I think he may be speaking from the perspective of a military court. I don’t think he means that the information itself was embarrassing, but rather that it would be embarrassing to the Commander in Chief to be compelled to give evidence (of any kind) in such a proceeding. Members of the military are not supposed to do anything that would be critical or embarrassing to the administration, whatever their personal feelings are.
I wouldn’t read too much into this.
That isn’t exactly what was said. She said it wasn’t a relevant issue and that the place for the issue is congress who has the power to impeach. She made no effort to evaluate any evidence.
What sort of stuff is on a long form bc anyway? Was he born with a tail like my cousin? Did he have an undescended testicle he’d rather not discuss? Water on the brain? Parasitic twin perhaps? Or did it just say “father: unknown?” Or “mother’s religion: Molochite Communist?”
There is a good discussion here...this comment relevant:
“The phrase “embarass”… is a term of art by legal entities where they acknowledge the seperation between co-equal jurisdictions.
Specifically it means, in this case, a re-iteration that the judicial branch has no right or authority to delve into another entities business, specifically political questions on the Presidents legitimacy which are reserved exclusively to Congress.”
At: http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakins-defense-crushed-in-detail/
Indeed, very unusual words from the judge... Sounds mightily as a hint.
Indeed, very unusual words from the judge... Sounds mightily as a hint.
For what it's worth has anyone actually read the Judges ruling to see if she actually said that, or what the context was if she did?
Aiding and abeting treason seems to be all the fad nowadays.
yikes..is he really calling it “evidence” ?
Never mind the embarrassment to BHO, it is the embarrassment to the US that is more important. I doubt if any congressman wants to be involved in this issue — he would have to grow a pair first.
I never trust a military judge named "Denise".
Leni
Well, we mustn’t embarrass Obama.
This is the same argument Obama’s lawyers presented in the original “Birther” case filed by Phil J. Berg, Esq, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee, back in 2008.
The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order. In these motions, Obama’s lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, college admissions records etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They argued that revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”
Makes you wonder, what’s on that birth certificate — or not on that birth certificate — that could be soooooo embarrassing to the Obamamessiah?
The statement by Col. Lind that, “the chain of command led up to the Pentagon,” is patently false — and she knows it. The chain of command is required knowledge for every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine. It goes, unbroken, from the President of the United States to the lowliest private. It doesn’t begin and end with the Pentagon — a term that describes a building or an organization — and the Pentagon is most definitely not in the chain of command.
The AUTHORITY of any civilian official, commissioned, or non-commissioned officer to issue orders originates with the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States. So, what if the CiC is bogus?
About 2 cents. ;-)
Let's see of Obama pulls out of the 2012 election.
bump
Isn’t that somewhere in the Constitution? Evidence that may prove embarrassing to someone is inadmissible.