"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

Ziggurat said:
I'm not sure why the fact that someone said something on social media makes it any less valid than if they said it in some other context. This isn't third party testimony here, it's the actual people involved.
Click to expand...

Let us know what was said in these social media posts that you think is such damning evidence.
 
johnny karate said:
Social media posts: The bedrock of any reliable and thorough investigation.
Click to expand...

Contemporary accounts from the principals are always important evidence, regardless of the manner of their publication.

Social media history in particular can be informative, since it's a record that potentially dates from before the inception of the principal's current narrative. The claim that a person had no contact with someone else prior to Year B is easily debunked by a social media history that shows them together in Year A.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's in the first link I already gave you.
Click to expand...
If you really care about this, could you cite the evidence that you want us to see directly? I'm trying to give this a fair hearing and looking it up for myself and not seeing anything persuasive. And your particular source seems more dubious than most.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's in the first link I already gave you.
Click to expand...

I see several claims made about the social media post in question, conclusions drawn from those claims, but not a whole lot of substantiation for any of them.

In short, basic conspiracy theory garbage.
 
theprestige said:
Contemporary accounts from the principals are always important evidence, regardless of the manner of their publication.

Social media history in particular can be informative, since it's a record that potentially dates from before the inception of the principal's current narrative. The claim that a person had no contact with someone else prior to Year B is easily debunked by a social media history that shows them together in Year A.
Click to expand...

Very well articulated.

Please feel free to explain how any of this applies to this particular case.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Sheez. Then I'm a father of both my brothers and sisters kids. I have similar photos of my four nieces in the arms of my brother, sister, and in-laws identifying them as nieces.
Click to expand...

Nobody claims he's the father, the question is whether he's the uncle or unrelated. According to his own testimony, he's the uncle.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't believe you need to demonstrate that he's her brother in order to prove marriage fraud.
Click to expand...

You do if you are alleging that marriage fraud was marriage to her brother



Ziggurat said:
To obtain her divorce, she swore she couldn't contact him. But I believe there are contemporary pictures of them together.
Click to expand...

That is a strange standard to hold someone to. Do you know of any other divorced couples who are not allowed to have any contact.
 
smartcooky said:
That is a strange standard to hold someone to. Do you know of any other divorced couples who are not allowed to have any contact.
Click to expand...

They're allowed to have contact. The point is that she claimed "no contact" as a justification for divorce. I assume most divorce aspirants are in contact with each other and so must produce some other justification for the state to dissolve their union.

The problem here isn't that she's not allowed to have contact. The problem is that she lied to the state (allegedly) about having no contact, in order to get the state to do what she wanted. She should have told the truth, and let the state act on that basis.

(The other problem is allegedly that if she'd told the truth, the state would have acted against her on the basis of that, instead of acting for her, on the basis of her lies.)
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't believe you need to demonstrate that he's her brother in order to prove marriage fraud. To obtain her divorce, she swore she couldn't contact him. But I believe there are contemporary pictures of them together.
Click to expand...

Are there in fact, or do you think your belief should be taken as true?
 
smartcooky said:
That is a strange standard to hold someone to. Do you know of any other divorced couples who are not allowed to have any contact.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. First off, she was claiming zero contact before she got the divorce, not after. And that isn't a general condition of divorce, either before or after. That was a specific claim she made in court filings, under penalty of perjury, in order to have the divorce processed the way she wanted it processed. That was her choice, it wasn't a condition forced upon her by anyone else.
 
theprestige said:
They're allowed to have contact. The point is that she claimed "no contact" as a justification for divorce. I assume most divorce aspirants are in contact with each other and so must produce some other justification for the state to dissolve their union.

The problem here isn't that she's not allowed to have contact. The problem is that she lied to the state (allegedly) about having no contact, in order to get the state to do what she wanted. She should have told the truth, and let the state act on that basis.

(The other problem is allegedly that if she'd told the truth, the state would have acted against her on the basis of that, instead of acting for her, on the basis of her lies.)
Click to expand...

Supposing that she obtained a divorce by fraudulently claiming to have no contact, surely that wouldn't be a reason to deny her citizenship, which is the context that raised these alleged marriage issues.

And the story that she married her brother so he could emigrate is very odd, since citizens can sponsor their adult siblings for a green card or some such.

I don't know if she lied about her contact with her husband. I could imagine a reason to do so. He was in London and this was a simpler way to end the marriage than to file on other grounds, perhaps requiring a visit to the US. But if she lied in a legal proceeding, that's undeniably bad. Nothing that could lead to loss of citizenship, far as I can tell, but not trivial either, especially not for an attorney (not sure if she is one).

This just isn't an issue so troubling that I need an opinion on it. Not sure why you find it so troubling. I'll bet your favorite president has lied in legal contexts.
 
Steve said:
Are there in fact, or do you think your belief should be taken as true?
Click to expand...

Unless someone fabricated the social media posts (which has not been alleged), then yes, there are. I was operating from memory on that initial post, but the links I gave before contain such photos.
 
phiwum said:
Supposing that she obtained a divorce by fraudulently claiming to have no contact, surely that wouldn't be a reason to deny her citizenship,
Click to expand...

Correct.

And the story that she married her brother so he could emigrate is very odd, since citizens can sponsor their adult siblings for a green card or some such.
Click to expand...

Except that Elmi isn't listed on her own immigration documents as being a relative. If, as alleged, she lied about her own family relationships when immigrating to the US, then she could not claim Elmi as her brother without exposing that lie.
 
It's really not that odd where I live to call best friends of the family "Aunt" or "Uncle". It wouldn't strike me as odd, I have a few like that in my family. I'm called Uncle by my best friends kids too, without hesitation.

That being said, it's a tash queer to call your significant other's kids your niece and nephew. That's a relationship I wouldn't want, and I would never call my step-daughter or step-son my niece or nephew. I just call them my kids.

I'd have to say, I could give a **** about marriage since I think it's a stupid institution anyway (don't tell my wife), but I agree with whoever said it upthread. This isn't anything to get worked up about and it's just a distraction.

POTUS\GOP can't have it both ways. They can't go around cheating on their wives with their mistresses publicly, and openly, and then bitch about how marriage should never be violated or mistreated. It rings hollow. It's feigned outrage. Move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom