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 ...
NSS.
Rahm???
Goodness, I sure didn’t see this coming /s
Communists America showing its power again. Nothing new for our future unless change, and that will be hard to do. Deck stacked.
Or maybe Axelrod?? Or is this just a big waste of time??
Did anyone here at FR really believe that ^any^ judge would allow a sitting president to obe subpoena’d in a case like this?
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.
Your right. Like that was gonna happen. While your at it, ask for his BC.
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.
So Obamah won’t have to testify; “Depends on your definition of Play to Play”
“A federal judge in Chicago has refused to issue a subpoena...”
Sky blue; grass green...film at eleven.
Blago deserves a fair trial and form what I saw Obama’s interference there makes him a key witness. Blago should go interlocutory now....
Two words. Bill Clinton. He had to testify in the Paula Jones case after a 9-0 SC decision.
Mistrial.
some are more equal than others
get use to it, peasant
(grrrrr.... I really hate liberals)
What a joke. There is no rule of law. This guy could go to jail and he is not being allowed to defend himself.
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.
The difference is that BJ was under investigation, directly.
In the meantime we get to see judicial malpractice,
and the Paula Jones case was a civil suit versus this one that is criminal.
Grounds for an appeal.
You Know The Drill
Click the Pic
Hey! FReepers!
Help Fill The Tank!
How About It? Huh?
It Ain't Askin' Too Much
Ya Know....
It does seem contrary to the law. I hope that the Blagojevich team appeals.
Just spill the beans Blago....before you end up with a pair of cement shoes and turned into sturgeon bait.
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.
"Zagel said the defense motion fell "very short" of demonstrating a need to subpoena the president."
Yeah sure ....
Blago is going to skate on this eventually, then.
But maybe that was the plan all along.
A ray of hope.....
Leni
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.
>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?
I am surprised Rezko hasn't been pardoned yet !!
CHICAGO, EVEN THE JUDGE IS CORRUPT !!!!!!!!!!!!
“” A federal judge in Chicago”
I quit reading right there ;-)
If this goes to SCOTUS, it will be a 7-2 decision against Blago
“CHICAGO, EVEN THE JUDGE IS CORRUPT !!!!!!!!!!!! “
Probably nearly all of them are.
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.
"Judge Ruins All Our Fun in Blago Case [Daniel Foster]
The killjoy Chicago federal judge presiding over ex-Gov. Rod 
"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
We need someone to break this crime ring.
The Untouchables
hey, Glenn Beck, keep an eye out for an anonymous package full of tapes and documents showing up at your door...
lol, great minds think alike , ;;;look at the post times !
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’.
No surprise here. I knew that wasnt going anywhere. There isnt a judge in America that will buck Obama.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.