Judge says no to Obama subpoena in Blago case

AP via Brietbart ^ | 04/30/10 | Staff

[OldDeckHand]

CHICAGO (AP) - A federal judge in Chicago has refused to issue a subpoena for President Barack Obama to testify at former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's political corruption trial.

[ohioWfan]

Where is the next Eliot Ness?

We need someone to break this crime ring.

[KTM rider]

The Untouchables

[Buckeye McFrog]

hey, Glenn Beck, keep an eye out for an anonymous package full of tapes and documents showing up at your door...

[KTM rider]

lol, great minds think alike , ;;;look at the post times !

[OneWingedShark]

You misunderstand; I was not asking what the outcome would be if sent to the supreme court, but instead the reason for the existence of the supreme court.

Like the promotion of the welfare of the people by Protecting them from Invasion; the federal Government may-be/is ‘laying down on the job’.

[Venturer]

No surprise here. I knew that wasnt going anywhere. There isnt a judge in America that will buck Obama.

[AmishDude]

Why not? Seriously. I’m not being flippant, but I think these filthy stinking lawyers who expect the rest of us to genuflect everytime the corrupt protection racket known as the legal profession says so.

For a regular president, it’s an imposition, but our dear leader has a law degree and was a member of the bar. He has an obligation to show up anytime any court desires even a casual opinion on his part.

Maybe that would keep lawyers out of elected office if they were constantly being hauled into court.

[OldDeckHand]

"What is the point of having a co-equal branch of the Government called the Judiciary existing if it is prohibited (by law or custom) from ensuring that the sitting members of the other branches are in compliance with the [pre-existing] law?"

As you're probably aware, US v. Nixon unanimously held that POTUS may not invoke Executive Privilege to escape a subpoena issued in a criminal trial. The standard they set was that the evidence or testimony was "demonstrably relevant". I'd say again, why would the FBI speak to ANYONE for 2+ hours, if they had to relevant information to offer.

I'm also curious, and I have yet to see it reported, if Obama has counsel present with him when he spoke to FBI investigators. Blago would know that, as clearly it would have been mentioned in the FBI 302s.

[brewcrew]

Two words. Bill Clinton. He had to testify in the Paula Jones case after a 9-0 SC decision.

And Bill Clinton never insulted the court the way Bambi did during his SOTU. Can you imagine the opinions if this were to get to their desks?

[Jedidah]

Barack Obama was NEVER a professor at the University of Chicago.

“I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about ‘Barry.’ Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement). . . “

Much more at:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-be-lawyer-or-not-to-be.html

and

“Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago law school professor”

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

[Candor7]

You don't get my drift.Obama is not a qualified president.

He does not meet Article II section 1 requirements of the Constitution. There fore he MUST be subpoenaed!

If he is not subpoenaed, it is a MISTRIAL.

All the defebceattorney has to do is move that there is a mistrial and refuse the further jurisdiction of the court on the record, on constitutional grounds, violation of due process.

[ohioWfan]

Wow. The only difference was that you had to take the time to post the picture. ;)

Great minds, indeed!

[teletech]

Did anyone here at FR really believe that ^any^ judge would allow a sitting president to obe subpoena’d in a case like this?

This NOT just any case. Obama is involved in this UP TO HIS EYEBALLS! This is a Democrat Federal Judge protecting Obama.

[MWestMom]

“Just spill the beans Blago....before you end up with a pair of cement shoes and turned into sturgeon bait.”

Cripes, yes! He and anyone he cares about are at risk. He needs to start regurgitating info in any forum that he can find to listen. His attorney is probably telling him differently, but I don't think that Blago has a chance of a fair trial let alone a long life.

[historyrepeatz]

Obama is a myth and a sham. Merely an “untouchable” black-skinned puppet of George Soros and the Euro-Globalists.

[MWestMom]

I don’t think Blago is going to skate on anything. The trial is irrelevant. He is a risk. He will be dealt with one way or the other.

[AlanGreenSpam]

The don’t call him “GodBama” for nothing.

He’s clearly attained deity status. /sarc

[Freddd]

Like anyone actually thought the corrupt Obama would be subpeoened, but those same people tried everything to prosecute Bush....

[Mariner]

"Did anyone here at FR really believe that ^any^ judge would allow a sitting president to obe subpoena’d in a case like this?"

Bill Clinton was...

[Munz]

oh yeah .. almost knocked me out of my chair ... not