Trump Busy Making Phone Calls To Show He's Serious About Running For President

Two people with absolutely no connection to one another received phone calls yesterday from Donald Trump. Sen. Mike Delph tells me Trump called him yesterday and spoke to him briefly to offer words of encouragement on his legislative efforts in Indiana to enact legislation requiring all presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates. While Delph's legislation did not receive a hearing this year, the Senate is considering a resolution he and Sen. Sue Landske are co-authoring which urges the legislature to study the issue in a summer study committee this year.

Trump has come under fire by the media for pressing the issue of Obama's natural born citizenship status, a constitutional requirement for being president. Trump, who has produced his own long-form birth certificate showing his birth in a New York hospital, has said he initially believed Obama's claim that he was born in Hawaii but his doubts have grown because of the President's reluctance to produce his long-form birth certificate. Obama's campaign, instead, produced a certificate of live birth issued in 2007 to prove his birth in Hawaii. Critics note Hawaii law permits parents to record their child's birth with Hawaii's Department of Health even if the child's birth took place outside of the state. Trump has reportedly spoken to lawmakers in other states, including Arizona, about state legislative efforts to require presidential candidates to file proof to establish they meet the 35-year age requirement, are natural born citizens and have resided in the U.S for at least 14 years, the three requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has told reporters during interviews recently that he has people investigating Obama's background and can't believe what they are learning. Some believe Trump may have been privy to the contents of a new book to be released by Dr. Jerome Corsi next month, "Where's The Birth Certificate." Pre-release sales of the book soared after the Drudge Report teased readers with claims from a source that new information in the book would prove to be "utterly devastating."

Trump also took time to call columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer, who mocked Trump's candidacy by calling him a "clown" and a "provocateur." Krauthammer recounted his phone conversation with Trump on Fox News' Bret Baier's show yesterday, which he said now leaves him convinced Trump is serious about running for president:

It was a surprise, and when my secretary told me, I put on a helmet and a flak jacket as I answered the phone. I expected a tirade, which he had every right to do given what I have been saying about him. In fact, he was courteous but very calm, and he made his case, rather than sort of attacking everything I said about him. Simply, he made his case: “I’m a serious businessman, I’m a serious candidate"...I give him credit for the way he conducted himself [on the phone call].

In a column this week, Krauthammer rated Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels as the only serious candidates running on the Republican side. He gave Romney the best shot of winning at this early point as "the prohibitive front-runner" with 5-1 odds of winning. On a Daniels' candidacy, Krauthammer wrote:

Highly successful governor. Budget guru. Delightful dullness satisfies all axioms (see above). Foreign policy unknown, assuming he has one. Alienated some conservatives with his call for a truce on — i.e., deferring — social issues. If he runs, 6-1.

Krauthammer thinks Pawlenty, however, may turn out to be "the last man standing." Krauthammer says he doesn't believe either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin will end up running for president.

White Appeals Order Requiring Recount Commission To Hear Election Contest

Attorneys for embattled Secretary of State Charlie White filed an appeal of Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Lou Rosenberg's recent order requiring the Recount Commission to hear a petition filed by the Indiana Democratic Party challenging White's right to hold the office because of allegations he committed voter fraud by voting in a precinct in which he did not reside. Jim Bopp, White's attorney, contends the Recount Commission does not have the power to decide an issue that is already before a Hamilton Co.court which will decide White's fate based on a 7-count criminal indictment against him.

Democrats are upset that Republicans have not filled a vacancy on the Recount Commission that was created when White recused himself from participating in the case. White's replacement on the Commission will be filled by Indiana GOP Chairman Eric Holcomb, who is presumably holding off on making an appointment until he learns whether the Court of Appeals hearing the appeal of Judge Rosenberg's order will grant a stay. A proposal making its way through the legislature would deny Democrat Vop Osili the right to assume the office as the second-highest vote getter in the event the Recount Commission hears the petition and decides to disqualify White.

Mourdock Video Defends Tea Party Activists

Snooping Police Officer Had Prior Disciplinary Problems

After reading the disciplinary record for a Capitol Police officer who resigned after he was accused of sleeping on the job and rummaging through Governor Mitch Daniels' personal belongings while assigned to provide security at the governor's residence, you have to wonder why he was still on the job. The Star details the disciplinary record of Officer Mike Bates, which the Star didn't identify by name in their story because he hasn't been charged with a crime, even though the whistle blower they interviewed identified him and local televisions news stations have already named him:

Disciplinary records released Wednesday in response to a public information request show the other officer had been suspended three times since he joined the department in 2004. The Indianapolis Star is not identifying the other officer because he has not been charged with a crime.


In 2007, that officer was suspended for three days for leaving his post at the governor's residence on three occasions.

The officer was suspended in June 2009 for three days for failing to report an accident involving a police vehicle. In February, the officer was suspended for five days for getting involved as a police officer in a family matter that wasn't an emergency or a crime in progress.

No disciplinary action was taken against Craig in the year he worked for the Capitol Police. The State Police oversee the Capitol Police, whose job is to protect state buildings and monuments.

State Police spokesman 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten said Wednesday he could not answer questions about why the officer continued to patrol the governor's residence after the 2007 suspension or why the officer was allowed to keep his job after three disciplinary actions in a five-year period.

Bursten said the officers are subjects of a criminal investigation but declined to give details. When the investigation is finished, Bursten said, the findings will be turned over to the Marion County prosecutor.

The whistle blower, Officer Bradley Craig, resigned his job after he was reassigned duties. "I cannot continue to work for an agency that is more focused on protecting its image of the agency than it is on doing the right thing," Craig wrote in an e-mail explaining his resignation. Craig told the Star that Bates "usually went straight to sleep an hour into the shift and woke up an hour before it ended." The story notes Governor Daniels does not typically stay overnight in the home, although he and his wife occasionally spend the night there. One of his daughters also lived there for a few months. The governor frequently conducts meetings there, as well as special events that are hosted in the home.

Will Anti-Bolt Legislation Lead To Another Walkout?

Senate Democrats walked out of the Indiana Senate tonight as Senate Republicans approved an anti-bolt proposal that would impose $1,000 a day fine on lawmakers who intentionally fail to show up to conduct business in order to break a quorum. Unlike the House Democrats' more than 30-day walkout earlier this session, the action taken by Senate Democrats was of no effect because Republican members make up more than the two-thirds vote required to constitute a quorum for conducting business. The AP reports:

Republican frustration over the five-week walkout by Indiana House Democrats reemerged Wednesday as the state Senate approved a method for $1,000-a-day fines against boycotting legislators.


The action threatened the calm that has existed in the House since the Democrats returned March 28, with the Democratic leader saying he wasn't sure how his members would respond and that he believed such fines could violate the state constitution.

The Senate voted 36-0 to add the provision to the state budget bill after Democratic senators left the floor in protest. The measure would allow a resident of a boycotting legislator's district to ask a judge to fine lawmakers who were unexcused for three or more days in order to leave too few members present to conduct business.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long said the provision was needed to prevent such boycotts from becoming a regular tactic by legislators.

"It has set a terrible example, in my opinion, to the rest of the nation," Long said. "It cannot be allowed to occur."

House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer suggests the proposed law is unconstitutional; however, Indiana had a similar law on the books for nearly a century until it was repealed in 1970. He hasn't decided yet whether the legislation would provide yet another excuse for his caucus to walk out to deny the House Republican majority a quorum to conduct business in the closing days of the session.

House Democratic leader Patrick Bauer said soon after the Senate vote that he would have to meet with his members before deciding what action they would take and that he didn't know whether another walkout was possible with just more than a week remaining before the Legislature's April 29 adjournment deadline.


Bauer said Republicans were "out of whack."

"They've gone to such a radical extreme that some of these punitive measures that they try to dream up are more important to them than people having jobs, people putting food on the table," Bauer said. "I think the constitution would override their pouting and shouting."

House Speaker Brian Bosma first raised the issue of reviving the anti-bolt law as one possible way of avoiding a long shutdown of a legislative body as occurred this year but has not decided whether his caucus will support its passage. "It might scratch a few scabs open and that's maybe not the best thing right now," Bosma said. "But we have had a lot of input from citizens over the last three months that they think some revision to the law or constitution is appropriate. If I were to pick one, I would say this is the most advisable one." Personally, I would prefer the legislature pass a constitutional amendment that would reduce the quorum requirement from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority and letting the voters decide the issue as a long-term solution.

Capitol Police Officer Investigated For Snooping In Governor's Personal Belongings

WRTV's Jack Rinehart has a rather strange story about a member of the Capitol police assigned to provide security at the Governor's residence resigning after a co-worker accused him of sleeping on the job and rummaging through Governor Mitch Daniels' personal belongings, including the governor's and his wife's underwear. Officer Bradley Craig tells Rinehart he was retaliated against and reassigned after he blew the whistle on Officer Mike Bates' antics, and State Police say a criminal investigation has been launched against the two officers:

Allegations of sleeping on the job and rifling through personal items at the Indiana governor's residence are among the lurid details of a scandal embroiling Capitol police, the unit of the Indiana State Police that guards state buildings and the governor.


State police told 6News' Jack Rinehart on Tuesday they have launched a criminal investigation into the matter.

Capitol police Officer Bradley Craig originally leveled the allegations against a former co-worker, Mike Bates, in a resignation letter Craig sent Saturday to Indiana State Police Superintendent Paul Whitesell . . .
 
Craig said he decided to resign after he felt the previous incidents he reported to a supervisor went unheeded. Craig also detailed an additional incident on April 3, when he claimed that Bates went into the governor's bedroom and began opening drawers, first pulling out a pair of men's underwear and making inappropriate comments about them.
 
Then, Craig said, Bates opened another drawer, pulling out women's underwear and sniffing them, remarking, "You should have been up here when their daughter used to live here … I kept me a pair of hers."


Craig said he reported numerous other issues, including a claim that his co-worker slept on the job during shifts in which the two worked together.

"He has slept a minimum of two hours, but usually averages five to six hours every shift," Craig claimed.

Craig recounted another incident in which he claimed Bates had taken a shower while on the job at the governor's residence, along with a couple of additional instances in which he claimed Bates ate food from the refrigerator.

Craig said Bates also left his post while on duty, essentially leaving no security at the residence, which Craig said he discovered when he arrived early for his shift.

Here's a statement issued by ISP on the criminal investigation that has been launched:
 

"This investigation alleges one or both former officers may have intruded upon personal property located in the official state residence for the governor of Indiana," Bursten said in a news release. "Members of the Capitol police are placed in positions of great responsibility that require the highest level of integrity. Allegations of this nature are taken very serious and will be thoroughly investigated."

In his defense, Craig issued the following statement following his resignation after he was reassigned duties:

"I believe I am being retaliated against for blowing the whistle and being punished for doing the right thing," Craig said in the resignation letter. "I reported a serious violation, and now I'm the one who gets reassigned for doing so."

And I thought they were selective about who got these cushy assignments.

Senate Democrats Boycott Hearing On Resolution To Study Presidential Eligibility

Sen. Mike Delph and Sen. Sue Landske are co-authoring a resolution, SR 30, which recommends a summer study committee to study the issue of whether Indiana should enact a law providing a mechanism for ascertaining whether presidential candidates who seek to have their names placed on the Indiana ballot meet the constitutional eligibility requirements to hold the office. The Senate Appointments and Claims Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Joe Zakas, heard testimony on the resolution this morning, but the committee could not formally take action on it because Democratic members of the committee chose to boycott the committee in protest to deny a quorum. Sen. Tom Wyss, the only Republican member absent from the hearing, had an excused absence.

Sen. Delph earlier this session introduced SB 114, which would establish a mechanism in Indiana law for the first time to allow the Indiana Elections Division to gather the necessary documentation from presidential candidates seeking placement on Indiana's election ballot to ascertain they meet the age, natural born citizenship and 14-year residency requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution. Currently, no federal or state law provides any mechanism for ascertaining a candidate meets the eligibility requirement to hold the most important elected office in the free world. The U.S. Constitution vests broad discretion in the states to determine ballot access requirements for candidates and the process through which each state selects its electors, who actually cast the votes that decide who becomes president and vice-president every four years as part of the electoral college process.

While SB 114 did not receive a hearing, similar legislation has been making its way through several state legislatures this year. Arizona became the first state in the nation to pass a comprehensive presidential qualification bill; however, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill out of concern that it imposed too great a burden on the state's secretary of state to decide what documentation to accept from presidential candidates for placement on Arizona's ballot. While Delph's legislation merely allowed a candidate to satisfy filing requirements by presenting the same documentation a citizen requires to obtain a driver's license, passport or social security number, the Arizona legislation went much further. Arizona's legislation requires a candidate to furnish a certified, long-form birth certificate that is filed originally with the state's vital records agency that includes "at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance." If a candidate is unable to produce a long-form birth certificate, he or she would be required to produce two or more other forms of documentation, including a baptismal record, circumcision record, hospital birth record or early census record. As with Delph's legislation, the Arizona bill also required the candidate to sign an attestation swearing he met the constitutional eligibility requirements.

In vetoing the legislation, Gov. Brewer stated, “As a former Secretary of State, I do not support designating one person as a gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions. She added, “I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona Secretary of State. This is a bridge too far.” Of course, what Sen. Delph has proposed is no different than what ordinary citizens are required to do to perform any number of transactions, including getting a driver's license. Delph distinguished his proposed legislation under questioning by Sen. Zakas. Sen. Delph pointed out the problem that arose in 2008 was an issue for both the Republican and Democratic candidates. Sen. John McCain's eligibility was challenged in court because he was born in Panama, while Barack Obama was challenged based on claims he was not born in Hawaii or, alternatively, he was ineligible because his father's Kenyan citizenship made him a dual citizen at birth. Some legal scholars believe only persons born to two U.S. citizens can be a natural born citizen, while others contend one only needs to be born on American soil. No federal court has ever decided the meaning of the requirement within the context of a presidential candidate.

Elections law expert Rick Hasen agreed that such legislation could be on firm constitutional grounds so long as it does not impose an additional qualification to hold the office beyond what is set out in the U.S. Constitution. Hasen told the Arizona Republic:

Rick Hasen, an election-law specialist and visiting professor at University of California-Irvine School of Law, said he believes the bill's constitutionality is uncertain because there is a conflict between two different parts of the U.S. Constitution.

One part gives state legislatures broad powers to set rules for their presidential electors who, under the Electoral College system, actually cast the official votes for president.

"That gives the Legislature power to make the rules," he said. "A legislature could say it's not even going to hold an election for president and could pick who it is going to support."

Under that portion of the Constitution, Hasen said, Arizona could be within its power.

But, he said, the problem may be the part of the Constitution that lists the set qualifications for president. He said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling said states don't have a right to add to those presidential qualifications.

"If Arizona passed a law saying the president has to be 50, that would be unconstitutional," he said. "So, the question is whether this is simply implementing the constitutional provision or whether it creates additional qualifications."

I appeared at today's hearing to testify in support of Delph's and Landske's resolution calling for the appointment of a study committee to further study the issue. Barack Obama's 2008 Indiana Chairman, Kip Tew, spoke in opposition to the resolution. Naturally, Tew tried his best to divert attention away from the issue at hand and insisted the legislation was nothing more than a partisan attempt to de-legitimize Obama's presidency. Tew proclaimed that Obama had already proven his eligibility by producing a Certificate of Live Birth issued by the state of Hawaii, which Delph had already explained would be acceptable documentation under the legislation he proposed. Tew seemed uninformed on the challenges McCain had faced on the same issue in 2008. Delph reminded him that Sen. McCain had to resort to a resolution approved by his Senate colleagues to put to rest the issue of whether he was a natural born citizen. Tew also lacked knowledge of the fact that Democrats, unlike Republicans, filed a certificate of nomination with state election's authorities, including Indiana's, that neglected to include an affirmation that Obama met the constitutional eligibility requirement as had occurred in similar filings made by the respective parties in previous elections. Numerous lawsuits filed against both Obama and McCain by citizen activists were uniformly dismissed by federal courts as lacking standing to assert a legal challenge.

UPDATE: Senate Democratic Leader Vi Simpson has come unhinged over Senate Republicans' efforts to clear up the Charlie White eligibility issue to avoid election chaos and today's hearing on the resolution. As can be expected, she seeks to misinform rather than inform voters on the issue under discussion in an e-mail to her Democratic supporters sent late this afternoon:

Today, they held a hearing on a “birther” resolution requiring Presidential candidates to prove their citizenship for ballot access. They have gone too far!


As Senate Democratic Leader, I’m embarrassed on behalf of my GOP colleagues.

Under President Obama’s leadership, the economy is heading in the right direction, and people are feeling better about the future, but that’s no excuse for this kind of legislative tomfoolery.

Republicans control everything, but they’re not leading us anywhere. No jobs plan. No focus on critical statewide issues. Just more wedge issue grandstanding.

Simpson, who is an attorney, flat out lies in her claim that the purpose behind the legislation is to require a presidential candidate to prove their citizenship. She obviously hasn't bothered to read the U.S. Constitution or she would understand there is a constitutional distinction between a citizen and natural born citizen. Simpson reminds us at the close of her e-mail what her true motivation behind her inflammatory rhetoric to her fellow Democrats is: " Since there are 37 Republicans in the State Senate, can you spare $37 to tell them you've had enough of their empty rhetoric and right-wind agenda?" Gotcha, Vi.

Unions Funded Democratic Lawmakers Exile In Urbana, Just As We Thought

In an e-mail today, Indiana GOP Chairman Eric Holcomb lambastes Democratic lawmakers for using union contributions to entirely fund the cost of their nearly $85,000 hotel tab for housing Democratic caucus members during their more than month-long walkout earlier this session. Holcomb, citing a recently-filed campaign finance report for the Indiana Democratic Party, writes:

Democrats continue to fight for narrow special interests clamoring for the status quo. A finance report filed last week shows the entire Urbana hotel bill was footed by unions - many of them out-of-state.


Unions contributed $139,000 to the Indiana Democrat Party during the walkout, every penny of which went to pay off the $84,953.70 hotel tab.

With friends like these, what's to stop Democrats from pulling another one of their antics right before we cross the finish line?

As this blog was the first to point out, Indiana law prohibits lobbyists from paying for out-of-state travel for state lawmakers. Further, the law prohibits lawmakers from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions while the legislature is in session. The walkout was staged by the House Democratic caucus in an effort to kill right to work legislation and other legislation opposed by labor unions. A strong argument can be made that Democrats violated the law by soliciting contributions for this purpose, which is a Class D felony, from the very special interest groups that stood to benefit from their bolting the state and remaining there until they were assured of obtaining concessions critical to their key constituency. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, who has statutory authority to initiate investigations of violations of the law, has shown no interest in doing so. Adding further insult to injury, some Democratic lawmakers have questioned the legality of the House imposing daily fines against them under House Rules and deducting the fines from their paychecks. At least one lawmaker, Rep. Phil GiaQuinta (D-Ft. Wayne), has threatened to sue the House over the payment of the fines.

E-Mails Showed Daniels Worried That Union Was Flooding Call Center With Calls To Sabotage Privatization Effort

IBM is engaged in contentious litigation with the state's Family & Social Services Administration over the decision made by the Daniels' administration to terminate the company's continued role in the privatization of Indiana's welfare services. Lawyers for IBM want to depose Gov. Mitch Daniels and his chief of staff, who they contend were key players in the decision-making process. Attorneys for the state contend state law exempts high-ranking officials, including the governor, from having to testify or otherwise directly participating in litigation involving state agencies. Surprisingly, discovery has shown more than 900 e-mails sent or received by Daniels related to the ongoing privatization effort. To emphasize the governor's close participation in the project, IBM lawyers cited one e-mail in which Daniels suggested a high volume of calls to the troubled call center may have been the work of a state employees union that opposed the privatization effort. Shortly after becoming governor, Daniels signed an executive order that ended the state's collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME that had been entered into by executive order by his Democratic predecessors. The union opposed the privatization move. The AP reports:

Gov. Mitch Daniels had such a keen interest in the state's $1.37 billion contract with IBM Corp. to automate welfare intake in Indiana that he asked an aide if an unexpectedly high number of telephone calls to a call center was a ploy by a state employees union, an IBM attorney said Monday.

IBM wants to depose Daniels soon because it's concerned he will announce he's running for president and would be too busy on the campaign trail to give a deposition, said IBM attorney Steven McCormick, who also wants to depose Daniels' chief of staff.


Daniels has said he won't decide on a White House run until after the General Assembly adjourns later this month . . .

The oral arguments lasting more than two hours revealed the level of Daniels' involvement in one of the biggest outsourcing contracts in state history. McCormick displayed on the IBM attorney's table four thick binders containing what he said were 930 email messages to and from Daniels that the state has surrendered so far.


"They're here to illustrate the cradle to grave, preconception to afterlife" level of Daniels involvement in the deal, McCormick said.

Daniels received detailed reports on the number of calls welfare clients made to a call center created with IBM technology, and after one report showed an unusually large number of calls, he asked an aide if it was a union ploy, McCormick said. McCormick didn't identify the union, but a state employees union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, vociferously opposed the outsourcing deal.

Another e-mail message instructed recipients "the governor was to be familiarized with all aspects of modernization," McCormick said, using the term the state used for the IBM project.

"The governor was not only the chief decider, he was the chief cook, he was the chief bottle washer," McCormick said.

"He made the key decisions all the way," McCormick said. "We're concerned that any delay will be met with, 'Well, now it's too late.'"

The story lays out the legal argument one of the state's attorneys, Peter Rusthoven of Barnes & Thornburg, makes to shield the governor from being deposed.

However, Peter Rusthoven, an attorney for the state, said a state law exempts certain high-level state officials including the governor, from court subpoenas and that other current and former state officials who are expected to testify will provide the same information Daniels and chief of staff Earl Goode were privy to . . .

Rusthoven said the level of Daniels' interest in the project did not trump a state law dating to the 1900s that protects the governor and certain other state officials from answering subpoenas. Rusthoven said it protects them from depositions as well, so well that there has never been an exception.


"It's never happened. The governor has never been called to testify," Rusthoven said.

IBM set out to depose Daniels on his knowledge of the deal before it had deposed anyone else in the case, Rusthoven said.

"There's been no attempt to get it by less intrusive means," Rusthoven said.

The state's ongoing litigation with IBM is a lose-lose proposition for Daniels. Critics questioned the deal from the beginning, even from within Daniels' own administration as I laid out in great detail Carl Moldthan's efforts to get Daniels to reconsider the ill-fated plan. Because the state retained the services of ACS after firing IBM, it raises the specter that IBM was nothing more than a placeholder for the Daniels administration to put ACS in charge of the deal. Daniels' former FSSA Secretary, Mitch Roob, who spearheaded the privatization effort is a former ACS executive. Critics believe it was Roob's intention all along to privatize in order to create a business opportunity for his former employer. Critics have also questioned the use of Barnes & Thornburg to represent the state's interests in the litigation. The firm has long represented ACS in its state and local lobbying efforts in Indiana. Indeed, the engagement letter with the firm acknowledged the firm's potential conflict of interest as ACS' attorney as well.