Monday, May 9, 2016

SPECIAL REPORT: BIRTHER ISSUE IN THE 2016 ELECTION TRUMP v. CLINTON Understanding Trump's Claim of Hillary Clinton being "First Birther"

The Post & Email
Understanding Trump's Claim 
 Hillary Clinton - "First Birther"


Why the denial of Judy v. Obama 14-9396's forma paupers is more about Cover for Murder
and why arbitrary denial is suspect for the cover-up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sometimes I think being a Federal Declared Official Democratic Party Candidate for President who is mostly covered up, accept by the Federal Election Commission, is a call to be a Reporter. Maybe write some things Reporters and Newspapers hate Blogs for because of their heightened ability of Free Press? Let's face it Barack Obama's motive for getting into the divorce/custody records of his political opponent in 2004 was indeed about "reporting" a Republican's marital infidelities.

In a quick review, Jack Ryan had been a successful Businessmen prior to his U.S. Senate campaign in 2004 against Barack Obama and for a community organizer to out do a successful businessmen with a net worth of tens of millions of dollars, in Illinois getting elected would need some gasoline. You need some real dirt for fire combustion against your political adversary and tapping the guilt of Ryan in front of Republicans 'moral code' was designed as a well justified plan in unsealing his divorce/child custody records leading to his withdraw.

Ryan would later complain it was really an unprecedented maneuver. Jack Ryan has characterized what happened to him as a "new low for politics in America".[15]According to Ryan, it was unprecedented in American politics for a newspaper to sue for access to sealed custody documents. Ryan opposed unsealing the divorce records of Senator John Kerry during Kerry's race against George W. Bush in 2004, and Kerry's divorce records remained sealed. Ryan subsequently made a statement requesting "Let me be the only person this has happened to. Don’t ask for Ted Kennedy’s. Don’t ask for John McCain’s. Don’t ask for Joe Lieberman’s. Just stop. This is not a good precedent for American society if you really want the best and brightest to run."

The desensitization of the Public has nearly come full circle for the Clinton's as they face the new generations of voters learning all about the part Hillary Clinton played in her own enabling of Bill Clinton's indiscretions that produced thousands of dollars in fines for them to pay off.

Bill Clinton Reported by multiple witnesses 2008 as going to bring the Birther
Qualification Principle up at the Democratic National Convention in 2008
against Barack Hussein Obama - but never did it. Speculation remains it was
a calculated truce between Obama's and "Hillary's" being elected after Obama.
It's really never been about liking Bill and Hillary Clinton as imperfect people, they are likable enough, but rather a commitment to the Truth that America has a deep yearning for which the Clintons' have constantly gotten in the habit of withholding or politically shaping for the public in ways most perfect for them.

Who knows why the public wants the Truth or if they prefer to be treated as children in a family?

What is it exactly that is hoped for in the accomplishment of revealing Truth?

Whether getting to the Truth is to 'justify' behavior by pointing out misdeeds of people who are elected in the misfortune we all know of every finding someone perfect, or if its based on the simple respect we hope they have for us, our vote to put them in the seat of authority, to handle the truth in a way greater then being treated in a child-adult relationship, I'm not sure, but what we do know is that TRUTH can be hard for Politicians to bear when it is testifying against them. There's a long line of politicians who have found their fortune, fame, and political seat wiped out with the revelations of truth, so there must be something to it that is not over-rated.


Why the denial of Judy v. Obama 14-9396's forma paupers is more about Cover for Murder
and why arbitrary denial is suspect for the cover-up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In's latest Post by hard-working Kevin Davidson aka Doc whose worked for the chagrin of Birthers tirelessly in the field of dis-claiming Obama's ineligibility with now over 4,000 Post, the latest Post entitled Trump blames Hillary for the birthers got my attention because he claimed not a smidgen of evidence exist that ties Hillary Clinton to being a Birther.. ever.

That's a pretty bold claim as the question first should be asked that, "If a Candidate for a Government Office can first be found by an opponent ineligible for that office by the very plain and simple qualifications listed for that office, making it a very easy race to win, shouldn't that be made?

 The very first line of attack, not the last line, should be in answering the question, "Is the person Qualified according to the Constitution outlining the basics?". We all should be in agreement on that.

I mean its rudimentary, elementary, and even an insult to the intelligence of Hillary Clinton to suppose she would not be considering the basic Qualification questions in the advent Presidential race regarding a political opponent, which makes the assertion that everyone including every Presidential Candidate isn't a Birther an insult to intelligence.

Now compound that with every constitutional scholars opinion I've come across as the Qualification Question of [natural born Citizen] is unsettled in the Judicial Branch's Highest Court and you have even more substantial reason to confirm all Candidates for President should be Birthers or they are dumb and stupid totally ignoring Congress's eight failed attempts to change it since 2003.

This explains WHY the Birther Movement is so big. Its' an adherence to the basic Principles of the Qualifications for the Highest Office in our Government.

We start with the first comment I made on Doc's Blog refuting his theory that 'no evidence' exist tying Hillary Clinton to being the first Birther as Trump asserted that he would raise the issue against her just like she would raise it against him. That makes it a very hot-button 2016 Principle Issue demanding Facts from Fiction ,the Public's, Media, as well as the Court's and Congress's attention. Three Video's below detail these facts.


CRJ May 9, 2016 at 10:49 am 

According to the Law Suit Petition of official record filed in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 14-9396
The Clintons were the original “birthers,” according to multiple witnesses including Bettina Viviano who told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.
“Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.
“It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.
Viviano said that she was on a conference phone call during the primary season in the spring of 2008 in which she heard Bill Clinton refer to Obama as ineligible for the presidency.
In the course of the phone conversation with Hillary delegates, she recalled, Bill Clinton spoke of Obama as [“the non-citizen.”]
[Michele Thomas], a Hillary campaigner from Los Angeles, confirmed to WND that she learned from “many people who were close to Hillary” that Obama “was not eligible to be president.”
She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just [two weeks] before the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.
The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”
Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.
“I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.
The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility
“And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’
“And then Bill never said anything.”
Others in the campaign who believe Gwatney’s murder was a message to the Clintons think it had to do with the fact that Gwatney was resisting an effort by the Obama campaign and the party to intimidate Hillary delegates into voting for Obama.
But Viviano argues that California delegates also were rebelling, and she says her source told her the same story two years later.
“I had never voted in my life. I wasn’t a Democrat, I wasn’t a Republican. I wasn’t anything,” Viviano said. “I didn’t know anything about any of this.”
Viviano said that when she and her co-workers informed Hillary campaigners that they were making a film about voter fraud, “the floodgates opened.”
“I mean, everybody had a story to tell about death threats, threats, intimidation, document falsifying, vandalism, property theft,” she said. “It was the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”
Viviano said that in research for the film, allegations and evidence that Obama was not eligible “came up immediately.”
“We were getting hit with so many things about Obama,” she said. “This is when (Bill) Ayers and (Rashid) Khalidi were in the news, and then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, and he’s not eligible to be president.’”
[Viviano was a Neutral Witness Politically Speaking]
Viviano insisted to WND that her reason for speaking out now was not related to the fact that Obama beat Hillary.
“It’s not about Hillary,” she said. “It’s about No. 1, I’m American, I live in a country where there is a Constitution and a set of laws. I also have somebody in the White House who has lied, obfuscated, provided what we all know to be forged documents about who he is.”
She acknowledges that she could jeopardize her Hollywood career.
“What can you do?” she said. “It’s my country. My dad fought for this country in World War II in the 82nd Airborne.”
Her late father, she noted, was shot down twice during the war and was awarded two Purple Hearts.
“I think, would he rather have me sitting in the corner cowering, and afraid of people, or would he rather have me tell the truth and what I saw?”
Viviano today is an avid Anti-Trump advocate and Hillary Clinton is on Record in her 2016 Campaign of having spent 5.3 million against Trump, more than any other candidate on Record.
Not acknowledging the Facts and Witnesses is paramount to participating in Cover Up.
The exaggeration of Clinton’s never being Birthers may be of the Type which only acknowledges self- testimony in being a Birther, and excluding in that Qualification Eligibility, but Anti Birthers have expanded their interpretation of Birthers to be any question of ineligibility with the Standard of Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
So any Qualification Question by Clinton’s in the past can easily be paraded under the Birther Tent.
I find the credit of Clinton exaggeration of Trump as Islamophobic and an isolationist actually much harder to digest than Trumps claim Clinton was a Birther based on evidence.
Trump’s claims to stop SYRIAN Refugees until they can be properly screened for Radicalism for the safety of Americans has been exaggerated extremely into isolationism and Islamophobia.
That’s taking Fair Trade and National Security as far out in left field as you can go for Political Points and to influence Votes.
Trump does not have to travel out to the extreme right to advocate an Official Record of Clinton’s Birtherism, and only the most naive fool would not consider that line of attack on a political opponent to be the Constitutional Right and thus credible in an attempt to Win.
Murder and the threats of more murder would quite naturally be about the only extreme to silence the Constitutional claims from going main stream by first tier Candidates.
This jives with the story of Viviano.
Docs Remarks
Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2016 at 10:56 am  (Quote) # 
The story is ludicrous, and lacking in specifics. Who corroborates Viviano’s remark about the conference call? Who are these “many people close to Hillary”? This is the sort of junk that WND publishes. It has no value.
CRJ: “It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.

CRJ's Remark
CRJ May 9, 2016 at 2:55 pm  (Quote) # 
Dr. Conspiracy: The story is ludicrous, and lacking in specifics. Who corroborates Viviano’s remark about the conference call? Who are these “many people close to Hillary”? This is the sort of junk that WND publishes. It has no value.
Maybe the question should be “How can you disprove her Report at an Event you had nothing to do with?
Several factors affect witnesses’ credibility. A credible witness is “competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief.”[1] Generally, a witness is deemed to be credible if they are recognized (or can be recognized) as a source of reliable information about someone, an event, or a phenomenon.
That’s exactly why a Court of Law is about the only way for you to establish your Claim that she is not credible. I highly recommend your own well established past of sitting on Facts rather then stirring fiction is one to be admired and one you should consider in this instance.
The oath of Testimony is one that credibly we both would agree needs to happen, and Bill and Hillary Clinton would definitely qualify as “Witnesses” to appose Viviano’s claims and I’d be happy to call them if a Trial is offered.
Short of that, your own claims of corroboration are subject to political pious.
Just another reason why Judy v. Obama 14-9396 really is much more relevant to the Truth I would think you were hoping to defend?
If anything, my Report is Recorded in a Court of Law in an attempt to be heard, whilst your’s is in the public wind of innuendo.
Of an interest to the Public in this matter would be two women's testimonies recorded and seen below as well as the gunning down of the subject who killed Bill Gwatney with the public dash cams of the Officers involved in the chase, and killing; along with Bill Gwatney's wife who in 2008 was chosen and very closely monitored as you see in her delivery of Arkansas delegate count at the National Democratic Party Convention. The first video in the car chase is somewhat graffic discretion for minors is advised.
Bill Gwatney dash-cam Police Kill/Murderer Link/ and Corsi Interview Michele Thomas

and a Quick 34 second partial Betina Viviano Interview with Jerome Corsi that is included in Judy v. Obama 14-9396

The adage that it is better to support a lie than the truth is an embarrassment to any political party hoping for credibility with the Public. The truth is there are reasons, witnesses, and Official Court Record that support Hillary Clinton being a Birther that are supporting Trump in his Claim Hillary was the first Birther and to disclaim that Official Testimony under oath is needed and required. We have definitely seen Clinton's testimony vary a little from public statements to statements made under oath.

In my opinion Hillary Clinton would only do herself credit by admitting it's intelligent to question and recommend a Trial be held on Obama's qualification to settle very important questions like, "Was [Obamacare] even signed by a legitimately constitutionally qualified person in the Office of the President or is it 'moot' by that missing?" This is a very important question that faces the public in choosing the next administration.

To contrast even the relevant facts that are brought forth in this very small report is to indulge in the swamps of fiction and delusion wholly reducible. This is what so many Media Reporters have done in either their political cow-tow to editors or publishers or whatever, amounting to a massive cover-up and little appetite for Truth fueling the anti-establishment movements they seem to be pulling their hair out about. If you want to credit the total collapse of Trust with the Public in political establishments this is a good place to start. Few Reporters will even admit to that they are in such a hypnotized delusion. 

If #Democrats choose Cody Robert Judy as their Presidential Nominee ALL they hope for, ALL they dream of, ALL they Espouse in their Platform is seen as Possible and True in the eyes of ALL THE WORLD and choosing the opposite promotes disrespect and dishonor. 

There is still time for that choice for Democrat Delegates, the FBI, and Hillary Clinton but we need your support to help with that. If you believe there is power in Truth please support us.
POSTSCRIPT: Obama's State Department - ONE MORE COVER-UP “Now we know the Obama administration consciously refused to give up key information about Hillary Clinton’s email in 2014. It covered up this email both from the court and Judicial Watch. MAKES YOU WONDER if Clinton has the goods on Obama's Birther Jock Strap #Democrats ,”


Here's the Link to Contribute if you'd like to Cody's Campaign improve your record for Taking A Stand for the Constitution.

Thank You!

Cody Robert Judy Campaign
Cody Robert Judy

Campaign Committee to elect Cody Robert Judy U.S. President in 2016.

Web Site
Keep coming back!

INSPIRING - I believe in You

Cody's Record is one you can Trust as one in the public service, and one that has served our Nation and will serve our Nation well in the Office of the President. The nucleus of our Constitution that may just be the collaboration or difference between the Truth and the Lie you will have a choice in voting for.

Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!

Every dollar counts towards a Campaign willing to take a stand for your individual Civil Rights and having a President like Cody Robert Judy, you can be sure that your Rights are going to be stood up for because he's the one with a Record in Court to prove that actions speak louder than words. Helping him out today is going to help you out Tomorrow.


1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

Other Courts

12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial

13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008

14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case

15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

Cody Robert Judy - U.S. President 2016
The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President

CAMPAIGN NEWS FLASH - Please visit a couple more of our Campaign Web Pages that are up, remodeled, and going. First the "Bio of Cody" page is up and also the "NEWS FLASH" page is up which details a news flash about Judy v. Obama 14-9396 in the United States Supreme Court.

No comments:

Post a Comment