I am probably oversensitive on this point after three-plus years of hearing the birthers say Obama has "refused" to release papers and so forth. To my interpretation, a refusal can only come after a direct request. (I may be wrong about that.) In Obama's case, there is no record of any such request, either from a private individual, or by order of any court or agency, reaching Obama personally -- and thus no refusal. Just because someone under a swamp fan in some basement wants somebody to do something, doesn't mean that when they don't, they have "refused."

In this case, it seemed to me Dumezich declined to recuse himself. A nit, to be sure -- and probably a negligible one at that, since he concluded the exchange by saying "...'cause that wasn't going to happen." So it was clear that if the party HAD requested recusal, he WOULD have refused.

On a side note, it was perfectly clear to me that the various sidebars on recusal, and Riordan's actual recusal for the Mike Pence non-event, indicated how well prepared the members were. They had clearly previewed all the cases, understood who would appearing, what the general issues and complaints would be, etc.

Not something I would want to do, personally. In the act of lovemaking, I have this awful image of her bleeting out "Okay, okay, let me feenish!" And, it's not okay at all.

I see Gerry Triple Chin and Kilgore Trout are commenting there already.

I was very disappointed in the troll. I did react finally. You gave him support and hinted to take it easy on him. However, he abused your endorsement and continues shit on the board. Not that shit can't be cleaned up. It is that shit is easier to clean if it isn't there in the first place.

He may be a hell of a guy - but he is definitely NOT friend Foggy.

Hmm, mebbe I should help them " going viral " since this is the worst performance yet. The brifers can actually see where the money isn't going.

Would an elections board give any time whatsoever to those who believe in the Illuminati and the Sekrit Skull and Bones groups and their sekrit meetings to take over the world, The Bilderberg conspiracy stuff, the occultist groups, and other such conspiracies.

Cuz I can finds lots of 'evidence' online about these groups and tie anybody to them. And I can 'prove' that anybody was a spy for the CIA. And maybe went to Mars. Oh wait, those last two are Obama.

Absolutely we can moderate every post and only allow what the mods and Foggy approve. No problem.

Indeed:

In this context I think it's worth being reminded of what the members would have seen if they had referred to her pile-o'-crap she called "evidence":



(Happens to be my current avatar.)

Even setting aside the provenance, relevance, and admissibility of the document itself, and even setting aside the fact that the entry is CROSSED OUT (so it cannot in any sense be considered "listed" on the record in the first place), under no conceivable interpretation is the "last name" shown anything other than "Obama."

I find this kind of bald lie simply incomprehensible. And the birthers -- who apparently were taught in 5th grade (along with Vattel) that anything screeched in a Russian accent by a crazed California dentist is absolute gospel -- simply repeat it as fact. When, of all the lies, it is arguably the most bald. Orly even says "you have it in your packet." And it's simply not there. At all.

From an ORYR commenter:



Comments and sentiments like these are why, I think, some of us can get pretty riled in conversations like the one yesterday. Birthers, particularly Orly's, are pushing this idea that our very system has been corrupted. But it hasn't. The proceeding yesterday was no more evidence of their insane talking point than any other proceeding has been.

There was no corruption or bias. At worst there was frustration.

They want the uninformed to distrust the entire system, to only trust them, the givers of "information". This might not be a detail like the ones we usually debunk, but it's just as important to me.

Birthers, there's no evidence of corruption. None.

I'll note that I've attended lots of meetings of this sort. I have never attended a meeting where one of the commissioners did NOT openly disclose a potential conflict of interest. Anyone on an election commission has probably been appointed there. The main appointment method leads to an evenly divided panel of Republicans and Democrats.

In Indiana, an even split between the partisans leads to upholding the original decision, which is usually that the candidate remain on the ballot. In general, if the challengers fail to prove their case, the voters get to choose their candidate on election day. What happened yesterday is that the law was applied. For some reason, that appears to be a controversy on this board.

That, the application of the law, is exactly what happened yesterday, with regard to Obama, Santorum and (as I found later after fleeing inclement weather) Lugar.

I am frankly flabbergasted that there is any controversy about this, on this board of all places.

If that is your option realist....My remark was directed at the frustration where Foggy interceded for someone who promptly screwed him. I don't like it when folks I consider friends or at least acquaintances get deliberately screwed blue. He acted like a birfer - ie would not listen to about 20 lawyers who do this shit for a living. Trolling a trolling over the ocean blue.
Isn't that what some Obots do? Get a name and sit on it for 6 months, then strike when the iron is hot on one of the birfer blogs. MO of both sides in this issue.

I am not aware of any controversy on this point, nor did I mean to imply I wished to generate any.

As far as I could tell everything about the recusals and non-recusals was perfectly appropriate. I was merely making a tiny, tiny comment on CB's choice of the word "refuse" over an alternative like "decline." But nor did I infer that CB would have preferred recusal.

Unless I've missed something, there's no controversy.

I agree and as well agree that Orly will not permit this. Worse for her, I doubt she has anyone in her life who would try to do this. Her narcissism feeds her "useful"/"traitor" classification of people, which quite likely makes it impossible for her to have people in her life willing to take risks to save her.

Orly does have to grow up. She lives in a fantasy world where she is a beautiful, skillful heroine, lawyer, dentist, mother, Taekwondo blackbelt, breathlessly fighting singlehandedly the greatest threat to freedom the United States of America has ever faced. She has surrounded herself with sycophants who have encouraged her to spend what is probably tens of thousands of dollars perpetuating this fantasy. She dare not look at herself and see her the ugly, lying, spiteful, and hateful person who has made a laughingstock of any real accomplishments she has made for the sake of the adulation of a bunch of mainly racist conspiracy theorists. The sad part of it is that she's likely going to run herself into the ground for the sake of this pathetic adulation.

Not to be a jerk, but the moderator of the board just announced a week-long absence.

I don't know what that's about, and for that reason, am considering announcing my own indefinite absence too. Also.

Loh, quick question...

In reviewing the video of the hearing, I noted that, as the challenges to Obama were called, there was the standard statement made to the effect that "the submissions from the parties are in the binder and have been accepted into evidence." Of course, the significance of that full statement was lost in the ensuing discussion regarding "evidence" being "admitted" (as opposed to "lodged,").

We've made some fun of the fact that, once again, Oily lost to an empty chair (and certainly, neither President Obama nor counsel were present). But what I don't know--and I cannot find in the public records of the Indiana Election Commission--is information as to whether or not President Obama filed any response (or something of the nature of a strike and dismiss) to the challenges.

Do you know, or have a way of determining, if there was any response filed by Obama/counsel which would have then been placed in the record (and the binders) prior to the Commission meeting and considered by the Commissioners?

Thanks in advance for any insight you may be able to supply.

The Cleveland Clinic seems to have been writing about Orly:


A community blog by and about persons with this personality disorder notes:

LM K told us about this disorder sometime back in the Stone Age. I think we are very close to seeing the denouement that the community cited above discusses:

Being jailed for trespassing when she tries to storm the Rally for Liberty of the Liberty Caucus at the San Jose Hyatt Regency SJC Hyatt Regency San Francisco Hyatt Regency SFO Hyatt Regency "Exact room location will be posted here once it is available." might produce that crisis.

I'm sorry. I thought you meant specifically in regard to the electoral commission members' conflicts of interest and recusals. Of course I am aware of controversy otherwise, though IMO it's more of the tempest-in-a-teapot variety. If it has affected certain FB members more than others, for whatever reasons (and I think Foggy listed those on his own behalf very openly and clearly, including his health circumstances), then that's more than unfortunate.

If there's anything I can do to help, Loh (or Foggy, or anyone), you know how to reach me.

I'm on pins and needles! Orly's got more explosive evidence!! (Malware warning)

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=32127

Hah! Beat ya!

You did

Well, sure, because Orly only brings "most explosive evidence."

Well, I'm ready to give odds that she has discovered that two of the members of the commission -- the woman who dissed her evidence and the older guy in the center who warned her about perjury are .... ready? Democrats! In fact, the woman is the legal counsel for the Democratic Party and the man is the chairman of some section of it.

So that means they were BIASED!! How explosive can you get? Oh where is justice in our court system?

(Ignore the fact that the vote against her was 4-0 -- the Republicans were RINO thugs, of course).

Any takers?

I believe that at least one member will have "ties" to Iran or some other Muslim boogeyman.