Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sallyven

The US Constitution explicitly excuses Congressmen from such a thing, at least while they are on official business. But I haven’t heard of any parallel provision for a president, or a court case where the USSC heard the question concerning a question. This little Georgia court seems to be the mouse that roared.


28 posted on 02/01/2012 7:57:07 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: HiTech RedNeck

It only takes a thread to unravel an entire garment.

Totalitarians buy, imprison or kill to affect their control.

It just takes some people in the right places who don’t care about these things to resist, and bring the house of cards down.

Psalm 127:1 “1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:”


46 posted on 02/01/2012 8:06:58 PM PST by One Name (Go to the enemy's home court and smoke his ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"The US Constitution explicitly excuses Congressmen from such a thing, at least while they are on official business. But I haven’t heard of any parallel provision for a president, or a court case where the USSC heard the question concerning a question. This little Georgia court seems to be the mouse that roared.

At the time of Clinton's shenanigans I think there were some court decisions that postponed civil actions while he was in office. There certainly could be a legal argument that an administrtaive hearing should also be delayed while the President is on official business.

But the point is, Obama's team in their overwhelmingly arrogance failed to cite any legal reason for the subpeona to be quahed. They essentially just said: "We've decided this is stupid, so we are ignoring it." Big mistake.

Obama is now in contempt - and since they made no legal argument against the subpeona, I don't see how he appeals. From Wikipaedia:

A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:

Existence of a lawful order

The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order

The potential contemnor's ability to comply

The potential contemnor's failure to comply

Check, check, check and check. Obama's team could have raised grounds for appeal by claiming he was "unable" to comply, due to his official duties. But in their arrogance, they failed to even make that basic argument.

323 posted on 02/02/2012 8:50:22 AM PST by In Maryland ("Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" - Official Motto of the Main Stream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Congresspersons aren’t immune either , in session or not, from a charge of fraud on the office. Remember Wes Cooley (OR)? He got thrown out after being elected because he embellished his Korean War military record in his campaign filing. He made up the part about actually being in it. —————————Kind of like Obamuzzie making up pretty much everything.


379 posted on 02/02/2012 12:49:05 PM PST by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson