What Trump Should Have Said About 'Birther' and Tax Returns - Larry Elder

What Trump Should Have Said About 'Birther' and Tax Returns - Larry Elder

Monday night's debate moderator, NBC's Lester Holt, asked Donald Trump why he "perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural­born citizen." Hillary Clinton added that Trump "has a long record of engaging in racist behavior, and the birther lie was a very hurtful one."

Trump defended himself by saying: "Sidney Blumenthal works for the campaign and (is a) close ­­ very close ­­ friend of Sec. Clinton. And her campaign manager, Patti Doyle ... during ... her campaign against President Obama, fought very hard. ... And if you look at CNN this past week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf Blitzer saying that this happened. Blumenthal sent McClatchy, (a) highly respected reporter at McClatchy, to Kenya to find out about it. They were pressing it very hard. She failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn't fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. ...

"I was the one that got (President Barack Obama) to produce the birth certificate. ... Sec. Clinton also fought it. I mean, you know ­­ now, everybody in mainstream is going to say, 'Oh, that's not true.' Look, it's true. You just have to take a look at CNN, the last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved." So Trump's defense is that he and Blumenthal were on an amazing race to see who could get Obama to disclose his birth certificate?

No, no, no. Trump should have said that James Asher, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief, tweeted ­­ just two weeks ago ­­ that Blumenthal "told me in person 'Obama (was) born in Kenya,'" and that Blumenthal "spread the Obama birther rumor to me in 2008, asking us to investigate."

He should have also said that journalist John Heilemann, co­author of "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime," is not exactly a right­winger. Heilemann, in 2015 on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, said that it was Hillary Clinton's 2008 election team that started questioning Obama's birth certificate.

Trump should have pushed back on the "racist" tag. When, where and how does questioning Obama's place of birth become "racist"? Questions were raised about whether then­presidential candidate Sen. John McCain was eligible because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Questions were raised about whether Barry Goldwater was eligible because he was born in Arizona when it was a territory, three years before it became a state. Were such questions "racist"?

What about Democrats' skepticism about Obama? According to a 2014 online survey conducted by YouGov as part of the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and published in a Washington Post blog, a majority of Democrats do not believe Obama is a Christian. Forty­five percent believe so, but 26 percent say they "don't know," 17 percent say he is "spiritual," 10 percent believe he is Muslim, and 2 percent think he is an atheist ­­ as does Obama defender Bill Maher. Are they religious "birthers"? Are they "racist"?

Holt also asked Trump about his tax returns. Clinton suggested he did not pay any taxes. Trump said, "That makes me smart," effectively conceding that he pays no taxes. No, that's dumb.

Trump could have said that one of Obama's BFFs and somebody whose support Clinton sought in the primaries, the Rev. Al Sharpton, owes nearly $5 million in taxes. Sharpton, Trump could have reminded us, hosts a show for NBC where he supports the tax­and­spend policies of the Democratic Party, while not paying the taxes he wants increased on the rich. Why are the media, Trump could have asked, indifferent? Double standard.

Trump could have argued that he's not required by law to disclose his taxes. But Clinton was required by law to release all work ­related email. She didn't. And the FBI gave her a pass. But an IRS audit is essentially a dispute with the IRS over a tax issue. And the taxpayer loses any leverage if the details become public before a resolution is reached, because the IRS will refuse to compromise for fear that people will think they are caving in. So Trump loses leverage by prematurely going public. Why, he could have asked, would any rational person do that? On the other hand, nothing's stopping Sec. Clinton from releasing the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches.

Trump could have asked Clinton why she's not disclosed her transcripts from her numerous highpaid Wall Street speeches. He could have asked why, when Obama refused to disclose his grades and test scores, the media lost interest. Double standard.

And these are just two issues ­­ birtherism and taxes ­­ where Trump let Clinton get off the hook. He let her put on gloves and a ski mask and wipe out the bank's vault.

There are two more debates. Trump needs to raise his game or he's fired.

Birtherism: Where it all began

Birtherism: Where it all began - Ben Smith and Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

A brief history of birtherism Birtherism is the latest and most enduring version of a theory in search of facts.
The original smear against Obama was that he was a crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread virally after Obama appeared on the national stage – to the casual observer, from nowhere – with his early 2007 presidential campaign announcement. (See: Obama kin: Birther rumors 'a shame')
All through that year, the Obama campaign – with the affirmation of most leaders of both parties – aggressively battled that smear by emphasizing his Christian faith. Obama’s controversial but emphatically Christian pastor emerged as a campaign issue and the belief that he was a Muslim seemed to lose traction. (See: Clinton: Birther claims 'ludicrous')
Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See: Birther debate alive across U.S.)
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

The Media’s Complicity in the Birther Issue

The Media’s Complicity in the Birther Issue

via Commentary Magazine by Peter Wehner on 5/30/12

Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu does a fine job schooling CNN's Soledad O'Brien over Donald Trump and the so-called birther issue. In saying this, I should point out that I would go further than the Romney campaign in repudiating Trump, who is a noxious figure in American politics. What Trump is doing in calling into question Obama's citizenship is attempting to delegitimize the president, to argue that his presidency is unconstitutional and that he is alien. Crossing that line damages our political discourse and American politics more broadly.
There's of course no rulebook one can consult when it comes to the matter of repudiating supporters. It's a judgment call that has to be done on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Trump, who is a prominent Romney supporter, his attraction to conspiracy theories deserves a strong rebuke. When a political party gives a home to those who peddle in paranoia – a home to self-promotional cranks — it leads to an erosion of credibility.  Romney ought to say so.
With that said, CNN is complicit in this political circus as well. My point isn't that the issue shouldn't be covered at all; it is that, as Governor Sununu points out, the network is fixated on Trump and the birther issue. It's drawn to it like a moth to a flame in a pitch-dark night. Here's the problem. Bill Maher donated a million dollars to a super PAC supporting President Obama, and to my knowledge Obama hasn't distanced himself from Maher's crude attacks on women. Yet CNN seems remarkably indifferent to this story. I wonder why.

Beyond that, it's worth pointing out the media's tendency to bemoan what it promotes. There are dozens of significant and complicated topics that CNN could explore with care. But it has decided to hyper-focus on Donald Trump and the birther issue. That's bad enough. But what makes it worse is when some in the media then saddle up on their high horses and lament that lack of seriousness in American politics. They pretend what they most want is a sophisticated and elevated conversation about the weightiest issues facing our nation and the world. They deride politicians for focusing on trivialities, even as they are the ones putting the spotlight on the trivialities and demanding politicians address them.
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise," C.S. Lewis wrote. "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." In our time, Professor Lewis could have added that the press gives a platform to stupid distractions championed by buffoonish figures — and then complains about the low state and childish nature of American politics.

Birther news

Jay Tea at Wizbang has a couple of observations touching on the Birth Certificate Conspiracy.

Stripped of the whole "birther" baggage, the bill simply codifies something that has been presumed to be common sense, but has been challenged. If you wanna be president, you better be ready to demonstrate that you meet even the minimalist requirements spelled out by the Constitution. And while on the surface it gives the birthers a victory, it takes away their very reason for existence as of the next election cycle.

While my personal philosophy is "don't cater to the crazies' delusions," in this case I find nothing objectionable about the solution -- and, indeed, their "demand" here doesn't really offend my sensibilities. Indeed, I think it's entirely OK.

Indeed.  If this bill had been law during the last election, the whole Birther movement would have been nipped in the bud.  Anyone claiming Obama was not a "natural born citizen" would have to account for the fact that Obama made it onto the ballot in Arizona.  Someone would have had to have presented reasonable proof to the Secretary of State.

I guess the remaining question is, will the Birthers notice their reason for existence has evaporated?

Meanwhile, there's a birther who's feeling exceptionally certain of his convictions. And those convictions might cost him his freedom.

Terry Lakin is utterly unconvinced that President Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and as such has no authority to hold the office of President of the United States, let alone carry out the duties of said office. And under that theory, Lakin -- that's Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, M.D., United States Army -- is refusing to accept his orders as Commander In Chief sending Lakin to Afghanistan. He says his oath to obey the Constitution and refuse to obey illegal orders takes precedence.

After looking at what makes an order "illegal" -- orders that are illegal on their face, or orders given by people not in a position to give them, Jay believes Larkin doesn't have a case.

There is nothing inherently illegal about the orders issued to Dr. Lakin. They were not issued directly by President Obama, but by Dr. Lakin's chain of command. Further, as far as the military is concerned, the issue of Obama's eligibility is a closed matter. Quite frankly, it's not up to the president to prove to the military that he is qualified to be their Commander In Chief. We have civilian control of the military, and that means that the civilian governing structures decide who controls the military -- not the military itself. And Obama was certified as the president by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College when they confirmed him in office.

Maybe he can assist the prison doctor wherever he winds up.

Obama's Birth Certificate

Jay Tea comments at length at his blog.

At the Tea Party Convention this weekend, professional gadfly Andrew Breitbart got into it with some folks from World Net Daily about the "birther" issue. For those who've been living under a rock for the past two years, that's the term for those people who -- to put it charitably -- have unresolved doubts as to whether or not President Obama was actually born in Hawaii and is therefore Constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

Breitbart's main argument seems to be that it is a "loser" argument. And he's right.
....
But let's look at the "birthers" from a slightly more strategic level.

First up, what are they achieving now? Well, for one, they're giving Obama's supporters a ton of cover. While they're chasing this mythical "proof," they're NOT looking at what he's doing right now. By obsessing in what may or may not have happened on August of 1961 in Hawaii, or Kenya, or Indonesia, or Iceland, they're not paying attention to what's going on in DC today.

For another, they -- let's face it -- come across as silly. And that lets Obama's backers tar all of his detractors with a very broad brush, and distract from things that really matter.

For one more, I have to ask: what is their long-term goal? Let's play this out. Suppose they get proof that the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth is faked, and they get proof Obama was born in Kenya. Then what?

Well, it's way, way too late to overturn the election. Obama was certified as the winner, and his administration has been running things for for over a year. McCain and Palin admitted defeat and have moved on.

Congratulations, birthers. You've just given us President Joe Biden. Smooth move, assholes.

It's a losing issue, and it only gives ammunition to Obama's supporters.

Taranto on the Birth Certificate questions

From Best of the Web

Among many other points: 

• "Why has Obama spent X dollars defending himself against lawsuits when he could just produce the original birth certificate and make the whole thing go away?" X varies, just in our emails of the past 24 hours, from "thousands" to "almost a million"; one reader set the amount at "$950,000." As far as we know, all these estimates have a common source: thin air.

In any case, while this question sounds eminently reasonable, in fact it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the legal process. The "defense" against these frivolous lawsuits has consisted of filing a motion for summary judgment, which in every case has been granted.

In a motion for summary judgment, a defendant in a lawsuit asks the judge to dismiss the case as meritless before trial. In considering whether to grant such a motion, the judge is obliged to treat all facts in dispute as if they were resolved in the plaintiff's favor. He may dismiss the case only if he finds it is without merit as a matter of law. The defendant's introduction of additional factual evidence into the record would make the process more costly and time-consuming, not less.

The production of a 1961 birth certificate would make these lawsuits "go away" only if one assumes that it would persuade the plaintiffs to withdraw their claims, or not to file them in the first place. This assumption is completely fanciful. As we noted yesterday, birthers "claim without basis that today's birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday's is as well." Sure enough, an outfit styling itself the Western Center for Journalism has produced what purports to be a report from "an investigator" commissioned by "a retired CIA officer"--neither of them has a name--arguing that the original birth certificate might be fraudulent.

 And from the day before:

So why doesn't Obama release the original certificate? The Advertiser says it is "unclear" whether the president "would even be allowed to see it if he asked." It is clear, though, that the Hawaii statute governing disclosure of public records does not prohibit state officials from providing him with a copy, since he is "the registrant" and therefore has "a direct and tangible interest" in the record. One would think that Obama could persuade state officials to give him a copy, even if that is not their usual policy.

But the real question is: Why should he? The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit.

....

The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers' demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist--which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday, but that doesn't mean it isn't effective.