizens,where we are all supposed to be the same in the eyes of the law. Climb out of your closet and take a look around in the sunshine.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not only are your statements of "FACT" incorrect, they are impossible according to U.S. and Indonesian law. This one is just bullshit. It did not happen. This is contrary to Indonesian law as well as impossible under U.S. law. United States Supreme Court, unanimous, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329-30 (1939) This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.… - - - LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or [...] LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT'S EXPATRIATION; SEC 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, that, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States. In a manner of speaking, correct. As he never changed his name from Barack Obama, he never changed it back to Barack Obama. Another shithead urban legend. Update your urban legend list. This one was destroyed in 2009. Damn, you are pathetic. Archived State Department travel advisories for Pakistan http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf From U.S. State Department Travel Advisory No. 81-33A of August 17, 1981: The Travel Advisory provides advice about travelling to Pakistan. There is no indication of a ban. A Travel Warning would tell of serious short term dangers and caution people to avoid unnecessary travel. Of course, in the case of a travel ban, there would not be a travel advisory. The New York Times ran a story about an assistant news editor's travel around Pakistan in 1981. It seems she was not aware of any alleged ban at that time. Nobody has yet produced a shred of evidence of a U.S. ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. June 14, 1981 LAHORE, A SURVIVOR WITH A BITTERSWEET HISTORY By BARBARA CROSSETTE; BARBARA CROSSETTE IS AN ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Obama_citizenship_denial#1981_Pakistan_trip http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp Claim: Barack Obama must have used a non-U.S. passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981. FALSE Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] [...] Origins: This item is yet another of many similar pieces purporting to offer some bit of evidence demonstrating that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the U.S. and thus is ineligible to be President of the United States. The premise in this case is that a young Barack Obama visited Pakistan back in 1981, a country he allegedly could not have traveled to on a U.S. passport, and thus he must have used a passport issued by some other country, such as the U.K. (Obama's father was a Kenyan and thus a British subject) or Indonesia (where Obama lived for a while after his mother married an Indonesian citizen) — a circumstance supposedly demonstrating that Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S., once held multiple citizenships, or at some point gave up his U.S. citizenship. During a fundraiser in San Francisco in April 2008, Barack Obama made reference to a visit he had undertaken to Pakistan during his college years (a journey he had not mentioned in either of his books). His campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, later provided some additional detail about that trip to curious journalists: During the summer of 1981, when he was twenty years old, Barack Obama visited with his mother and half-sister in Indonesia, then embarked on a three-week trip to Pakistan with a college friend whose family lived in Karachi. However, the claim that Barack Obama must have set out on that trip to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport is false: The U.S. State Department did not include Pakistan on a "no travel" list barring Americans from traveling there in mid-1981, and evidence documents that Americans could in fact freely visit that country at that time. The U.S. State Department issues Travel Warnings (which caution travelers about "long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable") and Travel Alerts (which caution travelers about "short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens") but those warnings are purely advisory — they do not prohibit Americans from traveling to the listed countries. The fact that the U.S. State Department issued an informative Travel Advisory for Pakistan in August 1981 (to make American citizens aware of updated visa requirements for entering that country) demonstrates that U.S. passport holders could freely travel to and from Pakistan at the time of Barack Obama's visit there. Moreover, during that same time period (mid-1981), New York Times assistant news editor Barbara Crossette visited Pakistan and wrote a column about her experiences, a piece in which she offered tips to other Americans who might wish to visit that country. Additionally, her column prompted a follow-up letter from John S. Brims, then the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, in which he "welcome[d] an influx of Americans" who might have been inspired to come to Pakistan by her article and also offered helpful tips for tourists traveling to that country by rail from India: One of the pleasures of the Foreign Service is being able to serve in cities like Lahore, and I would welcome an influx of Americans who might have been inspired to come by Barbara Crossette's piece, "Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History." But please caution them. While tourists can obtain a free, 30-day, non-extendable visa to Pakistan at the Wagah border crossing (on the rail route from New Delhi to Lahore), tourists cannot make the reverse journey from Pakistan to India through the same crossing unless they already have an Indian visa. The Indians only offer this service, so far as I know, to tourists debarking at airports. We have had a number of Americans stranded in Lahore who did not know this, and they tend to be too discouraged to enjoy the city. Many other news articles from 1981 reference either Americans' traveling to Pakistan or the Pakistan government's making efforts to encourage visits from U.S. tourists. In short, if Barack Obama did visit Pakistan in the summer of 1981, he — like all other Americans — could have openly done so bearing a U.S. passport. Last updated: 14 July 2009 As he was not eligible to obtain Indonesian citizenship under Indonesian law, and he could not have had his U.S. citizenship under U.S. law, your alleged fact is complete bullshit. As he never lost U.S. citizenship, he could not re-instate that which was never lost. FACT. You have proven yet one more time that you are a shithead.
You are clearly losing your sanity. Of course, it was the REPUBLICANS who marched down the road to give Nixon the bad news. His IMPEACHMENT in the House was a foregone conclusion. Three articles of impeachment had already passed out of the House Judiciary Committee with bi-partisan support. After the "smoking-gun" tape emerged, his support in the House essentially disappeared. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal The REPUBLICAN leaders gave him the bad news that in the days since the "Smoking Gun" tape had been released, his REPUBLICAN support in the Senate had disappeared and he could not count on getting fifteen votes in the Senate. They informed Nixon he faced certain CONVICTION in the Senate. Senator Republican Leader Hugh Scott, conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Republican Leader John Rhodes delivered the message on August 7, 1974. On August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned. Only you could fantacize that Nixon needed the Democrat leaders to tell him they were going to vote for impeachment. What he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. Leon Jaworski, The Right and the Power, 1976, at 176-177 wrote, The indictment returned in the Watergate cover-up case charged that the defendants conspired to defraud the United States, to obstruct justice, and to make false statements and declarations, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The indictment charged that the conspiract continued up until March 1, 1974, the day the indictment was returned. And the grand jury also charged that President Nixon conspired with those indicted. Furthermore, the available evidence reasonably i8ndicated that the President participated in a conspiract to violate certain other statutes in addition to those specifically charted in the indictment, and that he fairly could be held culpable, both as a principal and on a theory of vicarious liability, for additional substantive offenses. Jaworski went on the specify violations of Jaworski, The Right and the Power, 1976, at 178 wrote, Available evidence was sufficient to make out at least a prima facie case that the President participated dir3ectly and personally in each of the four most important phases of the conspiracy. Also, he was a major actor in seeking to conceal the existence and later the scope of and participants in the conspir4acy, which efforts themselves may be shown to have been part of the original cover-up conspiracy or, possibly, a second illegal conspiracy." Way back in 1971, in the nascent period of Nixon creating the White House Special Investigations Unit (SIU), aka the "Plumbers," Nixon was directing the formation of a White House unit to burglarize the Brookings Institution. In forming this illegal, unauthorized unit, specifically to perform unlawful acts, Nixon et al took the first concrete step, and the gang became members of an unlawful conspiracy, and all were guilty of the subsequent acts of any of them, with or without specific knowledge that such acts had been taken. No break-in at Brookings was necessary for the crimnal conspiracy to come into existence. "Conspiracy is a crime which begins with a scheme and may contiue on until its objective is achieved or abandoned. The liability of individual conspirators continues on from the time they joined the plot until it ends or until they withdraw. The want of an individual's continued active participation is no defense as long as the underlying conspiracy lives and he has not withdrawn. An individual who claims to have withdrawn bears the burden of establishing either that he took some action to make his departure clear to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to the authorities. As a general rule, overt acts of concealment do not extend the life of the conspiracy beyond the date of the accomplishment of its main objectives. On the other hand, the rule does not apply when concealment is one of the main objectives of the conspiracy." Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law, Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview, Congressional Research Service, R41223, April 30, 2010. June 30, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Mitchell, Kissinger, Ziegler, Laird. 5:17-6:23 p.m., Oval Office. Haldeman: Yeah. But you have to have somebody to do it. Nixon: That's what I'm talking about. Don't discuss it here. You talk to Hunt. I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You're to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. Haldeman: I don't have any problem with breaking in. It's a Defense Department approved security— Nixon: Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock. July 1, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Kissinger. 8:45-9:52 a.m., Oval Office. Did they get the Brookings Institute raided last night? NO. Get it done. I want it done. I want the Brookings Institute's safe cleaned out and have it cleaned out in a way that it makes somebody else [responsible?]. July 1, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Colson, Erlichman. 10:28-11:40 a.m., Oval Office. July 2, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Colson. 9:15-10:39 a.m., Oval Office September 8, 1971. Nixon, Ehrlichman. 3:36-5:10 p.m., Oval Office. Segment 1: Ehrlichman: He's doing the [unintelligible] the narcotics thing. But he's also spencing most of his time of the Ellsberg declassifications, and the dirty tricks business on getting stuff out. Segment 2: September 10, 1971. Nixon, Ehrlichman. 3:03-3:51 p.m., Executive Office Building. Nixon: You can do that, you know. Ehrlichman: Photograph them and find out what the hell is there. Nixon: How do you do that? Ehrlichman: Well, through Kunzer [Administrator of GSA] i can do that. He can send the Archivist out of town for a while and we can get in there and he will photograph and he'll reseal them. Nixon: There are ways to do that? Ehrlichman: Yeah. And nobody can tell we've been in there. … In 1973, Nixon looks back at the Huston Plan, the called off burglary of the Brookings Institution, and the Plumbers: May 20, 1973. Nixon, Haldeman. 12:26-12:54 p.m., Camp David Telephone. On the famous Dean papers, you'll be interested—pleased ti know that we've got that nailed down on all four corners. Haldeman: Good. Nixon: The go order was issued by you, I mean, you and carried out by Huston on one day and then 24-48 hours later a no order was issued, and everybody—and we have affidavits on thatt ad soe have nots on it thatt they have the no order. The other point is that nothing whatever was done by any of the agencies involved. Haldeman: That's what I thought. Nixon: You know, what I mean is there were no break-ins. … Now its a rough one. I mean, not rough on us so much, but it's rough in terms of these agencies recommending everything from surreptitious entry to— Haldeman: Yeah. Nixon: —bugging to everything else. Yet the point is— Haldeman: But it was signed by all of them. Nixon: They all recommended it. Haldeman: Yeah. Nixon: It was unanimous. Haldeman: Well, that's good because that shows the tenor of the times. Nixon: Yeah. Haldeman: That needs to be done. Nixon: It needs to be done, Bob. Also, I'll point out the plumbers thing. Why we did it, that we have massive leaks and that I had given orders to all departments to do everything that they could and at the White House we developed the capability to do what we could there. Haldeman: Yeah. Nixon: And that everything that we did there was on that. Now on the point, just a couple of things to nail down. I want to be sure because I don't want to do a damn thing that would be at all harmful or inconsistent with that you or John may have recalled and, therefore, have testified to. I have no recollection of John ever telling me about the unsuccessful break-in or whatever it was until after, I mean, until we got into the March period. Haldeman: The psychiatrist? Nixon: Yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huston_Plan The Huston Plan was a 43-page report and outline of proposed security operations put together by White House aide Tom Charles Huston in 1970. It first came to light during the 1973 Watergate hearings headed by Senator Sam Ervin (a Democrat from North Carolina). The impetus for this report stemmed from President Richard Nixon wanting more coordination of domestic intelligence in the area of gathering information about purported 'left-wing radicals' and the counterculture-era anti-war movement in general. Huston had been assigned as White House liaison to the Interagency Committee on Intelligence (ICI), a group chaired by J. Edgar Hoover, then Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director. Huston worked closely with William C. Sullivan, Hoover's assistant, in drawing up the options listed in what eventually became the document known as the Huston Plan. Among other things the plan called for domestic burglary, illegal electronic surveillance and opening the mail of domestic "radicals". At one time it also called for the creation of camps in Western states where anti-war protesters would be detained. In mid-July 1970 Nixon ratified the proposals and they were submitted as a document to the directors of the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). Out of these only Hoover objected to the plan, and gained the support of then Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell to pressure Nixon to rescind the plan. And despite the ultimate decision by the President to revoke the Huston Plan, several of its provisions were implemented anyway. After the Huston Plan, the FBI lowered the age of campus informants, thereby expanding surveillance of American college students as sought through the Plan. In 1971, the FBI reinstated its use of mail covers and continued to submit names to the CIA mail program. As details of the Huston Plan unfolded during the Watergate Hearings, it came to be seen as a part and parcel of what Attorney General Mitchell referred to as, "White House horrors". This would include the Plumbers Unit, the proposed fire-bombing of the Brookings Institution, the 1971 burglary of the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the creation of a White House enemies list, and the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to punish those deemed to be enemies. The Huston Plan was also investigated by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Sen. Frank Church in 1976, into activities of the CIA and abuses of domestic intelligence gathering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_horrors The White House Horrors is a term attributed to Richard Nixon's former United States Attorney General, John N. Mitchell to describe the crimes and abuses committed by Nixon's staff during his presidency.[1][2] The revelation of their existence and scope is among the many events of the Watergate scandal. More than 70 people were convicted of crimes related to Watergate (some pleaded guilty before trial). Here is a listing of much of the criminality involved:
Just how much shitheadedness can you display? As I showed at #144, that was legally impossible. His mother had no authority or ability to give up his citizenship for him. What you claim remains impossible. Applicable United States law bars any action of a parent or legal guardian from effecting the loss of nationality of a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen. United States Supreme Court, unanimous, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329-30 (1939) This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.… Don't let the actual laws or facts get in your way. Keep dreaming that impossible dream and telling the whole world about it. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or [...] LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT'S EXPATRIATION; SEC 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, that, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf 66 Stat. 267, PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952 LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by— (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or .... 66 Stat. 272, , PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 SEC. 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.
Your ADD is kicking in again,Bubba. EVERY one of your claims is spun around ONE detail you can refute,and then a virtual barrage of words to try to imply that since that one detail is not a proven fact,none of the others is valid. Simply put,you are a professional liar trying out for a slot with the professional liars connected to the DNC. What’s wrong pete? That is some of the sorriest, content-free diversionary non-responsive bullshit you have yet attempted to sell. Your urban legend chain email has been debunked for about 10 years. That's why you cannot even attempt to defend it. Nice try at diversion though. http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality." Origins: Former First Lady Hillary Clinton is no stranger to political scandal and controversy, and a specific accusation concerning her work as a young lawyer on the Watergate investigation has dogged her political career for more than a decade. The claim originated with Jerry Zeifman, under whom Clinton worked in 1974 as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary during the course of the scandal. The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim? By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her: Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed: Following Zeifman's 2008 interview with Boortz, a column by Dan Calabrese ("FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR 'LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR'") cemented the belief that Hillary Clinton had been "fired" from the Watergate investigation in political lore: However, one need only go back to the source of the rumor and Zeifman's own statement that he did not have the power to fire Hillary Clinton to discount that now common version of political lore: the evidence indicates that, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Clinton's behavior, she was let go from the Watergate committee because she was one of a number of people who were no longer needed as the investigation wound down (and Nixon's resignation made the issue moot), not because she was "fired" over ethical issues. Last updated: 21 October 2014
He MUST be running for elective office,or you wouldn't be barraging us with details and professional spin on a former president that has been out of office and dead for decades,right? You should check out your short term memory loss. Nixon is running for elective office as your imaginary legal paragon. That is why YOU brought him up with your absurd bullshit. You seem to keep forgetting your #4. Here, let me remind you again. You must have thought Nixonian bullshit was relevant somehow. You seem to be having trouble articulating why you interjected your Nixonian bullshit into the conversation. I merely debunked your irrelevant bullshit. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days. Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future." Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Here's a chance to update your routine. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062369288/ref=gno_cart_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER Hardcover – May 5, 2015 In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments. In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government. Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office. Hardcover: 256 pages
Ahhh,the Bubbette! Clinton ,"That's old news,let's move on!" ploy. You are nothing but a professional liar and propagandist for the Dim Party. Probably just one of a large opposition research team that tries to bombard critics into silence by posting books in response to anything negative about the despicable criminals you work for and want to be like when you grow up. A juvenile David Axelrod wannabe. You aspire to be pond scum.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You have been reduced to an embarrassing warm puddle of piss, unable to even attempt to defend the recycled ten year old bullshit chain email urban legends you have been puking up. His mother's father was from Kansas, Toto. His mother gave up his citizenship for him... only a shithead would make that claim. Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. What the above is excerpted from: A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily "(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added). B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship: Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below. C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES a person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998),the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status. E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad. F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20). Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please consider the effects of renouncing U.S. citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and irrevocable action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact: Regular Mail
His mother's father was from Kansas, Toto. That was a mistake. I obviously meant his ho mother's Indonesian husband. You knew that,but just wanted to be the pissy little punk your mother raised you to be.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Chan is wiping the floor with you.
It's ok with me if you want to think that. Number 1,I have better things to do with my time that do research to provide links to a Dim opposition team that is being paid with government money to defend Dims. Number 2,I don't give a rabid rats ass what you,Bubbette!'s Fan Boy,or anyone else here thinks of me.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think you're doing fine. I also think Bubbette!'s Fan Boy would be bored to death without you.
[nolu chan #163] His mother's father was from Kansas, Toto. [sneakypete #164] That was a mistake. I obviously meant his ho mother's Indonesian husband. All you have claimed has been a mistake. Your absurd claims that Obama was adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen as a result were mistakes. Your claim that Obama's mother gave up his citizenship for him was a mistake. The United States does not permit what you claim to have happened. Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. Then again, Indonesia did not permit what you claim to have happened. sneakypete's imaginary law only applies in sneakypete's imaginary world. FACT, Indonesian law did not provide for sneakypete bullshit. Not only was Obama not adopted, Indonesian law clearly shows that he would not have gained Indonesian citizenship by the imaginary adoption, had it occurred. Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia (1) A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child. (2) Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law. As Obama was over 5 years old when he went to Indonesia, his imaginary adoption could not have legally conferred imaginary Indonesian citizenship. As Indonesia rejects dual citizenship, and renunciation of Obama's U.S. citizenship was impossible, obtainment of Indonesian citizenship was legally impossible. The complete law from which the above is extracted: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities Author: Republic of Indonesia Publication Date: 1 August 1958 Reference: IDN-110 Cite as: Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia [Indonesia], 1 August 1958, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html Comments: This is an unofficial translation. The Law was signed by the President on 29 July 1958, promulgated on 1 August 1958, and published in the Government Gazette No. 113 of 1958. Disclaimer: This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. Date of entry into force: 1 August 1958 THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, Considering: that it is necessary to have a law on the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; With a view to: a. articles 5 and 144 of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; b. article 89 of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; With the approval of Parliament; Has decided: To cite: The Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 1. Citizens of the Republic of Indonesia are: a. persons who, based on the legislation and/or treaties and/or regulations prevailing since the August 17, 1945 Proclamation, are already citizens of the Republic of Indonesia; b. persons who at their birth have a legal family relationship with their father, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, with the understanding that said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia starts as from the existence of that legal family relationship and that said legal family relationship is created before the persons concerned have reached the age of 18 or before they are married at an earlier age; c. a child born within 300 days after the decease of its father, if said father is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at the time of his death; d. persons whose mother is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at their birth, if at that time they have no legal family relationship with their father; e. persons whose mother is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at their birth, if their father has no nationality, or as long as the nationality of the father is unknown; f. those born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as long as both parents are unknown; g. a child found within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as long as both parents are unknown; h. persons who are born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, if both parents have no nationality or as long as the nationality of both parents is unknown; i. persons born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia who have not acquired the nationality of the father or mother at the time of their birth and as long as they do not acquire the nationality of either their father or mother; j. persons who have acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia according to the regulations of this law. Article 2. (1) A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child. (2) Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law. Article 3. (1) A child outside a marriage of a mother who is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia or a child out of a legal marriage, but who has in a case of divorce been assigned to the care of its mother, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, who follows the nationality of the father, a foreigner, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if, after, having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, it possesses no other nationality or states at the same time to have released another nationality according to the procedure stipulated by the legal provisions of the country of origin and/or according to the procedure stipulated by the agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question. (2) The above mentioned petition shall be presented within 1 year after the person concerned has reached the age of 18 to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person. (3) The Minister of Justice fulfills or rejects the petition with the approval of the Cabinet Council. (4) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia which has been acquired on such a petition is valid as of the date of the decree of the Minister of Justice. Article 4. (1) Aliens born and domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia whose father or mother, in case they have no legal family relationship with the father, is also born in the territory of the Republic in Indonesia and is a resident of the Republic of Indonesia, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, have no other nationality or at the time that they present a petition they also make a statement as to having released another nationality which they may possibly possess, in accordance with the legal provisions prevailing in the country of their origin or according to the provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question. (2) The above mentioned petition shall be presented, within 1 year after the persons concerned have reached the age of 18, to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri at their residence. (3) The Minister of Justice fulfils or rejects the petition with the approval of the Cabinet Council. (4) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired on such a petition is valid as of the date of the decree of the Minister of Justice. Article 5. (1) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because of naturalization is acquired with the validity of the decree of the Minister of Justice who grants this naturalization. (2) In order to present a petition for naturalization, the petitioner shall: a. have reached the age of 21; b. be born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia or at the time of presenting the petition be domiciled in said region for at least the last 5 consecutive years or in total 10 inconsecutive years; c. if the person is a married man obtain the approval of his wife (wives); d. master the Indonesian language properly and have appropriate knowledge of the history of Indonesia and have never been penalize because of having committed an offence which harms the Republic of Indonesia; e. be in a spiritual and physical healthy condition; f. pay to the State's Treasury an amount between Rp.500,-to Rp.10.000,- of which the amount is fixed by the Tax office at the residence of the petitioner, based on the evident petitioner's monthly earnings, with the stipulation that it may not exceed the evident earnings for one month; g. have a fixed income; h. have no nationality, or have lost his nationality if the petitioner acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia or states at the time to have released another nationality according to the legal provisions of the country of origin or according to the legal provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country concerned. A woman may not apply for naturalization during matrimony. (3) Petitions for naturalization shall be forwarded in writing and provide with a stamp to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri as the residence of the petitioner; The petition shall be written in the Indonesian language and together with this petition shall be forwarded evidence on matters mentioned in para 2 except for what is stated under letter d. The Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia investigates the evidence as to its correctness and examines the petitioners as to their capability of mastering the Indonesian language and their knowledge of the history of Indonesia. (4) The Minister of Justice fulfills or rejects application for citizenship with the approval of the Cabinet Council. (5) The decree of the Minister of Justice which grants naturalization is valid as of the date that the petitioner takes an oath or swear allegiance before the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the petitioner and is valid retroactively the date of said decree of the Minister of Justice. The oath or allegiance swearing is as follows: "I swear (promise): "that I release entirely all loyalty "to foreign authority; "that I recognize and accept the highest authority "of and shall be loyal to "the Republic of Indonesia; "that I shall uphold the Constitution and other laws of "the Republic of Indonesia and "shall defend them faithfully; "that I bear this duty out of my own free will "and shall not diminish whatsoever". (6) After the petitioner has taken an oath or sworn allegiance as mentioned above, the Minister of Justice publishes such naturalization by inserting his decree in the State's Paper. (7) If the oath is not taken or allegiance not sworn within three months after the date of the decree of the Minister of Justice, said decree will automatically become null and void. (8) The amount of money mentioned in para 2 is refunded, if the naturalization is not fulfilled. (9) If the petition for naturalization is rejected, the petitioner may send in a repeat petition. Article 6. Naturalization may also be granted for the interest of the State or because of services rendered to the State, by the Government with the approval of Parliament. In this case from the provisions of article 5 only those in para 1, para 5, para 6 and para 7 are applicable. Article 7. (1) A foreign woman married to a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after contracting said marriage, except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality, in which case the statement may not be made. (2) With the exception as mentioned in para 1 the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted, if within that one year her husband does not make a statement as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Said statement may only be made and only results in the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if by such a loss the husband does not become stateless. (3) If one of the statements mentioned in para 1 and 2 have been made, the alternative statement may not be made. (4) The statements mentioned above shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person making such a statement. Article 8. (1) A woman, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, married to a foreigner loses her citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within one year after her marriage has been contracted except if, with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, she becomes stateless. (2) The statement mentioned in para 1 shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person making such statement. Article 9. (1) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a husband is automatically valid for his wife, except if, after the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia has been acquired, the wife possesses still another nationality. (2) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a husband affects automatically his wife, except if the wife will become stateless. Article 10. (1) A woman is during matrimony not permitted to present a petition as meant in article 3 and article 4. (2) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a wife affects automatically her husband, except if the husband will become stateless. Article 11. (1) A person who because or as a result of marriage looses the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, regains said citizenship if and when after the marriage has been dissolved the person makes a statement as to that effect. Such statement shall be made within 1 year after the marriage has been dissolved to the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person. (2) The provision of para 1 does not apply in case the person, after having regained the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, still possesses another nationality. Article 12. (1) A woman who because of or as a result of her marriage acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, loses said citizenship again, if and when after her marriage has been dissolved she makes a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the marriage has been dissolved to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at her residence. (2) The stipulation in para 1 is not applicable if said person becomes stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 13. (1) Children who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet, who have a legal family relationship with their father before said father has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, after they reside and are in Indonesia. The statement as to their residence and being in Indonesia is not valid for children who because their father acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia becomes stateless. (2) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a mother also applies to her children who have no legal family relationship with the father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet after they have resided and are in Indonesia. If said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is acquired with the naturalization by a mother who has become a widow because of the decease of her husband, the children who have a legal family relationship with said husband, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia after they reside and are in Indonesia. Statements as to their residence and being in Indonesia are not valid for children who because their mother has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia become stateless. Article 14. (1) If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence. (2) The provision of para 1 is not applicable if said children become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 15. (1) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a father also affects his children who have a legal family relationship with said father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet, except if, with their loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, these children become stateless. (2) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a mother also affects her children who have no legal family relationship with their father, except if with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia these children become stateless. (3) If this mother looses the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because of naturalization abroad and said mother has become a widow because of the decease of her husband, the provisions of para 2 also apply to her children who have a legal family relationship with her husband after these children reside and are abroad. Article 16. (1) A child who loses its citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because its father or its mother loses said citizenship, regains the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia after the child has reached the age of 18, if and when it makes a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within one year after the child has reached the age of 18 to the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the child. (2) The provisions of para 1 is not applicable in case said child, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia still possesses another nationality. Article 17. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is lost because of: a. acquiring another nationality out of one's own free will, with the understanding that if the person concerned is, at the time that said other nationality is acquired, in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is only considered lost if the Minister of Justice declares it lost with the approval of the Cabinet Council on its own initiative or on the request of the person concerned; b. not having rejected or having released another nationality whilst the person concerned has had the opportunity as to that effect; c. being recognized by an alien as his/her child if the person concerned has not reached the age of 18 and is not married yet and does not become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; d. being legally adopted by an alien as his/her child if the child concerned has not reached the age of 5 yet and it does not become stateless at the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; e. being declared as lost by the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Cabinet Council on the request of the person concerned if the person has reached the age of 21, is domiciled abroad and does not become stateless at the declaration of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as being lost; f. entering a foreign military service without prior permission from the Minister of Justice; g. without prior permission from the Minister of Justice, entering a foreign state's service or the services of an organization of nations not entered by the Republic of Indonesia as member, if the position held in the state's service may, according to the regulations of the Republic of Indonesia, only be held by a citizen or the position in said nation organization service requires on oath or official promise; h. taking the oath or making the promise of loyalty to a foreign country or a part thereof; i. without being obliged, participating in a vote for one and another of constitutional nature for a foreign country; j. having a passport or certificate which has the character of a passport from a foreign country in one's name which is still valid; k. other than for state's service, domiciling abroad during 5 consecutive years by not declaring one's wish as to continue being a citizen before the period has lapsed and thereafter every two years; such a wish shall be declared to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at one's residence. For citizens of the Republic of Indonesia who have not reached the age of 18 yet, except if they are married, the five and two years' period mentioned above is applicable as of the date that he reaches the age of 18. Article 18. A person who loses the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as mentioned in article 17 letter k. regains the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if the person is domiciled in Indonesia based on an Entry Permit and makes a statement as to that effect. Such a statement shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person within 1 year after the person is domiciled in Indonesia. Article 19. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia granted or acquired on incorrect information may be withdrawn by the office which has granted it or the office which has received the information. Article 20. Whoever is no citizen of the Republic of Indonesia is an alien. Transitional regulations Article I. A woman who, based on article 3 of the Regulation of the Military Administrator No. Prt/P.M./09/1957 and article 3 of the Regulation of the Central War Administrator No.Prt/Peperpu/014/1958 has been treated as a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, becomes a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia if she has no other nationality. Article II. A person who at the moment of enforcement of this law is in the position as stated in article 7 or 8 may make the statement as mentioned in said article within 1 year after enforcement of this law, with the understanding that the husband of a woman who becomes a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia as mentioned in article I of the transitional regulation may no longer make the statement mentioned in article 7 para 2. Article III. A woman, who according to the legislation in force before this law is enforced would automatically be a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia were she not married, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after her marriage has been dissolved or within 1 year after enforcement of this law to the Pengadilan Negeri or to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at her residence. Article IV. A person, who does not acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia along with the father or mother by making a statement according to the prevailing legislation before this law is enforced, because the person is of age at the time that the father or mother makes said statement, whilst the person himself/herself may not make the statement as to opt the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, if the person, with this provision or heretofore, has no other nationality. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by said person is valid retroactively the date that the father/mother acquires said citizenship. Article V. In deviation from the provisions of article 4 para 1 and 2, children whose citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia has been rejected by their parents between December 27, 1949 till December 27,1951, may within one year after enforcement of this Law, present a petition to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri at their residence in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they are under the age of 28, article 4 para 3 and 4 are further applicable. Article VI. An alien who before enforcement of this Law, has ever entered the armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia and meets with the conditions which will be stipulated by the Minister of Defence, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if the person makes a statement as to that effect to the Minister of Defence or official designated by the latter. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by the person mentioned above is valid retroactively the date that said person entered the armed forces. Article VII. A person, who before enforcement of this Law has been in a foreign military service as mentioned in article 17 letter f. or in service of a nations organization as mentioned in article 17 letter g. may apply for a permit to the Minister of Justice within 1 year after this law comes into force. Concluding regulations. Article I. A citizen of the Republic of Indonesia who is within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia is considered to possess no other nationality. Article II. By the understanding citizenship is included all kinds of protection by a state. Article III. In executing of this Law. Children who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet are considered to be domiciled with their father or their mother according to the specification in article 1 letter, b, c or d. Article IV. Whoever must prove that he/she is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia and has no documents which indicate that he/she possesses or acquires or possesses or acquires along with the father/mother said citizenship, may request the Pengadilan Negeri at his/her residence to confirm whether or not he/she is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia according to the usual tribunal procedure. This provision does not diminish the special provisions of or based on other laws. Article V. From statements made which cause the acquisition or loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia a copy is forwarded to the Minister of Justice by the official in question. Article VI. The Minister of Justice publishes in the State's Paper names of persons who have acquired or lost the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article VII. One and another needed for the execution of the provision of this Law is regulated by Government regulations. Article VIII. This Law comes into force on the date of promulgation with the stipulation that the regulations in article 1 letter b to letter j, article 2, article 17 letter a, c and h are valid retroactively December 27, 1949. In order that everybody may know, the order is given to promulgate this law by insertion in the Government Gazette.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051214084800.htm
webcache.googleuserconten...&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
#130. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Pete look in the mirror you're and meguro are the problem.
#131. To: A K A Stone (#126)
(Edited)
Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,
#132. To: sneakypete (#124)
#133. To: A K A Stone (#127)
You're obviously a homosexual. You get bent out of shape if anyone criticizes your people.
#134. To: VxH (#129)
(Edited)
Evidence Links Cocaine Abuse And Parkinson's Disease
#135. To: sneakypete (#134)
ave no evidence at all that Linda Ronstadt ever did a lot,or any,cocaine back in her glory days.
she was still woman with an incredible voice and it is a shame she has lost it.
#136. To: sneakypete (#120)
Homosexuals as a group had ZERO political influence prior to the 90's,
#137. To: sneakypete, liberator (#120)
#138. To: VxH (#136)
#139. To: VxH (#137)
#140. To: sneakypete (#139)
(Edited)
It was a local event
#141. To: sneakypete (#105)
[nc #103] Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
#142. To: sneakypete (#106)
Are you really so stupid that you think a mind-numbing list of accusations that were and are partisan in nature and never proven makes the criminals and traitors you support look any better?
On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives adopted by a vote of 410-4 the following House Resolution 803:
#143. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#111)
With respect to Hitlery's "firing" or technically "let go" from her position and involvement in Nixon's Impeachment proceedings, the unofficial "word on the street" was that Hitlery was sloppy, ventured into darker gray areas, and acted inappropriately in any case (no, please don't ask for citations :-)
Mr. KASTENMEIER: In any event, I will ask our stafff, including the senior associate counsel, Joseph Woods in addition to Mr. Samuel Garrison to identify the other counsel present for the reporter and for the committee, following which I would ask you to start reading the draft to the committee.
Biographical Note
Naftali: What role did Mr. Doar play in these discussions?
Naftali: When your staff completed this memo in a month, I believe, it just took you a little over a month.
Naftali: Let me ask you before we move from the story of the memo on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, what role do you remember Hillary Rodham playing? What did she do as part of your team?
Woods: I tried not to take a position as to what the rules should be. I took a position on what the rules could be which was unlimited in their scope and let the committee express its views. Actually, it was more a subcommittee of the committee, express its views on what the rules ought to be and then we, Hillary and I, tried to write rules that reflected what we understood the committee – the subcommittee to be saying to us. I do not believe that we recommended to the subcommittee any set of rules other than to say that here is what we think you said. Committee, do we have it right? The subcommittee was chaired by Representative Casimir from Wisconsin and I remember that one of the members of the committee was Representative Hungate. I think he was from Missouri. Wherever he was from, Mr. Hungate was very clear about the importance of forwarding proper latitude to the defense and I would say that he, as much as anybody, was the architect of the spirit of the rules that were finally adopted and what Hillary and I did was try to put on paper our understanding of what was necessary. The details that were appropriate to give effect to that spirit.
Naftali: … Thank you. Mr. Woods, let me ask you whether you were involved at all in the decision to recruit Professor C. Vann Woodward to do a study of presidential abuses of power?
Naftali: Tell me a bit about – well, let me ask you this. Given the prominence that she would have later, what was it like to work with Hillary Rodham?
#144. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#112)
How can you state without reservation that ANY claim challenging either the 0webumas or the Klintoons are "ridiculous" when it's clear as day that in all cases, shenanigans is the rule rather than exception? It's easy to claim, "WHAT PROOF?!?" when people in high places are manipulating indictable evidence and eliminating witnesses. Or do you also dismiss THAT notion?
CHAPTER 3—LOSS OF NATIONALITY
#145. To: Zesta, Liberator (#113)
Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people?
#146. To: sneakypete, Zesta (#117)
A Dim drone hired to disrupt and stop any criticisms of Bubbette! as she heads off on her White House quest.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#147. To: sneakypete (#4)
[sneakypete #4] Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
Office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, by Hunt and Liddy.
Office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, by Barker, De Diego, and Martinez. Hunt and Liddy stood guard outside.
Offices of the DNC, by Hunt and Gonzalez, McCord provided surveillance from across the street.
DNC, by Sturgis, Gonzalez, Barker, Martinez, McCord, De Diego and Pico. Hunt and Liddy in Watergate room. Aborted, unable to pick lock.
DNC, by Sturgis, Gonzalez, Barker, Martinez, and McCord.
DNC, by Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, Gonzalez and McCord. Hunt and Liddy in Watergate room. Busted and arrested.
Congressional Research Service
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
www.crs.gov
R41223 Conspiracy is a crime which begins with a scheme and may continue on until its objective is achieved or abandoned. The liability of individual conspirators continues on from the time they joined the plot until it ends or until they withdraw. The want of an individual’s continued active participation is no defense as long as the underlying conspiracy lives and he has not withdrawn. An individual who claims to have withdrawn bears the burden of establishing either that he took some action to make his departure clear to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to the authorities. As a general rule, overt acts of concealment do not extend the life of the conspiracy beyond the date of the accomplishment of its main objectives. On the other hand, the rule does not apply when concealment is one of the main objectives of the conspiracy.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
Beginning in May, 1969, the White House conducted covert intelligence gathering, not for reasons of national security, but for political purposes. In May, 1969, President Nixon orer the FBI to engage in electronic surveillance of at least seventeen persons, including four newsmen and three White House subordinates whose jobs were unrelated to national security. (Book VII, 142-47, 153).
During the same period, White House personnel also engaged directly in illegal surveillance for political purposes. In 1969, Counsel to the President John Erlichman hired Anthony Ulasewicz, a retired police detective, to conduct investigations under the supervision of John Caulfield, a subordinate to Erlichman. (Book VII, 336-44) In June 1969, Caulfield, at Ehrlichan’s direction initiated a wiretap on the residence telephone of newspaper columnist Joseph Kraft. (Book VII, 314-15). Ehrlichman discussed this wiretap with the President. (Book VII, 323) During the next three years, Caulfield and Ulasewicz, under Ehrlichman’s or Dean’s direction, conducted a number of covert inquiries concerning political opponents of the President. (Book VII, 342, 346-47)
#148. To: sneakypete (#4)
Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did receive emoluments from the United States in excess of the compensation provided by law pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 7 of the Constitution, and did willfully attempt to evade the payment of a portion of Federal income taxes due and owing by him for the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, in that:
On April 3, 1974 the White House issued a statement that the President has "today instructed payment of the $432,787.13 set forth by the Internal Revenue Service, plus interest."
H11932
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
December 18, 1998
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H11933 The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the assused from office.
Impeachment: A Handbook
39-40 (1974) ‘What is misbehavior in office? In answer to this question and without pretending to furnish a definition, I freely admit that we are bound to prove that the respondent has violated the Constitution, or some known law of the land. This, I think, is the principle fairly to be deduced from all the arguments on the trial of Judge Chase, and from the votes of the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment against him, in opposition to the principle for which his counsel in the first instance strenuously contended, that in order to render an offence impeachable it must be indictable. But this violation of law may consist in the abuse, as well as in the usurpation of authority. The abuse of a power which has been given may be criminal as the usurpation of a power that has not been granted.’
“[A]ttempts to limit the scope of impeachable offenses have rarely proposed limiting impeachable offenses only to indictable offenses. Rather, the major disagreement among commentators has been over the range of nonindictable offenses for which someone may be impeached.
He met with Republican congressional leaders soon after, and was told he faced certain impeachment in the House and had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate — far fewer than the 34 he needed to avoid removal from office.
#149. To: sneakypete (#121)
It's not for me to accept or not accept. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know about it. *I* am not the one obsessed with homosexuality.
#150. To: nolu chan (#141)
I have stated many times previously that the absurd claims you puked up, as posted by others over the past years, are not only absurd, but absurdly untrue. If they were true, they would not be absurd. If they were possibly true, they would not be absurd. They are not possibly true, have been proven utterly untrue for ten years, and are utter garbage.
#151. To: nolu chan (#142)
Hearing him commit crimes in tape recorded conversations removes doubt in all except those who refuse to hear.
#152. To: nolu chan (#144)
There are so many valid claims that the claims made by sneakypete are unnecessary, and as inexcusably absurd as the claim that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen,
#153. To: nolu chan (#146)
Actually, I did not contest “ONE detail.”
#154. To: nolu chan (#147)
(Edited)
#155. To: A K A Stone (#149)
Liar Pete. You are the chapmpion of faggot pretend rights on this site.
#156. To: sneakypete (#150)
FACT,he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father,and had his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro.
FACT,his mother,as his legal guardian,and his father had his citizenship changed to Indonesian.
Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952
NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FACT,there is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Oboma.
FACT,he traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport issued to Barry Soetoro,Indonesian citizen when he was 18 and Pakistan wasn't allowing US citizens to visit.
"Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa, tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must repeat must have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not repeat not issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha."
New York Times link
Passport of Call
FACT,there is no legal record every having denounced his Indonesian citizenship OR applying to have his US citizenship re-instated.
FACT,he and his handlers,because he really is a dummy and has to speak from a script,refuses to even talk about any of this.
#157. To: sneakypete (#151)
You also seem more than willing to gloss over the fact it was the Republicans that told him they would vote for impeachment if he didn't resign.
The release of the "smoking gun" tape destroyed Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who voted against all three articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee announced they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House.
No matter how many lies you spin around it,Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in.
In criminal law the rule is well recognized that one who learns of an ongoing criminal conspiracy and casts his lot with the conspirators becomes a member of the conspir4acy. Once the existence of a conspiracy is shown, slight evidence mazy be sufficient to conect a defendant with it. But one odes not become a member of a conspiracy simply because of receiving information regarding its nature and scope; he must have information regarding its nature and scope; he must have what the courts describe as a "stake in the success of the venture." He "must in some sense promote the venture himself, make it his own, have a stake in its outcome. …" Although one member of the conspiracy must commit a overt act, it is not necessary that every conspirator do so.
In addition, 18 U.S.C. 2 provides that one who "counsels, induces or procures" the commission of an offense such as bribery, obstruction of justice or of a criminal investigation, or perjury by another is "punishable as a principal."
Nixon: … They [Brookings] have a lot of material. … I want Brookings, I want them to break in and take it out. Do You understand?
Nixon: Shake them up. Get them off their Goddamn dead asses and say now that isn't what you should be talking about. We're up against an enemy, a conspiracy. They're using any means. We are going to use any means. Is that clear?
Nixon: Brookings has got tons of documents in safes ov er there. Now, we have got to start protecting the security of this government. Brookings and Rand, now Goddamnit, Haig hasn't done this—because henry welshed on these, you know. He's a little afraid. He's got some friends at Brookings (unintelligible). But anyway, he said publicly—he told me he was for it. But he's dragging his feet or something. You've got to get this stuff from Rand and Brookings. John, you mop up. You're in charge of that. And I want it done today and I'd like a report.
Nixon: … Also, I really meant it when—I want to go in and crack that safe. Walk in and get it. I want Brookings cut. They've got to do it. Brookings is the real enemy here.
Nixon: Where does Krogh stand now? He's still in charge of the—
Ehrlichman: We had one little operation. It's been aborted out in Los Angeles which, I think, is better that you don't know about. But we've got some dirty tricks underway. It may pay off. We've planted a bunch of stuff with colunists some of which will be given to service shortly. I think some of this group, about Ellsbert's lawyer, about the Bay of Pigs. Some of this stuff is going to start—is going to start surfacing.
Ehrlichman: There's a lot of hanky-panky with secret documents and on the eve of the publication of the Pentagon apers those three guys made a deposit into the National Archives under an agreement of a whole lot of papers. Now I'm going to steal those documents out of the National Archives.
Nixon: And the whole Plumbers operation. I'mj going to take that. Also, I want you—I deliberately am only calling you because i don't want to talk to John. …
Huston Plan
White House horrors
#158. To: sneakypete (#152)
[sneakypete #152] He didn't "lose his citizenship",shithead. His mother gave it up for him
Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952
NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS CHAPTER 3—LOSS OF NATIONALITY
LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT'S EXPATRIATION; NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
#159. To: sneakypete (#153)
Blah,blah,blah.
FALSE
Is this true or false?
If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation — one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.
#160. To: sneakypete (#154)
Remind us again what office Nixon is running for this election season,Bubba.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#161. To: sneakypete (#154)
After all,hits fo de chil-runs!
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
by Peter Schweizer (Author)
Publisher: Harper (May 5, 2015)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0062369288
ISBN-13: 978-0062369284
Product Dimensions: 6 x 0.9 x 9 inches
#162. To: nolu chan (#161)
Your urban legend chain email has been debunked for about 10 years.
#163. To: sneakypete (#162)
[sneakypete #162] You are nothing but a professional liar and propagandist for the Dim Party.
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father
[sneakypete #152] He didn't "lose his citizenship",shithead. His mother gave it up for him.…
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS
Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
U.S. Department of State
CA/OCS/L
SA-17, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20522-1710
#164. To: nolu chan (#163)
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father
#165. To: sneakypete (#164)
#166. To: A K A Stone (#165)
Chan is wiping the floor with you.
#167. To: sneakypete (#166)
Number 2,I don't give a rabid rats ass what you,Bubbette!'s Fan Boy,or anyone else here thinks of me.
#168. To: sneakypete (#164)
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father,and had his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro.
Article 2.
Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]