Trump: If Ted Cruz doesn’t stop cheating and attacking me, I have standing to sue him over his natural-born status

posted at 3:21 pm on February 12, 2016 by Allahpundit

I’m reasonably sure that whether Trump has standing doesn’t depend on whether Cruz is willing to run ads about eminent domain in South Carolina.

If he has standing, it’s because he’s directly competing with Cruz for the office of the presidency. If he doesn’t, a “dirty trick” by the Cruz campaign won’t confer it on him. Either way, someone who’s sincerely concerned about having a president who wasn’t “natural-born” would never use the threat of a suit as leverage. It’s as if Trump is saying, “Cancel your attack ads and I’ll choose not to care about putting a foreigner in charge of the military.”

Actually, some Trump fans are already following through on the threat. I’m not sure why this new federal suit in Alabama is buzzy news today considering Cruz has already been sued elsewhere, including in federal court, but it is. Probably it’s a combination of the high stakes in South Carolina plus the fact that the suit was filed in Alabama, part of the “SEC Primary” on March 1 that Cruz has been eyeing as his best chance to pile up delegates. There’s not a ghost of a chance that a court will remove him from the ballot if he’s the nominee (there’s probably zero chance that they’d remove now that he’s proved he’s capable of winning a state, frankly), and if he’s not the nominee by the time a ruling comes down no one will care. The goal here isn’t to win the suit, just to cast a shadow over Cruz in hopes that it’ll give some South Carolinians pause.

I assume the author of the story has simply misdescribed the complaint, as I can’t get the two boldfaced parts here to square:

Five Cullman County residents – all supporters of Donald Trump – filed a federal lawsuit this week against 2016 Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, alleging that the Texas senator is ineligible for the presidency because he’s not a natural born citizen…

While the plaintiffs concede that Cruz is a citizen, they contend that Cruz is not a natural-born citizen. They cited a portion of the Constitution that says “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.”

“Plaintiffs allege that at the time of Mr. Cruz’s birth, the United States could not confer citizenship upon him under any law or legal theory that exists,” the lawsuit states. “‘Natural born’ means native born within the United States or its dominions/territories. Canada is not a territory of the United States. Whether the Defendant’s mother was/is a United State’s [sic] citizen is irrelevant. If however, she had been an Ambassador to a foreign country; or, stationed in another country while serving in the military, such would not bar Mr. Cruz’s candidacy.”

If there’s no law or legal theory by which American citizenship could have been conferred on Cruz upon his birth to a woman with American citizenship, when exactly did he become a a U.S. citizen? He’s never been naturalized. That’s another clue that this suit is political. The politically savvy way to attack Cruz’s status is to claim that he was a citizen at birth via statutory law but that the Constitution’s “natural-born” clause imposes a requirement above and beyond that for citizens who want to run for president — namely, birth on American soil. If you’re going to make the move they make here, claiming that Cruz wasn’t a citizen at his birth, period, then you’re basically stuck arguing that he’s … an illegal immigrant. That’s a serious, politically loaded charge to throw at him (although Trump has flirted with it in passing) and risks sparking a backlash among people who may be open to ruling Cruz ineligible but not to stripping him of his citizenship entirely. Assuming the excerpt is accurate, it sounds like that was a bridge too far for the plaintiffs. So they end up conceding that Cruz is a citizen but not by birth, which leaves him with no way to have become a citizen except by magic.

Enjoy this while it lasts because we might be just eight days away from Trump retiring the eligibility stuff against Cruz. I think he’ll keep it up for the rest of the month since Cruz remains strong in the southern states Trump is competing with him for, but threatening to get Cruz thrown off the ballot is a risky tactic for Trump insofar as it might anger some of Cruz’s fans. A guy who’s cruising towards the nomination, as Trump might be next Saturday night, doesn’t want to alienate any parts of the GOP base more than he absolutely needs to, especially since there’s already bound to be a mini-revolt on the right in the general election if he’s the nominee. As soon as he feels secure that Cruz can’t catch him, the prudent thing to do would be to drop all the eligibility stuff and try to be conciliatory. I think he will, sooner rather than later.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

Renewal

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM

Bmore

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM

bluefox on February 13, 2016 at 3:38 PM

“he did submit in Jan 2015”; that should be 2016!

bluefox on February 13, 2016 at 4:02 PM

Repost:

The point is that Trump has said he would use them JUST LIKE OBAMA has, to get around Congress. That falls into your “bad” category, if you hadn’t noticed.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 2:30 PM

How would you propose to reverse the illegal EO’s then that Obama issued?

bluefox on February 13, 2016 at 2:38 PM

Still waiting on your reply.

bluefox on February 13, 2016 at 4:07 PM

Renewal

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM

WOW, so beautiful!! I liked part of this comment in the article:

Even if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination and the presidential election, there will be a Trump in Washington, D.C., come November.

I prefer “There will be a Trump in Washington, D.C., come January 2017.”

bluefox on February 13, 2016 at 4:11 PM

Well, guess I’ll go howl somewhere else:-)

bluefox on February 13, 2016 at 4:13 PM

TED CRUZ needs to keep punching Donald Trump right in the face…..every day

Realdemocrat1 on February 13, 2016 at 4:28 PM

Hey TED CRUZ, keep punching that whiney LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Donald Trump right on the face….

Realdemocrat1 on February 13, 2016 at 4:30 PM

INSULTPALOOZA!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/upshot/trumps-twitter-insults-of-the-week-include-super-bowl.html?_r=0

Trump, our Orange Obama is pissy, rude, BUT HE’S OUR TYRANT!!!

Just wait till he gets even in 2017 (hopefully he won’t turn on his supporters).

TRUMP
GETEVEN

PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 4:42 PM

WINNNNNNNNINNNNNNNG!!!!!

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump-mocked-bang-daughter-ivanka-trump-daily-show-video/

Donald Trump dislikes muslims, Mexican immigrants and Hillary Clinton, but he sure loves his daughter, Ivanka Trump. He actually loves her a little too much, as ‘The Daily Show’ pointed out all the times Donald said he would have sex with Ivanka if they weren’t related! Click to watch.

Out of all the outrageous things Donald Trump, 69, has said — and there are plenty — this might be the grossest thing to come out of the former Celebrity Apprentice‘s star’s notoriously big mouth. Trevor Noah, 31, and the rest of The Daily Show mocked the Republican presidential candidate for the far-too-many times he has creepily lusted after his own daughter, Ivanka Trump, 34. Get ready to feel you skin crawl!

“I’ve said that, if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her,” Donald proudly admitted during the Dec. 9 debut of the TDS’s newest segment, Don’t Forget: Donald Trump Wants To Bang His Daughter. Donald’s boast came in a 2006 appearance on The View when he was discussing the chance of Ivanka posing nude in Playboy!

But that was nearly ten years ago. There’s no chance he could still feel like that, right? Wrong! “Yeah, [Ivanka’s] really something and what a beauty, that one,” Donald was quoted in a Sep. 2015 Rolling Stone article. “If I weren’t happily married, and ya know, her father…”

Ewww. That’s unsettling. Trevor was also upset at Donald’s creeping. “When you’re ranking the reasons you wouldn’t bang your own daughter, the fact that you’re her father should be at the very top of the list,” he said. “Actually, now that I think about it, there shouldn’t even be a list. You shouldn’t need a list.”

Truth. Donald has been “complimenting” his daughter for a while than that. In 2003, while talking to Howard Stern on his radio show, Donald said, “You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody. And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s six feet tall, she’s got the best body.”

PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 4:48 PM

Breaking: Scalia dead

Is this true?

http://www.kvia.com/news/breaking-surpreme-court-justice-scalia-dies-during-hunting-trip-in-marfa/37981652

CivilDiscourse on February 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM

i will say…..having Melania Trump as FIRST LADY would be finally a classy First Lady (except that modeling thing).

PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 5:05 PM

Breaking: Scalia dead
CivilDiscourse on February 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM

Oh crap.

I hope (but doubt) that the Senate will delay confirming any nominee for the next 11 months and two weeks.

FR says “Natural Causes…. I wouldn’t want to bet that is actually true.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3396677/posts

LegendHasIt on February 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM

It’s over.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

If Obama gets to replace him on the Court and the gop Senate will no doubt let him……..it’s over for LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.

PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 5:07 PM

……..how can you believe ANYTHING in a situation like this that we’re actually told.

A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 5:09 PM

Wow.

Kenosha Kid on February 13, 2016 at 5:09 PM

The senate better not confirm anyone

rik on February 13, 2016 at 5:14 PM

Has the gop caved on Scalia’s replacement and demands by the MEDIA AND OBAMA that the SCOTUS not start their term in October without the vacancy filled?

#gopiscrap

Has McCain endorsed Obama’s radical appointee to the court yet? Loretta Lynch would be my guess…….or MAYBE ERIC HOLDER.

God help us.

PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 5:20 PM

She wanted 5 million. Trump says he went as high as 4, but the family says only 1.9 million. Now years after they were trying to get first 5 million, then 995,000. Then it went up for auction with a reserve price of 199,000. Meanwhile the restaurant and pawnshop that originally had resisted finally sold for 2.1 million and 1.6 million.

Now Trump has divested himself of his properties in Atlantic City, and opportunity has passed. This woman is an object lesson in what Trump has been saying about negotiation. She’s a looser of her own making. The house sold for $550,000. She’s now 90 and in a nursing home.

claudius on February 13, 2016 at 9:10 AM

Sorry, but at the time Trump claimed he offered her about $2 million. She’d been offered $1 million a decade before that, and since then her property had really appreciated, in fact it was widely reported as the MOST desirable privately owned parcel in Atlantic City while it was booming – multiple casino’s wanted to get her property. It wasn’t until many years later that Trump claimed he’d supposedly offered her $4 million – and he’s notorious about outright lying, bragging, etc.

Nor did SHE or her family EVER say they wanted $5 million. In fact she said she just wanted to live in the home she’d bought with her loved husband and run a business with him there – he’d since passed away – and raised their 5 children in. It was HER property – she had every right to refuse ANY offer that she didn’t want.

Trump wasn’t willing to take a no, so he cut a backroom deal with the government for them to use eminent domain to take the property and give it to him – for a FRACTION of the property’s value. The government tried to steal it out from under her for only $251,000 for a property worth at least $2,000,000. A value of AT LEAST that was clearly established when a couple of other LESS valuable properties sold for about that in that same time period.

Even worse, Trump had already had his construction workers try to FORCE her to sell with nasty construction “accidents” where they broke her windows, dropped cinder blocks through her roof and punched holes in her walls, set her roof on fire, etc., etc. and she had to sue them to get money to cover the damage too.

Vera Coking fortunately won in court after years fighting Trump – and she got to live in her home for another 20 years exactly as she wanted to, until she was in her 90s and no longer able to live alone. Of course in the meantime, Atlantic City went bust in a big way – including Trump’s casino going bankrupt along with a number of others. Property values plummeted. Then her family sold the property for $530,000. Which is more than a woman in her 90’s could ever begin to spend.

This tactic of trying to make it out like she really lost out pr was somehow stupid because the property sold for less 20 years later is really both disingenuous and disgusting. Not everything is about money – and what her property sold for 20 years later has NOTHING to do with what it’s value was back when Trump was trying to steal it from her. Nor does the money amount have anything to do with her private property rights and the fact that he was trying to steal an elderly widow’s property out from under her against her will just so he could build a limo waiting area to line his own already bloated pockets just a little more. His position on this both then AND now, along with his lies, are really horribly disgusting.

Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost an Elderly Widow Her Lifelong Home — at a fraction of it’s market value, along with several others over the years. Fortunately he lost in court and Vera Coking got to keep her home – after millions were wasting fighting it for years in court.

Or as John L. wrote about the eminent domain issue:

Take the time to read about “The Donald” and the case where the Institute for Justice(Note the name) defeated him. Study it closely before you give him a A, B, or even a C grade.http://www.cato.org/blog/donal…And here’s National Review on the topic: http://www.nationalreview.com/… . Note the last sentence.Can Republicans support someone with so little regard for the property of others? Let’s hope not.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 5:36 PM

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship.

Except that’s not quite correct. In fact for some migrants and other circumstances, they never required any verification of revokation – and they certainly wouldn’t have done so for a newborn – a parent CANNOT revoke a child’s citizenship from the USA. And his mother has always been an American citizen – and she believed that for him to even become a Canadian citizen at all, she would have had to take affirmative action – something she never did.

“Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?”

No “choice” was ever necessary. That’s just a false assumption.

“Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.
It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974. Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.”

She reported his birth to the nearest consulate as she was supposed to do. Which is EXACTLY why they had no problems re-entering the USA. Why does that not even occur to you, when it’s clearly the most likely explanation?

” If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.”

Yet more utter absurdity. He is NOT required to release the documents to you. Only to the state eligibility board to verify his eligibility. He’s on all the state’s ballots – even the blue state of Illinois, where it was challenged, has said very clearly that he’s eligible along with similar cases in another state (likely more than one). What’s more, the mere suggestion that he could be an illegal immigrant shows just how absurd this entire article you’re quoting from is. Try explaining how he’d EVER have managed school, jobs, passing several legal bar exams, Clerking for Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, arguing multiple cases in the Supreme Court and WINNING many of them, qualifying to be a Senator etc., etc., could EVER have occurred if he was an illegal alien? Obviously it’s impossible. Your entire article is nothing more than an anti-Cruz smear job using false and ludicrous claims.

” Even assuming a CRBA was filed, the weight of the legal evidence indicates that Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen because he was born outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. and obtained U.S. citizenship by an Act of Congress (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution).

ezspirit on February 13, 2016 at 9:16 AM”

WRONG. Cruz was NEVER naturalized, period. He is a natural born citizen as per the Constitution, not an Act of Congress. An act passed by the First Congress merely showed what the Founding Fathers meant by the term when it came to children born abroad to a citizen parent. It didn’t change anything.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 6:00 PM

I lived next door to Elanor Elizabeth Wilson for many years I was present when she went to Canada Immigration in 1968 and denounced her US Citizenship and surrendered her US Passport….

ezspirit on February 13, 2016 at 9:24 AM

ROFLMAO!! Well, that’s a disgusting and pathetic – not to mention transparently dishonest – claim from the get go then. Cruz was born in Dec. 1970. They moved there only 3 years before he was born at the most – and at that time you had to have FIVE years residence on a permanent visa to even legally APPLY for citizenship. Cruz’s mother was on a temporary work visa the entire time. There is no way possible for her to have relinquished American citizenship and gotten Canadian in ’68.

Some people will go to ANY lengths to smear a good candidate.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 6:07 PM

That Ted Cruz was a Canadian at birth has never been DispuTed.

ezspirit on February 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM

It was certainly disputed in 2013 and prior – Cruz had no clue he had Canadian citizenship, because he had no idea they had birthright citizenship. As soon as that news broke, he filed official papers revoking that citizenship. That’s something that can’t ever be undone.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 6:12 PM

Trump’s supporters are a cross-sectional bloc of Republicans, conservatives, rich, poor, women, men, working class white collars, Evangelicals, etc. Cruz has no such coalition. In fact, he ruined his chances of creating such a coalition by voting for the TPP and alienating working class whites, whose jobs he favors shipping overseas.

His appeal is strictly limited to family values/religious/Evangelical voters:…

Doomberg on February 13, 2016 at 9:58 AM

In what alternate universe??? Multiple polls asking people their SECOND choice candidate, Cruz got by the most by a good margin, Rubio the next, and Trump by far the the LEAST. Trump’s supporters also primarily went to Cruz, not Rubio. ALL of the candidates have “cross-sectional” appeal. Cruz gets not only the evangelicals/social conservatives, but he gets the most principled fiscal and Constitutional conservatives too. He also gets slightly more women then men, where Trump gets far fewer women than he does men. And once anyone starts actually running any ads of Trump’s massive history of really disgusting misogynistic statements, even more women will melt away from him. Trump’s biggest support groups are the less than college, lower income, men and “FU GOP,” voters. Cruz’s biggest support groups are some college or college degree, higher incomes, principled conservatives (TEA party e.g., fiscal and constitutional conservatives & some libertarians & social conservatives too), and slightly more women than men. Rubio’s main support groups are more than bachelors degree, higher incomes, moderates. But they ALL get significant support across the board.

That you claim Cruz ONLY gets the support of social conservatives proves that you’ve got ZERO credibility, right off the bat.

What’s more, Trump is unelectable – or at the very least, the least electable of the GOP candidates. In fact the Dems are praying he IS our nominee because they think he’ll be the easiest to beat, and they’re almost certainly right.

Trump is the worst for honesty – second only to Hillary: Poll Nov. 4, 2015: Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 58 – 38 percent.

Poll Jan 28th, 2016: The [Washington] Post-ABC poll finds 69 percent of Americans feel anxious about of a Trump presidency, while 3 in 10 are comfortable with the idea… 51% say the idea makes them “very anxious.”… significantly higher than Clinton (35 percent), Cruz (26), Sanders (24) or Rubio (18)….59 percent of women and 53 percent of Catholics very anxious about Trump as president, both more than 20 percentage points higher than for Rubio, Cruz, Sanders or Clinton….47 percent of political independents also feel very anxious about Trump’s candidacy, 10 points higher than for the other candidates tested.

Worst favorable/unfavorable ratio in the polls of all the candidates (including Hillary. In fact in addition to numerous earlier polls showing that to be the case, Gallup just found in a two week pollending Jan 27 2016 that he’s got the worst unfavorables EVER recorded since they started recording them in 1992. He’s also got the highest number who say they would NEVER consider voting for him under any circumstances. Plus a large percentage of Trump’s supporters seems to be people that are very unlikely to actually vote.

Heck, he’s slobbered all over Hillary in just the last few years, proclaiming that she was the best Sect. of State ever, great judgement, surrounds herself with super people, would be a great president, etc., etc. Her best ad will be video of TRUMP singing her praises to high heaven’s, followed by her gleefully proclaiming “I approve of this ad!”

Meanwhile, Cruz’s favorable/unfavorable ratio is one of the best, his trustworthiness far far better too, and almost all of his supporters are in the groups MOST likely to actually vote.

So you’re living in fantasy land.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 6:47 PM

WRONG. Cruz was NEVER naturalized, period. He is a natural born citizen as per the Constitution, not an Act of Congress. An act passed by the First Congress merely showed what the Founding Fathers meant by the term when it came to children born abroad to a citizen parent. It didn’t change anything.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 6:00 PM

The constitution does not define “natural born” citizen. SCOTUS has never defined it, hence the confusion and this on-going argument. But 4 SCOTUS justices (not SCOTUS as a whole) have defined “natural born” as two citizen parents AND being native born (physically born in the United States). That at least says there is disagreement on the topic. See my posts and links of last night vis a vis Lime, who has still not provided a reference for his last statement:

That changed long before Bellei.

Lime in the Coconut on February 12, 2016 at 9:43 PM

When you have time available, I would love to see the reference.

I very seriously would like all info on this topic. No snark.
fred5678 on February 12, 2016 at 9:46 PM

Note even Lime agrees the constitution doesn’t define “natural born”:

Since the Framers, SPECIFICALLY, chose NOT TO DEFINE ‘natural born citizenship’ (sic) , then who should?

Lime in the Coconut on February 12, 2016 at 9:33 PM

Another misquote:

I will say, though, that the birther stuff sounds very plausible at first. Take that link posted by fred5678. It confidently claims that SCOTUS defined natural born citizen four different times, references the cases, and quotes relevant parts of the decisions — though not ALL relevant parts, especially when it comes to Minor v. Happersett.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 13, 2016 at 2:27 AM

I did NOT state that “SCOTUS defined natural born citizen four different times”. I said FOUR JUSTICES. Read. Carefully.

On the other hand there are 4 cases where justices stated that “natural born” means two citizen parents and born in the country.

I look forward to the quote.

fred5678 on February 12, 2016 at 9:00 PM

Bottom line: we need a SCOTUS decision on what the hell “natural born citizen” means.

fred5678 on February 12, 2016 at 9:46 PM

fred5678 on February 13, 2016 at 6:55 PM

Renewal

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM

Daily Mail always has more and better pics than U.S. sites.

And think of all the money taxpayers will save when Trump takes mini-vacations down the street instead of flying to Hawaii.

140 year lease — smart planning.

Just made my reservations for the inaugural ball.

fred5678 on February 13, 2016 at 7:09 PM

Trump idiotically pulls the “Reagan was a liberal” bullhockey again.

Reagan was a CLASSIC liberal – e.g., the equivalent of the TEA PARTY supporter, e.g., a fiscal and Constitutional conservative.

Trump was a full blown modern LIBERAL – e.g., a big government crony capitalist progressive/Democrat/socialist.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 10:26 PM

MASSIVE psychological projection by Trump!! Trump is the one lying his tuchus off and making up robo-calls no less.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 10:27 PM

Why does Don Trump sound like a Liberal Democrat tonight? Seriously, WTF is he doing?

Captain Kirock on February 13, 2016 at 9:42 PM

He’s being himself.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 10:36 PM

Oops, sorry about that last post, clicked on the wrong tab and posted to the wrong thread.

Rational Db8 on February 13, 2016 at 10:38 PM

WINNNNNNNNINNNNNNNG!!!!!

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump-mocked-bang-daughter-ivanka-trump-daily-show-video/

Donald Trump dislikes muslims, Mexican immigrants and Hillary Clinton, but he sure loves his daughter, Ivanka Trump. He actually loves her a little too much, as ‘The Daily Show’ pointed out all the times Donald said he would have sex with Ivanka if they weren’t related! Click to watch.
Out of all the outrageous things Donald Trump, 69, has said — and there are plenty — this might be the grossest thing to come out of the former Celebrity Apprentice‘s star’s notoriously big mouth. Trevor Noah, 31, and the rest of The Daily Show mocked the Republican presidential candidate for the far-too-many times he has creepily lusted after his own daughter, Ivanka Trump, 34. Get ready to feel you skin crawl!
“I’ve said that, if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her,” Donald proudly admitted during the Dec. 9 debut of the TDS’s newest segment, Don’t Forget: Donald Trump Wants To Bang His Daughter. Donald’s boast came in a 2006 appearance on The View when he was discussing the chance of Ivanka posing nude in Playboy!
But that was nearly ten years ago. There’s no chance he could still feel like that, right? Wrong! “Yeah, [Ivanka’s] really something and what a beauty, that one,” Donald was quoted in a Sep. 2015 Rolling Stone article. “If I weren’t happily married, and ya know, her father…”
Ewww. That’s unsettling. Trevor was also upset at Donald’s creeping. “When you’re ranking the reasons you wouldn’t bang your own daughter, the fact that you’re her father should be at the very top of the list,” he said. “Actually, now that I think about it, there shouldn’t even be a list. You shouldn’t need a list.”
Truth. Donald has been “complimenting” his daughter for a while than that. In 2003, while talking to Howard Stern on his radio show, Donald said, “You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody. And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s six feet tall, she’s got the best body.”
PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 4:48 PM</blockquote
Sounds like someone is a bigoted incestophobe. Maybe he was born that way.

Nutstuyu on February 13, 2016 at 11:30 PM

WINNNNNNNNINNNNNNNG!!!!!

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump-mocked-bang-daughter-ivanka-trump-daily-show-video/

Donald Trump dislikes muslims, Mexican immigrants and Hillary Clinton, but he sure loves his daughter, Ivanka Trump. He actually loves her a little too much, as ‘The Daily Show’ pointed out all the times Donald said he would have sex with Ivanka if they weren’t related! Click to watch.
Out of all the outrageous things Donald Trump, 69, has said — and there are plenty — this might be the grossest thing to come out of the former Celebrity Apprentice‘s star’s notoriously big mouth. Trevor Noah, 31, and the rest of The Daily Show mocked the Republican presidential candidate for the far-too-many times he has creepily lusted after his own daughter, Ivanka Trump, 34. Get ready to feel you skin crawl!
“I’ve said that, if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her,” Donald proudly admitted during the Dec. 9 debut of the TDS’s newest segment, Don’t Forget: Donald Trump Wants To Bang His Daughter. Donald’s boast came in a 2006 appearance on The View when he was discussing the chance of Ivanka posing nude in Playboy!
But that was nearly ten years ago. There’s no chance he could still feel like that, right? Wrong! “Yeah, [Ivanka’s] really something and what a beauty, that one,” Donald was quoted in a Sep. 2015 Rolling Stone article. “If I weren’t happily married, and ya know, her father…”
Ewww. That’s unsettling. Trevor was also upset at Donald’s creeping. “When you’re ranking the reasons you wouldn’t bang your own daughter, the fact that you’re her father should be at the very top of the list,” he said. “Actually, now that I think about it, there shouldn’t even be a list. You shouldn’t need a list.”
Truth. Donald has been “complimenting” his daughter for a while than that. In 2003, while talking to Howard Stern on his radio show, Donald said, “You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody. And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s six feet tall, she’s got the best body.”
PappyD61 on February 13, 2016 at 4:48 PM

Sounds like someone is a bigoted incestophobe. Maybe he was born that way.

Nutstuyu on February 13, 2016 at 11:31 PM

namely, birth on American soil. If you’re going to make the move they make here, claiming that Cruz wasn’t a citizen at his birth, period, then you’re basically stuck arguing that he’s … an illegal immigrant.

No, they are claiming Cruz is a citizen by statute and not a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizen and citizen at birth are not the same thing. A natural citizen is always a citizen at birth, while a citizen at birth is either a natural born citizen or a citizen by statute.

A law passed by Congress cannot supersede the Constitution. Only an Amendment can.

huckleberryfriend on February 13, 2016 at 7:36 AM

The Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizen, so how could Congress be overriding the Constitution?

And once again, we have an assertion without evidence that a citizen at birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen. But there are only two paths to citizenship: birth and naturalization. If you’re a citizen at birth, you are not naturalized. That basic logic is why the Illinois Board of Elections rejected the claim that Cruz was not a natural born citizen.

A lot of people would like to amend the Constitution to make it clear what is and is not a natural born citizen, and that’s a very good point. But until that happens, we have to stick with the laws we have. And under those laws, you’re either born a citizen, or a naturalized citizen. There is no third category for born a citizen but still not a natural born citizen.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 14, 2016 at 1:05 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 13, 2016 at 2:27 AM

People in the country illegally were referred to as, get this, ‘invaders’. That’s certainly not a PC word, but that’s what they were called and their children born on US soil were not considered citizens let alone natural-born citizens.

If a citizen is a citizen because of statute, he has the same rights and privileges of being a citizen except for serving as President because of the Eligibility Clause in the Constitution.

Almost every ‘official’ argument you read points to the Naturalization Act of 1790 but ignores its replacement in 1795 in which the term ‘natural born’ was removed and never appeared again.

MaggiePoo on February 13, 2016 at 8:49 AM

It was SCOTUS that quoted the 1790 act in Minor v. Happersett, and said that all succeeding naturalization laws have not changed that law.

Here’s the relevant text, again:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 14, 2016 at 1:16 AM

If he has standing, it’s because he’s directly competing with Cruz for the office of the presidency. If he doesn’t, a “dirty trick” by the Cruz campaign won’t confer it on him. Either way, someone who’s sincerely concerned about having a president who wasn’t “natural-born” would never use the threat of a suit as leverage.

This kind of “leverage: is called extortion. It is a crime.

But, hey: Trump can become whatever he wants. Liar. Criminal. It’s all Trump.

widget on February 14, 2016 at 11:48 AM

What a pal.

hillbillyjim on February 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM

This concerns me too. Wish others could see it.

redridinghood on February 12, 2016 at 11:14 PM

You both should look up how much money Donald Trump donated to the Republicans and many individuals R Candidates across the U.S. over
many years.

bluefox on February 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10