Main Menu

LA Times perpetuates false Clinton birther meme

It’s hard to blame Michael Finnegan of the Los Angeles Times for quoting the 2008 Clinton Campaign manager for a fact about the 2008 Clinton Campaign, but the end result in the article, “Hillary Clinton did not spread a lie that President Obama was born in Africa,” is still the perpetuation of a false story. Finnegan writes:

An Iowa volunteer in Clinton’s 2008 campaign against Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries was fired for sending out an email perpetuating the so-called birther tale, said Patti Solis Doyle, who managed Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

The incident didn’t happen in 2008, but rather in October of 2007. We know because the press covered the story at the time (see Ben Smith’s article at Politico from December of that year). That this email appeared in 2007 is extremely significant because there were no birther rumors circulating in 2007. Indeed the offensive email had nothing to do with Obama’s place of birth at all; it suggested that he was a Muslim.

, , ,

22 Responses to LA Times perpetuates false Clinton birther meme

  1. avatar
    Rickey October 10, 2016 at 6:26 pm #

    In Finnegan’s defense, Patti Solis Doyle did answer “Yes” when Wolf Blitzer asked her if the e-mail was about the birther conspiracy. She undoubtedly was confused, as she was speaking nine years after the fact. The written story at this link correctly states that the e-mail was about Obama being a Muslim, but listen to the audio.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/trump-clinton-debate-patti-solis-doyle-birther-obama/

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    Oops, omitted link to LA Times story.

    I emailed Finnegan about the error. We’ll see if it gets fixed.

  3. avatar
    Rickey October 11, 2016 at 12:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Oops, omitted link to LA Times story.

    I emailed Finnegan about the error. We’ll see if it gets fixed.

    He responded to me and asked if I was sure that the e-mail published by Ben Smith is the e-mail that Doyle was referring to. I pointed out that (a) the Smith e-mail was forwarded by a Clinton volunteer in Iowa to the Iowa Democratic Chairman; (b) that the volunteer was terminated because of the e-mail; and (c) that the e-mail was forwarded late in 2007, just as Doyle said to Wolf Blitzer. The likelihood that two anti-Obama e-mails were forwarded by two different volunteers in Iowa late in 2007, both of whom were then terminated, is extremely remote. I also pointed out to him that there was no birther movement in 2007 and I linked him to the Loren Collins essay about the origins of birtherism.

    As of this minute Finnegan’s piece has not been updated, but he may be looking for clarification from Doyle and/or Smith.

  4. avatar
    JD Reed October 11, 2016 at 11:55 am #

    Doc,have you requested a correction from the LA Times?

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 11, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    I did.

    JD Reed:
    Doc,have you requested a correction from the LA Times?

  6. avatar
    Cody Robert Judy October 12, 2016 at 11:13 am #

    [That this email appeared in 2007 is extremely significant because there were no birther rumors circulating in 2007.]

    Clearly a False Statement as Lawrence B.Solum Article directly relates in the consideration of John McCain published in 2007. Clearly, McCain knew there was controversy with the Jurisdiction of Law one is born under relating to his own circumstances of “Foreign birth”

    http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/859/

    Why do anti-Birthers so narrowly interpret the focus on Obama and so widely expand the Principle ?

    Perhaps it serves a racial agenda or supercharges their position? That however always falls flat on its face with research.

    Clearly , the Issue had failed in Congress 8 times since 2003 outlined somewhat here as to proposals defeated.
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/10/12/the-obama-eligibility-question-part-ii/

  7. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm #

    Cody why do you persist in the false implication that congressional attempts to obtain an amendment permitting a naturalized citizen to become president had anything to do with Obama? To the extent that it was meant to benefit an identifiable individual, that individual was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater October 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm #

    Cody Robert Judy: Clearly , the Issue had failed in Congress 8 times since 2003 outlined somewhat here as to proposals defeated.

    Has nothing to do with Obama. This attempt had to do with making naturalized citizens like Kissinger eligible.

  9. avatar
    bob October 12, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

    Cody Robert Judy:
    Clearly a False Statement as Lawrence B.Solum Article directly relates in the consideration of John McCain published in 2007.

    Clearly ex-con Judy again fails at reading comprehension, as the article is discussing Trump’s lie that Clinton started the birther lies about President Obama.

    Why do anti-Birthers so narrowly interpret the focus on Obama and so widely expand the Principle ?

    Because the topic is Trump’s lies about Clinton birthering against President Obama; duh.

    And, of course, anti-birthers are merely reacting to birthers’ obsessive focus on President Obama’s eligibility.

  10. avatar
    Cody Judy October 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm #

    J.D. Reed: Cody why do you persist in the false implication that congressional attempts to obtain an amendment permitting a naturalized citizen to become president had anything to do with Obama?

    Well, the point is Congress can only ‘adopt’ Citizens, in the naturalization process from a limited number of circumstances that we notice at the time of birth. Those circumstances include both [Place] and considerations of [mother] and [father] as the following outlines and notices as [non-natural born Citizens]. It was the reason for the change in 1790 of [natural born Citizen] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
    to 1795 [Citizen] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 Congress recognizing it had superseded powers authorized by the Constitution.

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth a-h
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    Note: These are also a form of ‘naturalized citizens’ and Congress ‘only’ was given powers to adopt those who would be Citizens through the ‘naturalization’ powers given in the Constitution. Congress has no authority to create [natural born Citizens] because the Constitution does not enumerate such powers to Congress.

    These are “not” [natural born Citizens] we would notice of special interest…

    a-(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    c-(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of [parents] [both of whom are citizens of the United States] and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

    The point here is to recognize a parent of a child who is foreign – alien – or not a U.S. Citizen of the U.S. being recognized as a dis qualifier for [natural born Citizen]

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Has nothing to do with Obama. This attempt had to do with making naturalized citizens like Kissinger eligible

    The dynamics of 8 U.S. Code Subsection 1401 a-h actually specifically address your statement as false. Obama no doubt has a foreign father and a dual citizenship with this inherited foreign recognition.

    [Citizen] was the qualification for President only for those alive at the time of the new jurisdiction of law we call the U.S. Constitution. Obama was not alive, thus, with a foreign father is disqualified from being a natural born Citizen the same as those under the circumstances described in 1401 a-h or combination of circumstances.

    Clearly [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] is not a circumstance for which the Congress has to ‘adopt’ people wanting to be a [Citizen] however those others described in specific circumstances and conditions that enumerate inheritance from place and parents are.

    bob: Because the topic is Trump’s lies about Clinton birthering against President Obama; duh.

    And, of course, anti-birthers are merely reacting to birthers’ obsessive focus on President Obama’s eligibility.

    Clearly, the parameters of naturalization include and are not limited to those born outside the U.S. to foreign parents.

    To state ‘no birther rumors existed in 2007″ without any specific name is to address the whole naturalization process extended by Congress to all who meet the criteria that applies. This was in the article or post I addressed for discussion.

    [That this email appeared in 2007 is extremely significant because there were no birther rumors circulating in 2007.]

    It is not by accident that anit-birthers have created another name for those who must apply, or who are considered by definition under, for ‘naturalization’ that include Citizens who do not fill out paperwork but are recognized under the powers of authorization granted to Congress.

    To leave out the body of Congress, is also to leave out the authorizations and powers given to Congress.

  11. avatar
    Rickey October 13, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

    Cody Judy:

    Congress has no authority to create [natural born Citizens] because the Constitution does not enumerate such powers to Congress.

    Are you really that obtuse?

    Congress has the authority, in conjunction with ratification by the states, to amend the Constitution.

    The eligibility lawsuits regarding McCain technically were not “birther” lawsuits because no one disputed that McCain was born in Panama.

  12. avatar
    bob October 14, 2016 at 11:07 am #

    Cody Judy:
    The point here is to recognize a parent of a child who is foreign – alien – or not a U.S. Citizen of the U.S. being recognized as a dis qualifier for [natural born Citizen]

    Ex-con Judy — yet again — fails to recognize that birthers’ two-citizen-parent fantasy has been repeatedly rejected by courts, professors, and other experts.

    To state ‘no birther rumors existed in 2007″ without any specific name is to address the whole naturalization process extended by Congress to all who meet the criteria that applies. This was in the article or post I addressed for discussion.

    Try to keep up, ex-con Judy: the article is about Trump’s obsession with President Obama. Since Trump never doubted McCain’s eligibility, the source that ex con Judy touts is not relevant to the point that the article is making about Trump’s (and others birthers’) lies about President Obama.

  13. avatar
    Cody Robert Judy October 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm #

    Rickey: Congress has the authority, in conjunction with ratification by the states, to amend the Constitution.

    The eligibility lawsuits regarding McCain technically were not “birther” lawsuits because no one disputed that McCain was born in Panama.

    Of course 2/3rds of Congress does, which is really the point in exposing the 8 failed attempts to Amend the Pres. Q of [ natural born Citizen ] since 2003. Why would it need to be Amended if McCain or Obama were qualified?

    They both fail being born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents and neither were [Citizens] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. They both carry foreign citizenship either by jurisdiction of Law of the Land or inherited Parental Citizenship.

    bob: lies about President Obama.

    Mr Judy has kept up and it seems the Bigger Problem actually exist for Obama in perping his Birther Problem from family and friends much closer to him in relations then anyone here.

    https://youtu.be/iALGISsiFLA

    Of course anti Birthers must not believe Black People while talking about Obama’s Birth Place, and that is very racist in my opinion. Black People can tell the Truth as easily as White People. . Of course both can lie also.

    Congress and the Court’s just have not punished any of these, “Black Birther Liars” on the Video if they are lying, so we must assume their testimonies are indeed valid.

  14. avatar
    Scientist October 14, 2016 at 2:32 pm #

    Cody Robert Judy: Congress and the Court’s just have not punished any of these, “Black Birther Liars” on the Video if they are lying, so we must assume their testimonies are indeed valid.

    If lying on YouTube were a punishable offense, at least 80% of humankind would be in jail.

  15. avatar
    bob October 14, 2016 at 5:22 pm #

    Cody Robert Judy: Of course 2/3rds of Congress does, which is really the point in exposing the 8 failed attempts to Amend the Pres. Q of [ natural born Citizen ] since 2003. Why would it need to be Amended if McCain or Obama were qualified?

    So people like Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger could be president; duh.

    Scientist: If lying on YouTube were a punishable offense, at least 80% of humankind would be in jail.

    Including, of course, ex con Judy. Ex con Judy’s “Black People while talking about Obama’s Birth Place” are: Michelle Obama, President Obama, President Obama’s paternal grandmother, two random Kenyans, and Ambassador Peter Ogego.

    In other words, ex con Judy is recycling the same old tired birther lies.

  16. avatar
    Notorial Dissent October 15, 2016 at 5:09 pm #

    Curiously, all of the attempts I am familiar, with at least as I recall, were GOP backed.

  17. avatar
    bob October 15, 2016 at 5:25 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Curiously, all of the attempts I am familiar,with at least as I recall, were GOP backed.

    There was (is?) a Democratic House member who — on principle — introduces each session an amendment to make naturalized citizens eligible.

  18. avatar
    J.D. Reed October 15, 2016 at 6:59 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Curiously, all of the attempts I am familiar,with at least as I recall, were GOP backed.

    For example, Law school journal article, for Cody’s information. Arch conservative California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and conservative Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced bills to do away with natural born requirement, the latter not long after Schwarzenegger was elected Clifornia governor.

    http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3528&context=cklawreview

  19. avatar
    Rickey October 15, 2016 at 7:07 pm #

    Cody Robert Judy: Of course 2/3rds of Congress does, which is really the point in exposing the 8 failed attempts to Amend the Pres. Q of [ natural born Citizen ] since 2003. Why would it need to be Amended if McCain or Obama were qualified?

    Because they wanted naturalized citizens to be eligible to be president. McCain and Obama were never naturalized.

    They both fail being born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents and neither were [Citizens] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. They both carry foreign citizenship either by jurisdiction of Law of the Land or inherited Parental Citizenship.

    No Constitutional scholar believes your mythical two-citizen parent requirement.

    Neither Obama nor McCain carries foreign citizenship. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship when he was 23 years old. McCain never had Panamanian citizenship. As you have already been told, the treaty between the United States and Panama which created the Canal Zone specifically states that Panama had no sovereignty over children born in the Canal Zone to an American parent.

    Mr Judy has kept up and it seems the Bigger Problem actually exist for Obama in perping his Birther Problem from family and friends much closer to him in relations then anyone here.

    Mr. Judy is an ignoramus who has demonstrated time and again that he is incapable of learning anything. For example, we repeatedly explained to him where he was going wrong with his appeals, yet he continued to make the same mistakes. He is an utter failure, a convicted domestic terrorist who wastes his time running a fruitless “campaign” for president while at the same time supporting one of his opponents. And lets not forget the YouTube videos he creates which take comments out of context in a dishonest effort to make them appear to say things which the speaker had no intention of saying.

  20. avatar
    Rickey October 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm #

    Fox News attempts (and fails) to make the case that the birther movement began with the Clinton campaign.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/15/fox-s-most-recent-attempt-revisionist-history-origins-birther-controversy-falls-flat/213860