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.
While I agree with your analysis, it does seem to me that a member of the military should have the right to challenge a superior (officer in effect), if something that officer has done makes him ineligible to conduct his duties.
On board a ship there are rules to go by, that make it possible for subordinates to take control of the ship from the captain, legally.
Why is there no way for an enlisted man to demand proof that the CIC is qualified to be the CIC.
In most instances I would say, Congress having reviewed the matter, the subordinate should honor it’s ruling. That is clearly not the case here. Congress has neglected it’s duty, and it rests on the shoulders of others to determine the truth of this, in it’s glaring absence.
This challenge having been made, this man deserves a hearing on the matter. Evidence and witnesses are legitimate things for this member of the service to demand access to.
This man is not seeking to remove the president. He is merely seeking proof that he is qualified to be president, and thus legitimately authorized to act as CIC. A mere coronation or oath of office DOES NOT confirm this.
If this was Nixon, they would already have the birth certificate in triplicate, and every other shred of paper generated during his lifetime, and his family members back to ten years before they entered this nation.
What are these judges so damned afraid of?
” 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. “
Embarrassment should not be a defense if
it’s pertinent to the issue.
It’s stunning that it’s come to this when
Barry could allay all doubts in a 1 minute phone call to Hawaii.
It’s jaw dropping that it didn’t happen in 08 when the questions were first raised by the Clinton campaign.
Commander in Chief George Bush or Ronald Reagan and heck, even a Bill Clinton would never in a million years sit back and allow any member of the Armed Forces
to have doubts about their Constitutional eligibility.
When the answer could so easily be given by
unsealing a single sheet of paper.
Of course, their documentation would never be sealed in the first place .
They would understand how toxic and deleterious it is to have the troops , even just one soldier ,
doubting a CinC’s eligibility
and they would be proud to voluntarily
substantiate their Constitutional bona fides.
Obama’s stonewalling and mocking attitude is extremely bizarre behavior by a Commander in Chief.
“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.”
Although I support LTC Lakin, I concurr with what you are saying. It would be “embarrassing” for the POTUS to be compeled by a mere LTC to have to submit evidence to a military court. That is what the judge is saying. However, I think the judge is wrong in that stance. We don’t have royalty in this country to include the POTUS.
Never do we get to any source materials or any judge, politician, or other that has the guts to even look into the situation.
Pathetic excuse for justice.