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

Skip to comments.

Judge says no to Obama subpoena in Blago case
AP via Brietbart ^ | 04/30/10 | Staff

Posted on 04/30/2010 11:03:41 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; activistjudge; blago; chicagocorruption; coverup; cultureofcorruption; democratscandals; federal; illinois; judicialactivism; judicialtyranny; obama; obamascandals; obamasenateseat; payforplay; payola; trial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last
Shocking, really. The Chicago Way strikes again.
1 posted on 04/30/2010 11:03:41 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
" A federal judge in Chicago"

NSS.

2 posted on 04/30/2010 11:04:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Rahm???


3 posted on 04/30/2010 11:05:15 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Goodness, I sure didn’t see this coming /s


4 posted on 04/30/2010 11:05:26 AM PDT by diplomatic_immunity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Communists America showing its power again. Nothing new for our future unless change, and that will be hard to do. Deck stacked.


5 posted on 04/30/2010 11:05:31 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Or maybe Axelrod?? Or is this just a big waste of time??


6 posted on 04/30/2010 11:06:11 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

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


7 posted on 04/30/2010 11:06:30 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (We were hoping for flying unicorns that crapped skittles. We got nationalized health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You’ve got what, 2 contradictory statements from other witnesses that say otherwise what Obama has said. And this judge says there is not enough evidence to depose Obama in court??

We all know damn well now that the judiciary is protecting that ass in the White House.


8 posted on 04/30/2010 11:06:45 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diplomatic_immunity

Your right. Like that was gonna happen. While your at it, ask for his BC.


9 posted on 04/30/2010 11:06:52 AM PDT by cameraeye (A happy kufir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

WHAT DOES BUSH HAVE TO HIDE??

EVERY MAN DESERVES TO BE DEFEND HIMSELF IN COURT. BUSH CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE. WHAT DOES BUSH KNOW? DID BUSH COVER UP SOME THING?

THERE MUST BE SOME THING BUSH KNOWS IF A DEMOCRAT (BLAGO) WANTS HIM TO TESTIFY.

EVERY MAN IS EQUAL IN USA AND BUSH SHOULD HAVE TO ANSWER A SUBPOENA LIKE ANYONE ELSE! BUSH MUST BE GUILTY OF SOME THING.

I mean Obama.


10 posted on 04/30/2010 11:07:24 AM PDT by Mr. K (This administration IS WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

So Obamah won’t have to testify; “Depends on your definition of Play to Play”


11 posted on 04/30/2010 11:07:29 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“A federal judge in Chicago has refused to issue a subpoena...”

Sky blue; grass green...film at eleven.


12 posted on 04/30/2010 11:08:28 AM PDT by jessduntno ("A vitiated state of morals, corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." - P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Blago deserves a fair trial and form what I saw Obama’s interference there makes him a key witness. Blago should go interlocutory now....


13 posted on 04/30/2010 11:10:20 AM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

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


14 posted on 04/30/2010 11:10:21 AM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Mistrial.


15 posted on 04/30/2010 11:11:16 AM PDT by Candor7 (Now's the time to ante up against the Obama Fascist Junta ( member NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

some are more equal than others

get use to it, peasant

(grrrrr.... I really hate liberals)


16 posted on 04/30/2010 11:11:18 AM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

17 posted on 04/30/2010 11:12:57 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What a joke. There is no rule of law. This guy could go to jail and he is not being allowed to defend himself.


18 posted on 04/30/2010 11:13:09 AM PDT by Frantzie (McCain=Obama's friend. McCain & Graham = La Raza's favorite Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Considering the charge is political corruption; I should be more relieved if the DID... the same with sitting Congressmen.

Those people get away with FAR too much.


19 posted on 04/30/2010 11:14:46 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Or...should it have been....
20 posted on 04/30/2010 11:14:55 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Phlap

The difference is that BJ was under investigation, directly.


21 posted on 04/30/2010 11:15:18 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (We were hoping for flying unicorns that crapped skittles. We got nationalized health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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

In the meantime we get to see judicial malpractice,

and the Paula Jones case was a civil suit versus this one that is criminal.

22 posted on 04/30/2010 11:17:19 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Sorry Blago. See ya. You won't feel a thing. Barry Obama
23 posted on 04/30/2010 11:18:43 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Grounds for an appeal.


24 posted on 04/30/2010 11:18:56 AM PDT by anymouse (God didn't write this sitcom we call life, he's just the critic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All
You Know The Drill
Click the Pic

Click The Pic Hey! FReepers!
Help Fill The Tank!
How About It? Huh?
It Ain't Askin' Too Much
Ya Know....


25 posted on 04/30/2010 11:20:27 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (FR.......Monthly Donors Wanted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

It does seem contrary to the law. I hope that the Blagojevich team appeals.


26 posted on 04/30/2010 11:20:44 AM PDT by Piranha (Obama won like Bernie Madoff attracted investors: by lying about his values, policy and plans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

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


27 posted on 04/30/2010 11:21:19 AM PDT by RckyRaCoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham
interlocutory

We don't use that type of language here on FR potty mouth. ;)
28 posted on 04/30/2010 11:21:21 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel; Phlap
"The difference is that BJ was under investigation, directly."

Remember, Jones v. Clinton was a civil matter, not a criminal investigation. Defendants in criminal trials have a constitutional right to examine witnesses. The fact that the judge is so dismissive with respect to Obama's relevance is particularly troubling in light of the fact that he was interviewed (according to press reports) by the FBI and USA for at least TWO HOURS on the subject.

If nothing else, you would think that in the interest of due process, a subpoena for deposition would have been granted. I'll wager that there will be an interlocutory appeal, and this isn't yet over.

29 posted on 04/30/2010 11:21:45 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
"Very short" this judge says?

"Zagel said the defense motion fell "very short" of demonstrating a need to subpoena the president."

Yeah sure ....

30 posted on 04/30/2010 11:22:56 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Blago is going to skate on this eventually, then.

But maybe that was the plan all along.


31 posted on 04/30/2010 11:24:00 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Now can we forget about that old rum-runner Joe Kennedy and his progeny of philandering drunks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
UPDATE......Chicago radio during Rush break.....reports that judge's ruling leaves an opening. Obama will not have to testify in Blago case "unless it becomes necessary".

A ray of hope.....

Leni

32 posted on 04/30/2010 11:24:46 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel; Phlap

I would add, that information and witness testimony presented during the State’s case, may be tested and impeached during cross, or during the presentment of the defense case. IOW, whatever the outcome of the appeal, Blago’s lawyers will have an opportunity to establish a foundation for calling Obama.


33 posted on 04/30/2010 11:24:50 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel; Phlap

>The difference is that BJ was under investigation, directly.

Let’s re-examine things for a second. 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?


34 posted on 04/30/2010 11:25:01 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
BLOW THE WHISTLE ON THE MUSLIM AND ALL HIS CORRUPT CHICAGO THUGS, BLAGO !!

I am surprised Rezko hasn't been pardoned yet !!

CHICAGO, EVEN THE JUDGE IS CORRUPT !!!!!!!!!!!!

35 posted on 04/30/2010 11:26:12 AM PDT by W-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; OldDeckHand

“” A federal judge in Chicago”

I quit reading right there ;-)


36 posted on 04/30/2010 11:27:20 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If this goes to SCOTUS, it will be a 7-2 decision against Blago


37 posted on 04/30/2010 11:27:51 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (We were hoping for flying unicorns that crapped skittles. We got nationalized health care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: W-Girl

“CHICAGO, EVEN THE JUDGE IS CORRUPT !!!!!!!!!!!! “

Probably nearly all of them are.


38 posted on 04/30/2010 11:28:17 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Harvard law graduates stick together.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991.

Born in Chicago, Illinois, Zagel earned both his Bachelor’s and Master’s in 1962 from the University of Chicago before graduating from Harvard Law School with a Juris Doctor degree in 1965.

Judge Zagel is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago.

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.


On the recommendation of U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde, Zagel was nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by President Ronald Reagan on February 2, 1987, to a seat vacated by Frank McGarr. Zagel was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 21, 1987 on a Senate voice vote and received his commission on April 22, 1987.


39 posted on 04/30/2010 11:29:28 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
From the NRO Blog:

"Judge Ruins All Our Fun in Blago Case   [Daniel Foster]

The killjoy Chicago federal judge presiding over ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich's corruption trial has decided to spoil my day by denying Blago's request to subpoena President Obama as a witness.

"The testimony of the president is not material to this case," U.S. District Judge and noted curmudgeon James Zagel said today in issuing the ruling.

The good news is, Zagel said he'd be willing to reconsider the issue as the trial proceeds, if Blagojevich's lawyers can convince him that they — and I — need Obama's testimony. "

40 posted on 04/30/2010 11:30:24 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Where is the next Eliot Ness?

We need someone to break this crime ring.

41 posted on 04/30/2010 11:30:24 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star recipient!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

The Untouchables

42 posted on 04/30/2010 11:30:32 AM PDT by KTM rider ( ..........tell me this really isn't happening ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

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


43 posted on 04/30/2010 11:30:35 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

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


44 posted on 04/30/2010 11:31:25 AM PDT by KTM rider ( ..........tell me this really isn't happening ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

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’.


45 posted on 04/30/2010 11:33:59 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

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


46 posted on 04/30/2010 11:34:05 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

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.


47 posted on 04/30/2010 11:35:39 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"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.

48 posted on 04/30/2010 11:37:40 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Phlap
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?

49 posted on 04/30/2010 11:41:49 AM PDT by brewcrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

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


50 posted on 04/30/2010 11:43:36 AM PDT by Jedidah (Character, courage, common sense are more important than issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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