>>3662654 >>3662667 >>3662670 ob all

>>3662708 >>3662797 >>3663182

>>3662667 >>3662723

POTUS on AXIOS gave the interviewer, Jonathon, a scoop.

Watch the body language of POTUS, especially his mouth. I do think that POTUS led the interviewer to the scoop.

Here are caps of the vid's last few seconds. POTUS seemed to wait for the issue to be brought up and then he responded by almost pulling the interviewer toward the scoop.

When interviewer got the scoop, POTUS then waited a few beats before clarifying: Yes, Executive Order.

At the end of the video, as the interviewer seemed to be "celebrating" his "good guess" with his colleague, POTUS snook a glance of assessment. The corner of his smile dropped, his eyes turned back to the interviewer as the guy was distracted, and assessed how well the hook had been set.

What do you think, Anons? Did POTUS get played by a good guesser or did POTUS play the questioner?

>>3663539

TY, Anon.

The URL for the interview video is in the PIC of vid caps, but here is the vid embedded as sauce.

>>3663553

Could have been that he improvised after being caught out by the interviewer. But he did pause and then helped with the clarification that the interviewer did not seem ready to press for. So I am leaning toward POTUS feeding the scoop and helping it along. He readjusted in his chair at that moment. Hard to say with certainty so am open to his having improvised on the spot.

Ambiguous enough. Just so, yes.

>>3663624

Laura has put her finger on the key issue. Mark Levin, likewise. The difference is between here lawfully and here illegally.

Is that not the hinge upon which the Dems are Hell bent to obscure? Yes. And it makes all the difference to which way the door swings and who opens/closes that door into the country.

Makes basic practical sense, too, as POTUS keeps explaining. The incentive to come to America is America herself; so whether one is here lawfully or illegally, the issue is not about opportunity and all of that other stuff. It is simply about gatekeeping on the border. That is the essence of the whole shebang, as we are aware.

So we must set policy apart from Constitution. The Constitutional provisions do not mandate carving out wide and deep exceptions for illegal entrants – aliens who have not entered through the legal door.

Birthright citizenship is a separate matter and it means a difference that the Dems will be Hell bent to obscure, again.

>>3663667

TY, Anon, for digging that. Always, go to the original meaning of the text as ratified. That is what the judicial branch is meant to do – showing itself to be restrained on policymaking. The Constitutional provisions do not mandate policy on this matter. So the Court is not empowered to re-write nor to affirm policy, just constitutionality.

The next Supreme Court nomination will be lively with this issue, prolly.

>>3663691

TY, Anon, for bringing that dig. You and others are making the contributions with sauces. This ought to be consolidated. I'd do it but this morn I am going off line for rest of day. Been here since Night shift.

Allspeed, Anons.

>>3663709

Baker,

Notable

Graham promised to intro legislation that would map with the promised presidential EO.

There are other well-sauced and articulated digs on the original meaning of the 14th Amendment. Hopefully Anons will also dig the citizenship and naturalization clauses in the pre-14th Constitution, as well.