Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t ‘discovery’ entail serving subpoenas on third parties too? In this case the State of Hawaii could be so served thus “cutting out” any involvement of and by Obama. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but compelling Obama to furnish records that could impeach him would be treading pretty close to the edge of the 5th Amendmant protection from self-incrimination.
Not that I’d care too much. Frankly, I’d like to see the SOB hauled out of the White House by the scruff of his neck, painted liberally with tar, then rolled in feathers. After that maybe we could find a suitable punishment for him.
For some information. But I don't see Carter approving subpoenas before ruling on the motion to dismiss. Basically at this point discovery means that Taitz has to show the defense what she's got on hand and the defense has to do the same.
If I were Taitz I would worry less about discovery and more about my response to the motion to dismiss, which is due in to the court a week from tomorrow. If she misses that deadline I don't see Carter cutting her any more slack. He's gone above and beyond a number of times already.
Gitmo!!!
Subponeaing records does not put Obama in the role of self-incrimination, as he will not be supplying the document, if it exists. The State of Hawaii will, and he will not be involved. If this is true, then any other documents from colleges, schools, hospitals, selective service, immigration, fulbright foundation, passports, all fall under the purvue of discovery, and none of them directly involve Obama...