The defense and prosecution have now rested their sentencing cases in the Lakin court-martial.

The prosecution finished its case by playing an interview with LTC Lakin on the Barry Farber show, in which the accused discussed his rationale for violating orders and refusing to deploy.  The money quote from the interview came when Farber asked Lakin whether, if he had it all to do over again, would he still refuse to deploy.  Lakin’s answer was that yes, he would.

The defense presented two witnesses: an O-6 who deployed with LTC Lakin previously, and a CW3 who had also served with the accused, both of whom testified to his professional qualities and character.  Lakin then gave an unsworn statement in question-and-answer format, taking more than an hour to explain his conduct.  He said he understands the Army is not the place to get answers to his questions, and admitted that he made the wrong call in thinking it was.  He was in tears during parts of his unsworn, and said  he would prefer jail time to dismissal from the service.

Colonel Sullivan reports that Lakin’s attorney, Neal Puckett, asked tough questions: you asked for this court-martial, didn’t you?  Are you proud of what you’ve done?  LTC Lakin said he was not proud, and that if he had it all to do over again, he would not actually refuse to deploy — in fact, he would deploy tomorrow, if he could.  He denied having ever said “you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen. 

The court is in recess until tomorrow.  The prosecution will have an opportunity to put on a rebuttal case, if it chooses, and the defense can surrebut.  The military judge will discuss sentencing instructions with counsel out of the presence of the members and then both sides will give argument.  Judge Lind will instruct the members and they will retire to deliberate on a sentence.  Barring the unexpected, the trial will end tomorrow.

Note: Colonel Sullivan will be on blogtalkradio again at 2100 hours tonight with retired commander Phil Cave and Fogbow blogger Mata Mari to discuss today’s events. As with yesterday’s program, there should be plenty of additional insights and analysis — tune in if you can.

112 Responses to “United States v. Lakin liveblogging, Day Two wrap”

  1. Mike Dunford says:

    Was the O6 who testified for Lakin the brigade surgeon during his last deployment?

  2. sg says:

    “He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.”
    Someone should ask Jensen what the view from under the bus looks like.

  3. bob says:

    “He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.”

    The panel, of course, will be duly impressed by this unsworn evasion of responsibility.

  4. Mike Dunford says:

    Odds of the panel caring if that was Lakin or Dogbite?

  5. June bug says:

    Does anyone know how recent the Barry Farber show interview was, i.e., how recently Lakin contradicted his current stance on deployment?

  6. Tes says:

    Barry Farber show interview was, i.e., how recently Lakin

    September 2010

  7. Rickey says:

    Does anyone know how recent the Barry Farber show interview was, i.e., how recently Lakin contradicted his current stance on deployment?

    I believe it was in early September. Jensen also was on the show.

  8. Tes says:

    Link to Barry Farber show:
    http://conservativeamericannews.com/american-grand-jury/listen-to-ltc-lakin-interview-on-the-barry-farber-show

  9. Judge Oblivious says:

    Lakin then gave an unsworn statement in question-and-answer format…He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.
    ————————————
    *if this can be proven false,that Lakin rather than Jensen said “you had your chance”, will Lakin face additonal charges?
    *Is an unsworn Q&A on the stand liable for perjury?

  10. H.S. Thompson says:

    Just as an aside, does everyone here know what case Jensen took up after Lakin booted him?
    ——————————–
    Irma Nici, the former hooker who is being sued by David Beckham for her published claim that they had a fling, is fighting back with her own lawsuit against the married soccer great, RadarOnline.com has learned.

    According to her attorney, Nici filed her suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court Friday.

    Represented by attorney Paul Rolf Jensen, Nici filed a special motion to strike Beckman’s libel lawsuit.

    “California law does not allow public figures like David Beckham to stifle free speech,” Jensen says. “Maybe he didn’t live here in Los Angeles long enough to learn how precious we here consider our rights to tell the truth in print.”
    —————————————–
    That was in Oct. and I can’t find any more recent info.

  11. Christopher Mathews says:

    Lakin then gave an unsworn statement in question-and-answer format…He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.
    ————————————
    *if this can be proven false,that Lakin rather than Jensen said “you had your chance”, will Lakin face additonal charges?
    *Is an unsworn Q&A on the stand liable for perjury?

    No.

    For that reason, it’s sometimes referred to, by cynical prosecutors of whom I was never one, as the “unsworn lie.”

  12. sg says:

    If the TC decides to go after it, he could do it on re-direct. I don’t think they need to though. I don’t think the panel will buy that, or even care.
    I wasn’t in the court room, but that testimony by Dr. (MAJ) Dobson was, I should think, devastating.
    It all but says “Lakin put Soldiers’ lives at increased risk for his own stupid political folly” and when mixed with everything else that just paints a picture of a very egotistical individual, I think he could have a sworn statement from Jensen taking blame for the “you had your chance” thing and I don’t think it will matter a bit.

  13. H.S. Thompson says:

    woah- and Jensen’s site appears to be down- Coincidance??

  14. Your Master says:

    LTC Lakin said he was not proud, and that if he had it all to do over again, he would not actually refuse to deploy — in fact, he would deploy tomorrow, if he could. — All good little soldiers should keep their mouths shut and do what they are told. Don’t think for yourselves, the Army will do your thinking for you. Get uppity and you will get slapped down where you belong.

  15. Phil Cave says:

    I’m anticipating we’ll see some rebuttal tomorrow. Lakin did not come across that much repentant as much as he tried to throw Jensen under the bus. Still me, me, me.

  16. Trevor says:

    H’mmmmm that sounds suspiciously like the Birfoon, Squeeky Fromm

  17. Tes says:

    I’m anticipating we’ll see some rebuttal tomorrow.Lakin did not come across that much repentant as much as he tried to throw Jensen under the bus.Still me, me, me.

    I was wondering about that. Can’t wait to hear more on the show. And — I just listened to the tape, and find it hard to reconcile his “Without a doubt (I’d do it again)” just three months ago with his statement today. How did THAT go over?

  18. Rob A says:

    All good little soldiers should keep their mouths shut and do what they are told. Don’t think for yourselves, the Army will do your thinking for you. Get uppity and you will get slapped down where you belong.

    This is how it has always been in the US Army, and probably most armies on the planet. To think anything else would be foolish.

  19. Tes says:

    I’m anticipating we’ll see some rebuttal tomorrow.Lakin did not come across that much repentant as much as he tried to throw Jensen under the bus.Still me, me, me.

    Phil: So the above statement — “The defense and prosecution have now rested their sentencing cases in the Lakin court-martial.” — is maybe not accurate? Or can they “reopen” after resting?

  20. KyAtty says:

    That’s right, Your Master. Birfers don’t seem to understand what it means to be part of an army. They seem to think that when an officer swears to defend the Constitution, he becomes a lone ranger, seeking out whoever he personally thinks threatens the Constitution. But the army is all about being part of a team that works together to defeat the enemies identified by the government elected by the people. The phrase used to describe countries in which the military decides the elected government is the enemy is “banana republic”.

  21. TerribleTom says:

    C.M. wrote: “For that reason, it’s sometimes referred to, by cynical prosecutors of whom I was never one, as the ‘unsworn lie’.”

    I find the whole procedure of allowing the unsworn statement rather fascinating. Cynical or not, I’d guess that it is fair game for the TC to single out portions and emphasize not only that the statement is not made under oath, but that it comes after the close of evidentiary proceedings. At that point, even if it is demonstrably false, how can it be disproven or impeached?

  22. sg says:

    “To think anything else would be foolish.” And to want anything else from your army but to do what they’re told by the elected civilian government would be un-American and asinine.

  23. Rob A says:

    “To think anything else would be foolish.” And to want anything else from your army but to do what they’re told by the elected civilian government would be un-American and asinine.

    indeed

  24. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Tes, the government is alllowed to put on a case in rebuttal to the defense’s case if it wants. The court-martial will resume with an Article 39(a) session at 0830 tomorrow, and then a proceeding with the members at 0900. The first thing that will happen in front of the members is the military judge will ask the government if it has a case in rebuttal. My guess is that the TCs will — and they have all night to prepare, a fortuitous bit of scheduling for the government.

  25. Tes says:

    THANK YOU Dwight. I was being too literal … a fault of mine ;) Very much looking forward to hearing you in a little while!

  26. sg says:

    @Tes,
    With apologies to Phil, the Trial Counsel will get a rebuttal period tomorrow in order to address anything the Defense put forward in their case that was new.

  27. Your Master says:

    A great quote in an editorial on the Post & Email from George Orwell’s 1984 – “He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

    LTC Lakin is at peace now. He has learned to love Big Brother. His self-willed exile from the loving breast is over. He admits his guilt; let the burning at the stake begin for he deserves and freely desires his just punishment for ever daring to question the great overlord usurper Obama and his military minions.

  28. Phil Cave says:

    sg, sorry for what? Tes.

    In a continuation of his fairly monosyllabic yes no to Neals “testimony” there was a point, and I forget the exact quote, Neal asked Lakin if he ever imagined how it would feel to be behind bars. I’m anticipating a copy of the SOC site which has been regularly showing Lakin behind bars and soliciting money on his behalf. Not sure that will in fact be part of the rebuttal, but it may. A prosecution witness said he’d deploy with Lakin. The government can rebut that specific statement with others who might say “i would not deploy.” There might be other aspects of a lack of remorse like the 3 September radio interview.

  29. Your Master says:

    And to want anything else from your army but to do what they’re told by the elected civilian government would be un-American and asinine.

    But Lakin’s point is exactly that the Army was acting on its own, when ordering him to deploy, and not under the control of the civilian government. No legitimate CinC = no civilian control. Judge Lind said that civilian control or the lack thereof was irrelevant.

  30. juniper55 says:

    JTS, thanks for the description of battalion surgeon and kudos to all who chimed in about the process and possible legal outcomes. That helps immensely.

    I don’t know the Lakin backstory and haven’t bothered to watch one of his videos, egad, but it seems that if the BC chasers didn’t come to him then maybe he went to them. (I confess, I think BHO is ineligible AND I am mad that the legal challenges haven’t worked to date AND am even more angry that no Senator or Congressman will seriously champion the issue but at our house there’s still dishes to wash and homework to do and this addiction of mine has to be curtailed – besides, but the DEMS might soon join the birther party if Obama tries to triangulate too much so maybe that will finally solve the problem!

    BUT I agree from following the postings on CAAFLOG that it doesn’t excuse the behavior of Lakin – now if a Joint Chief said “I’m not following the president” that would be something different)

    So was Lakin a True Believer? Or a political and financial opportunist? Considering this whole thing has gone on now for 8-9 months, right? THat’s why I was asking questions about Lakin’s past. What is the motive here? Money? Fame? Just didn’t want to deploy again? DIdn’t like his immediate superior officer? Hoped McCain would win the election? Mad about ObamaCare? It seems such a waste to have had all this go on – unless the folly is that because his record WAS so good, he was held up (flattery is of the devil after all) as the best possible chance to challenge BHO. Maybe it was all ego but what or who was the driver behind the egotism?

    Especially if it was out of character from his previous record. Ego, like other traits, may be developed but the tendancy to be egotistical is present early on in life. That’s what seems so strange. It is also discouraging to see the cheerleading section, OMG, like this was Judge Judy or something. Embarrassing. Maybe Lakin can write a book between rockbreaking sessions. I will be curious to finally know the outcome tomorrow.

  31. Phil Cave says:

    The cheerleaders may be part of his undoing. The members were certainly cognizant of it and watching. Just couldn’t tell from their expressions. I also thought the judge was amazingly tolerant.

  32. Rob A says:

    A great quote in an editorial on the Post & Email

    Post & Email, check… Sharon??? is that you??? How’s the harp business???

  33. sg says:

    Just a thought–we’ve just GOT to do all this again when PFC Manning’s Court Martial comes up. We can see the craziness from the other side and all be called traitors to the constitution by a whole other group of people!
    Good times.

  34. Sterngard Friegen says:

    “He denied having ever said ”you had your chance” — that statement, he said, came from his former counsel, Paul Jensen.”Someone should ask Jensen what the view from under the bus looks like.

    Maybe Dogbite Jensen would like to come in and pin that tail on Lakin’s donkey. If Dogbite says it was Lakin’s idea, well then that exonerates Dogbite from a malpractice claim and digs a pretty deep latrine for Lakin.

  35. Phil Cave says:

    Stern, actually he said more about Jensen, but I’ll leave that as a teaser.

  36. Sterngard Friegen says:

    By the way, I posted this over at Fogbow when smoeone suggested giving to Lakin what he (or his attorney, but obviously with Lakin’s blessing) gave to a Medal of Honor winner:

    “Panel members, in closing I want to comment on something LCOL Lakin in his statement to you. He said if he could do it all over again, he’d deploy today. Well, on behalf of the soldiers in his unit, and the other soldiers who were depending on him, let me respond to LCOL Lakin. [Trial Counsel turns to LCOL Lakin and makes an 8 second pause.*] LCOL Lakin, you had your chance. [Trial Counsel then sits down to a stunned courtroom.]”

    * The 8 second pause is required. It is memorialized in the literature and was first performed by Horace Rumpole.

  37. Jax says:

    “I confess, I think BHO is ineligible AND I am mad that the legal challenges haven’t worked to date AND am even more angry that no Senator or Congressman will seriously champion the issue”

    I confess, you are an idiot. You didn’t get your way. Vote for someone else in the next election. Many, many people have tried to explain to you the reasons why you are incorrect, and you’re still trying to get Obama forced out.

    You don’t like him =/= ineligible. It means you don’t like him. And I hate to tell you this, but if having about half the people thinking you’re doing a crappy job made a president ineligible, we would have had 0 eligible presidents by now.

  38. Rob A says:

    “Your Master” is Sharon Rondieu, editor of the Post & Email nutblog. If she denies it, make her show her original long form birth certificate complete with the little footprints.

  39. nbc says:

    What I don’t get is, why are people so hostile here?Why do you view who you pejoratively call “birthers” as enemies?This is a military blog, right?How about some proper military bearing?

    People are hostile to those who come to the blog to spread known falsehoods or show a significant lack of misunderstanding of the facts.

    Do you care to explain what motivates you?

  40. Capt. Obvious says:

    I confess, you are an idiot. You didn’t get your way. Vote for someone else in the next election. Many, many people have tried to explain to you the reasons why you are incorrect, and you’re still trying to get Obama forced out.

    You don’t like him =/= ineligible. It means you don’t like him. And I hate to tell you this, but if having about half the people thinking you’re doing a crappy job made a president ineligible, we would have had 0 eligible presidents by now.

    Hear, hear.

  41. bob says:

    Why do you view who you pejoratively call “birthers” as enemies?

    It’s called “sedition.”

  42. Norbrook says:

    @juniper55

    Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to pass laws – and has – delegating responsibilities to the Service Secretaries. In addition, officers are commissioned by Congress. A final piece of the puzzle for you, even if you believe that President Obama is an “illegal President,” is that until he is removed by the procedures detailed in the Constitution, he is the President. It’s called the de facto officer doctrine. So at no point is there not civilian control – legitimate control – of the military.

    Now, people in the military do not, as you have seen, get to disobey orders just because they have questions about the legitimacy of any elected official, or the legality of a policy. There have been a number of cases over the years, both in Republican and Democratic administrations, and they all come down the same way on that point. It’s not a function of what political party you belong to, because quite frankly, it’s irrelevant.

  43. nbc says:

    “Birthers” as you call them are not a threat. They are fellow Americans seeking answers about holes in Obama’s cover story. That’s it.

    What holes? It’s the fact that they base their concerns on factually erroneous foundations that makes them just poor losers.

    If people have such a lack of disrespect for our Constitution then it’s time to expose them as lacking in fact and reason.

    Fact: President Obama is a natural born citizen

    The end

    Any questions?

  44. nbc says:

    First of all, what are the known falsehoods to which you are referring? Maybe we could start from there.

    I’d prefer to presume lack of understanding. Such as when people claim that the COLB is not prima facie evidence of citizenship status. And that by virtue of birth on US soil, one becomes, with minor exceptions, a natural born citizen.

    Or the claims about Soebarkah. Or other Indonesian myths.

    See the problem is not that people are necessarily misrepresenting the facts. Most are just repeating the nonsense they read about and somehow have come to believe as factual.

  45. Christopher Mathews says:

    The cheerleaders may be part of his undoing. The members were certainly cognizant of it and watching. Just couldn’t tell from their expressions. I also thought the judge was amazingly tolerant.

    Phil, I don’t think her tolerance did the accused any favors. And although I don’t think she was wrong to be tolerant, I think she probably knew it.

  46. Jax says:

    “It’s unseemly to see so many people here unhinged. Chill folks. “Birthers” as you call them are not a threat. They are fellow Americans seeking answers about holes in Obama’s cover story. That’s it.”

    It’s funny that you say that, Gianni, because I’m trying your concern troll tactics over at Citizen Wells right now, and they are going BATSHIT.

  47. sg says:

    What part of proper military bearing requires the tolerance of lies, misconceptions, anti-American and anti-military sentiments (why are you advocating treason in the ranks?) and persist in these when they’ve been set right. One gets the impression that people don’t come here looking for answers so much as looking for allies. Passing judgment on the elected government is specifically NOT a function of the United States Army. I don’t know why this is so hard for you people to understand. Even without that particular aspect, there is absolutely no historical or legal basis for any of your claims. There is absolutely no evidence that President Obama is ineligible to hold the office to which he was elected. People who claim such are trying to undo the election, and that is antidemocratic and anti-American.
    I find these behaviors offensive in the extreme. I served this country to the best of my ability, even when the occupant of the White House was singularly unworthy of the sacrifices made by American Soldiers under his administration. But those sacrifices weren’t made for him. They were made for the American People, who chose him, for better or for worse.

  48. nbc says:

    NBC, yes they do. Dunham struck Obama/Soebarkah’s name out on her 1967 form, indicating a change in citizenship since the last time he was on her passport forms.

    Nope, it showed that Barack Obama was excluded from her passport. Likely because he got his own passport which allowed him to travel independently.
    Even before permanently returning to Hawaii to live with his grandparents Barack had traveled to Hawaii to look to enroll in a prestigious school.

    How did you conclude: Change in citizenship?

    PS, the document shows a 1968 date.

  49. Rob M says:

    Phil, I don’t think her tolerance did the accused any favors. And although I don’t think she was wrong to be tolerant, I think she probably knew it.

    I’d agree with that assessment- I’m sure she knew what she was doing. It might also be that she knew they were just petulant children trying to get a reaction out of someone, anyone, in authority, and she didn’t want to give them the satisfaction of her gaveling them silent so they could return to their anonymous internet forums and talk big about how they stood up for Truth until the evil agent of the illegitimate government ordered them to be quiet. Sort of the “go ahead, hold your breath until you turn blue, you’re still not getting what you want” approach.

    Just my $.02.

  50. Jax says:

    Gianni, here’s a question I’ve honestly always wanted to ask a birther: a lot of your discussion about Obama goes back to the dual citizenship thing, saying that negates him as a natural born citizen according the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It doesn’t but hey, you never listened before, so let’s assume.

    Here’s the thing: the Founding Fathers CLEARLY did not intend for someone like Obama to become President. If they had, they wouldn’t have included a passage in the Constitution that stipulated that a black person was 3/5 of a human being. I mean, how could 3/5 of a person become president?

    I mean, sure, that passage was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments, but this is ORIGINAL INTENT we’re talking about here!

    Gosh, I wonder why none of you birthers ever tried that tactic?

  51. bob says:

    The problem is you guys claim to know the “facts” when in fact you don’t.

    The facts demonstrate President Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a natural-born citizen. The rest is not facts, but rather just rumor, gossip, speculation, and innuendo.

  52. Capt. Obvious says:

    Soebarkah anyone?Anyone? Explain that away please.

    It was explained to you already.

    Keith says:
    December 15, 2010 at 5:17 pm
    Gianni: “NBC, yes they do.Dunham struck Obama/Soebarkah’s name out on her 1967 form, indicating a change in citizenship since the last time he was on her passport forms.This was an important finding from the Strunk FOIA.”

    She struck him out because he got his own passport, which must have been an American passport because under Indonesian law a child of his age CANNOT be made an Indonesian citizen, and under American law a child of his age CANNOT lose his American citizenship. Period.

    The President is NOT hiding information about a childhood change of citizenship from you because such an event simply never took place so there is no such information to either hide or expose.

    Suppose somebody were to demand you show evidence that you divorced your sister before you married your current spouse? Assuming you never married your sister in the first place, where would you find the divorce documentation?

  53. H.S. Thompson says:

    Wait- what? The 101st Keyboard Brigade/Cheeto’s Regiment is not a part of the US Armed Forces??
    I..I’m shocked.

  54. Rob M says:

    “Birthers” as you call them are not a threat. They are fellow Americans

    I’ll give you that much. I’ve got no problem with anyone who exercises their First Amendment right to say whatever batshit crazy thing they believe in. It’s annoying that they do it on one of the few blogs I can actually stand to read, but it’s a free country (you’re welcome). Go right on copying and pasting from “things 2 say im right about obama.doc” to your heart’s content, even though we’ve already seen it all before.

    Just don’t enlist (or, worse, accept a commission) if you can’t keep your politics to yourself. Then it really does become a crime, whether you like it or not.

  55. Phil Cave says:

    Chris,

    I tend to agree with you. I think she may have had at least two thoughts: it would be a nightmare to clear the court, and there was a small stir when Pastor Manning was escorted out by police and an MP, and that being perceived to “squelch” an open court was not helpful either. Dwight and I have been sitting almost center or the eligibility-deniers again and having some interesting conversations, but maybe tomorrow we’ll do a Churchill and cross the aisle.

  56. H.S. Thompson says:

    Gianni-
    How do you like commenting on a blog without censorship?
    How come all of you guys at the Wells’ blog talk a big game verging on inciting violent rebellion?
    The Secret Service has visited Wells’ buddy Larry Sinclair- You think they are watching you too??

  57. Gianni says:

    Bob,

    Some facts are indeed “facts.” Others are not because they are still unsettled and elusive.

    Boy, I have to hand it to you guys. You are really trying hard to whitewash all the holes in the Obama storyline. Good for you.

  58. nbc says:

    Gianni wrote: Why did he not admit that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and acquired Indonesian citizenship. We know he did from Ann Dunham’s passport records.

    1. There is no evidence that he was adopted
    2. There is no evidence that he could be adopted
    3. There is no evidence that he could acquire Indonesian citizenship when Indonesian laws prohibited this
    4. There is no evidence in Dunham’s passport that suggests this.

    Well, you asked…

  59. sg says:

    @Jax, 2043;
    “Gosh, I wonder why none of you birthers ever tried that tactic?”
    That would be too obvious.

  60. nbc says:

    Gianni wrote: Why did he not admit that he applied for and received foreign student aid, as an Indonesian citizen, to attend colleges in the United States?

    There is no evidence that President Obama ever applied for or received foreign aid assistance.

    Can you explain yourself?

  61. nbc says:

    Boy, I have to hand it to you guys. You are really trying hard to whitewash all the holes in the Obama storyline. Good for you.

    We are just showing that these holes are fantasies.

  62. Gianni says:

    Oh, actually, Sinclair and Obama very likely did the deed back in Chicago in 1999.

    And of course it’s easy for Obama to sic the Secret Service on Sinclair. You think that impresses anyone?

  63. nbc says:

    Oh, actually, Sinclair and Obama very likely did the deed back in Chicago in 1999.

    Again, no evidence… My goodness Gianni, have you no shame?

  64. Gianni says:

    NBC,

    You still haven’t explained Soebarkah. And your understanding of Indonesian adoption law is wrong.

  65. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    I read somewhere that the court had set up a remote site where the proceedings could be viewed. Does anyone know if there was anyone at this remote location?

  66. Gianni says:

    NBC,

    Of course there’s circumstantial evidence. Have you no shame?

  67. bob says:

    Others are not because they are still unsettled and elusive.

    Perhaps I was unclear: rumor, gossip, speculation, and innuendo are not “facts.”

  68. Jax says:

    “Sorry, no one has explain Soebarkah. Give it your best shot.”

    My best shot… my best shot… OK, here goes. Tomorrow, Obama will still be President, Lakin will be in jail, and you will wake up with the shocking realization that our time on this earth is finite, and rather than spending time with your loved ones or creating something to make the world a better place, you spent your days annoying people on the internet.

  69. Victory is Ours! says:

    Tomorrow is the fateful day…stay tuned…the ultimate facts will be revealed! I’m not afraid to say that a lot of people on this discussion will be SHOCKED by the outcome of the sentence.

  70. nbc says:

    So Gianni, anything else you would like for me to discuss?

    Gianni: Nope, not at all. There is no raised seal, so it does not serve as prima facia evidence.

    But there is a raised seal, it requires some careful analysis but there is.

    Again you show ignorance of fact.
    Please tell me when you have had enough. And yes, I have done the work myself to discover the faint raised seal on the OCR scan. The seal on the pictures, which were taken from an angle were far more visible.

    Failed again my foolish friend.

  71. Gianni says:

    NBC,

    You have no dogs in the fight about Sinclair and Obama back in 1999. He was just a lowly state rep. Why are you stretching back this far still desparately defending the man? I gotta hand it to you, you are persistent, but in a weird sort of maniacal way.

  72. nbc says:

    Of course there’s circumstantial evidence. Have you no shame?

    Circumstantial evidence… I see… As I said, there is no evidence.

  73. Gianni says:

    Jax,

    Fair enough, but you still didn’t explain Soebarkah.

  74. nbc says:

    NBC,You have no dogs in the fight about Sinclair and Obama back in 1999.He was just a lowly state rep.Why are you stretching back this far still desparately defending the man?I gotta hand it to you, you are persistent, but in a weird sort of maniacal way.

    Now that is ironic my dear friend.
    Now explain your misstatements of fact if you care?

  75. Gianni says:

    NBC,

    You claim to know law? Circumstantial evidence is good enough to win cases in a court of law. You should know that.

  76. nbc says:

    Perhaps I was unclear: rumor, gossip, speculation, and innuendo are not “facts.”

    Which is the extent of ‘evidence’ against President Obama.

  77. juniper55 says:

    Jax,

    I never said anywhere, nor do I believe, that Lakin was right in what he did. He disobeyed his superior officers, end of story. If he was truly upset at Obama being president due to ineligibilty, he should have resigned his commission. He did not do that. I DO believe that he thought he was going to gain something that he obviously now will not get. This is completely different from the eligibility issue.

    As for who I voted for, or wanted to vote for, John McCain was NOT my choice. I don’t like Hillary either. I don’t think McCain is as military-friendly as some would like to believe (despite his service record), and has other views I don’t agree with, and Hillary is, well, Hillary (a surprising hawk at times though, must be her Republican parents coming through), and with her comes Bill. That impromptu news comference last week was disquieting. The CIC relinquished to another CIC. As for popularity among the military, put all of the current and former presidents on a USO stage and see who gets the loudest response… I’d like to see another Reagan but haven’t seen him appear on the scene yet.

    As for fans of Bobby Jindhal, for example, we are going to have to go through all of the eligibility stuff again. That is Congress’ problem and so far Congress hasn’t addressed it, other than the dog-and-pony show regarding McCain – who some people think wasn’t eligible either. Birthright citizenship remains murky, and will remain murky, and maybe a Constitutional amendment may be required at the end of the day to clarify it. That won’t get settled here or on any other website. It was hoped – erroneously, perhaps – that it would be settled in a court of law. But not today.

  78. Gianni says:

    NBC,

    I have misstated no facts that I’m aware of.

  79. H.S. Thompson says:

    Gianni-
    You believe Sincliar?? Oh my.
    Do you send him money? He needs a good lawyer right now and that requires a ton of cash.

    Also: Why the censorship at Wells’ blog?? That isn’t very American, now is it??

  80. nbc says:

    You claim to know law? Circumstantial evidence is good enough to win cases in a court of law. You should know that.

    Sure, but there is circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence.

    Hearsay, speculation, uncorroborated rumors, myths, are all you have.

    But why not focus on your more embarrassing statements?

  81. nbc says:

    I have misstated no facts that I’m aware of.

    That is your problem… But lack of awareness does not make it true.

    I have provided several examples which you have so far ignored.

  82. nbc says:

    As to Sinclair, read the following article here

    Circumstantial indeed.

  83. H.S. Thompson says:

    Birthright citizenship remains murky

    uhm no…Only in your hazy mind.
    Born on US soil = Native born (except in the case of diplomats)
    Just ask Ms. “Malkin”….teehee

  84. sg says:

    @Juniper55
    “Birthright citizenship remains murky, and will remain murky”
    But it really doesn’t.
    The 14th amendment and various legal cases since then have settled it.
    A person born on US soil IS a US citizen at birth unless his parents are here pursuant to official business of another government.
    A person born to a US citizen gets US citizenship at birth.

  85. Gianni says:

    HS,

    No I don’t send people money over the Internet. But Sinclair’s story is compelling for reasons which I won’t get into. One small point however. Well, two.

    One, if Sinclair had made up his story about his two night sof sex and drugs with Obama, he would have certainly made the sex part more salacious. As it turns out, all he did was blow Obama. Obama did not return the favor. That is consistent with the downlow culture of Black men seeking preferably white men to service them.

    Two, Sinclair could not have known where Obama was on the two nights in question in Chicago. Further, Sinclair complicated his alleged lie by stretching it over two days, thus multiplying his chances of being caught in a lie. But guess what? The story holds up. Obama was indeed in Chicago during those days. And also the closet bisexual angle is corroborated with information coming out of a gay and bi club called Man’s World, or something to that effect. Obama was known to frequent that establishment.

  86. nbc says:

    Fair enough, but you still didn’t explain Soebarkah.

    A minor mystery at best. But hardly evidence of Obama having changed his citizenship as you claimed.
    Find me some evidence that links Soebarkah with Obama and a change in citizenship and we can talk.

  87. Gianni says:

    Come on. No one has explained Soebarkah yet. Why are you avoiding it?

  88. nbc says:

    But Sinclair’s story is compelling for reasons which I won’t get into.

    ROTFL… Do not let the door hit you on the way out :-)

  89. nbc says:

    Come on. No one has explained Soebarkah yet. Why are you avoiding it?

    Why are you avoiding the inaccuracies in your claims?

    I have addressed Soebarkah as a minor mystery. You claimed it was something more?

    Who has to explaining to do here?

  90. Capt. Obvious says:

    Others are not because they are still unsettled and elusive.

    Unless you have credible evidence, any at all, you’re just trying to blow smoke up people’s backsides who have already demonstrated they know considerably more about history and law than you.

    You should consider stopping while you’re behind. Or not. It’s mildly entertaining.

    If you don’t think a “birther” can be dangerous, look up the name of James Von Brunn.

  91. Gianni says:

    NBC,

    You are too naive about the connections. The evidence is right there in the Dunham passport records. You don’t want to see it because you are desperately protecting Obama.

    Good night all!

  92. Anonymous says:

    No wonder most of you are military lifers. I am not on either side of this issue. I came through a link to get to this mess and am shocked that any of you claim to be further than public k-12 educational status. I see a bunch of juvenile rhetoric going round and round like a 2nd grade class of out of control kids with a substitute teacher in front.
    Good day to both sides of this ridiculous subject. This never really mattered to begin with or reputable people would be discussing it out in the open on reputable sites.

  93. Rob A says:

    Good night all!

    good night dumbass!!!

    Remember, is not a birther or a Lakin supporter.

  94. Capt. Obvious says:

    You believe Sincliar?? Oh my.
    Do you send him money? He needs a good lawyer right now and that requires a ton of cash.

    Wasn’t his former attorney the one that wore a kilt to a press conference and made graphic, inappropriate references to what was under his kilt to those attending?

  95. Rob A says:

    that should read:

    Remember, Gianni is not a birther or Lakin supporter.

  96. H.S. Thompson says:

    That is consistent with the downlow culture of Black men seeking preferably white men to service them.

    Apologies for dragging this idiocy into this fine blog.
    I will refrain from any further dialog with it.

  97. nbc says:

    You are too naive about the connections. The evidence is right there in the Dunham passport records. You don’t want to see it because you are desperately protecting Obama.

    Hahaha… Nothing there other than that Obama was removed from Dunham’s passport, allowing him to get his own passport for travel.

    Bummer. I understand why you are leaving

  98. Capt. Obvious says:

    NBC,You are too naive about the connections.The evidence is right there in the Dunham passport records.You don’t want to see it because you are desperately protecting Obama.Good night all!

    What a steaming pile of nonsense.

  99. Capt. Obvious says:

    HS, No I don’t send people money over the Internet.But Sinclair’s story . . .

    Pure birther b.s. You need help.

  100. Brian le chien says:

    One of the things that has always amazed me about birthers (there are many things, but other comments address those), is their apparent disregard for democracy. I have been following this blog long enough to know the futility of trying to explain law and facts to those who are so predisposed to reject it – so I won’t try. But I would like to briefly comment on a higher issue, that I beleive remains valid even when you set aside all the legal and factual “disputes.”

    Birther logic would require a sitting president, elected by a majority of the people, and a majority of the electoral college, to be removed by some means. (They cite many different possible means, although it is now clear that this court-martial ain’t goin’ to be one of them). This is a cause only autocrats could love.

    They exhibit a lot of energy, excitement, and passion – all to achieve a decidely UNdemocratic end, and deny the will of the people. Does that sound like what the framer’s intended? I could understand some constitutional law professors trading barbs in law journals (as they often do, trying to get tenure). But why would an everyman take up such a dictorial baton?

    The truth does matter. But not all truths are equally important (and some arent truths, but I said I wouldn’t get into the fact-slinging). I would think that the votes of over 50% would be a heavy truth indeed.

    We live in the oldest democracy in the world. Frankly, I like it that way.

  101. Jax says:

    “Fair enough, but you still didn’t explain Soebarkah.”

    Nor will I, dear heart, nor will I. And I’ll tell you why: because I truly do not give a rat’s ass about what someone might have called him when he was 10. If you showed me the adoption papers, which you haven’t, I still wouldn’t care. You could, in fact, show me notarized documentation that at the age of 11 he was adopted by a biker gang and legally changed his name to Vladmir J. Cumstein the Malnourished and I STILL wouldn’t care. Because it does not have one single thing to do with whether he is eligible to be President or not.

  102. juniper55 says:

    Jax,

    “If they had, they wouldn’t have included a passage in the Constitution that stipulated that a black person was 3/5 of a human being. I mean, how could 3/5 of a person become president?”

    Recall that during the time of writing of the Constutition, a significant majority of the slave population was in the Southern colonies, for obvious reasons – that was where the land and climate was best for sustained agricultural utilization. In determining representation in Congress, however, folks thought doing a direct body count was problematic as the southern colonies would have many congressmen whereas the more sparsely populated northern colonies would have less (not so true today, we’ve flipped). Hence, the 3/5ths of a person idea. Not that it was good or fair.

    As far as Obama is concerned, folks also forget that he is half “white.” But we call him African American and disregard the Caucasian part. “Euro/Afro or Afro/Euro American” sounds silly (what do we call Tiger Woods’ children?).

  103. juniper55 says:

    “We live in the oldest democracy in the world.”

    No, the oldest representative republic. True democracy is mob rule. That is also why we have the College of Electors…

  104. Jax says:

    juniper,

    Recall that I’m very well aware of why the Founding Fathers ended up with the Constitution we have. My point is, if you birthers are so hung up on original intent, why not break that little gem out? I mean, that’s clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended, right?

    Is it because that would lead you down the path of “Perhaps the Founding Fathers were not omnipotent gods, and knowing that, they allowed us the ability to amend the constitution, and a judicial branch to rule on its nuances”?

    You’re trying to get Obama kicked out on a technicality, and when people point that out (and also point out that most of your logic is half-baked and unsupported by existing law), you scream, “ORIGINAL INTENT!” Well… go all the way with it, is what I’m saying.

  105. Yoshi99 says:

    Recall that during the time of writing of the Constutition, a significant majority of the slave population was in the Southern colonies, for obvious reasons – that was where the land and climate was best for sustained agricultural utilization.

    And don’t forget the fact there was a critical mass of rednecks in the South opposed to any and all progressive thought (such as realizing that ripping apart families and selling kids as chattel might not be the best policy). It was these same folks who condemned anyone based upon the fact they had one solitary drop of white blood in them, which is where the whole X-American moniker came from in the first place (wouldn’t want to just call them Americans and equal, no siree, ’cause they might start getting uppity and drinking out of my water fountain). Now, white folks are just getting crotchety that the former objects of their scorn have turned the label into a source of pride rather than one of condemnation.

    In other words, cry me a river, Juniper Berry.

  106. Keith says:

    It’s called “sedition.”

    And its about time people started calling a spade a d@mn shovel.

  107. Keith says:

    (what do we call Tiger Woods’ children?)

    Sam and Charlie

  108. Capt. Obvious says:

    Sam and Charlie

    Or Miss and Mr. Woods.

  109. Keith says:

    “We live in the oldest democracy in the world.”No, the oldest representative republic.True democracy is mob rule.That is also why we have the College of Electors…

    No.

    We live in a republic that is governed as a representative democracy.

    The only thing the word ‘republic’ denotes is that we have neither a monarch nor a priest as Head of State.

    Democracy is NOT mob rule. Anarchy is mob rule, and that is what many of the Tea Baggers are advocating.

    I’m sure your local Junior College or High School Adult Education program can hook you up with a remedial civics class.

  110. Capt. Obvious says:

    No.
    We live in a republic that is governed as a representative democracy.The only thing the word ‘republic’ denotes is that we have neither a monarch nor a priest as Head of State.Democracy is NOT mob rule. Anarchy is mob rule, and that is what many of the Tea Baggers are advocating.I’m sure your local Junior College or High School Adult Education program can hook you up with a remedial civics class.

    People quote Plato saying, “Democracy passes into despotism.” but fail to understand the full context and therefore meaning.

  111. Chilidog says:

    Birthright citizenship remains murky, and will remain murky, and maybe a Constitutional amendment may be required at the end of the day to clarify it.

    The 14th Amendment seem pretty clear to me.

  112. Christopher Mathews says:

    The next part of the liveblog can be found here.