What I'm saying is that investigators will eventually want to know, what he knew, and when he knew it.

As an ex-prez, can he be forced to testify before Congress?

If there are criminal charges filed against some of his WH staff, I would suspect defense lawyers would want input from the man to try to save their clients skins.

Discuss.

(05-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  What I'm saying is that investigators will eventually want to know, what he knew, and when he knew it.

As an ex-prez, can he be forced to testify before Congress?

If there are criminal charges filed against some of his WH staff, I would suspect defense lawyers would want input from the man to try to save their clients skins.

Discuss.

The rules of congress make it so that thats not the place you want to carry this out. Libturds would just stonewall speeches during their time, and then Obama would simply talk about tying his shoelaces for the entire 5 minutes of a republican's time.

They would need to have something as a perjury trap for him. You dont want to make this a standard fact gathering deposition. You need to have a lot of facts in front of you, and then construct the questioning.

I would advise having Gowdy and a couple of others formulate all questions, and pretty much yield almost all time to Gowdy.

Well, I don't see this happening before the mid-terms. I think afterwards Gowdy will be in the private sector, no? What a shame he wouldn't be AG.

(05-19-2018 01:18 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Well, I don't see this happening before the mid-terms. I think afterwards Gowdy will be in the private sector, no? What a shame he wouldn't be AG.

You hire Gowdy as a consultant in that case.

(05-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  What I'm saying is that investigators will eventually want to know, what he knew, and when he knew it.

I think we are a long, long way from that. Somebody like Comey or Lynch or Rice would have to turn against him first, in order to create the kind of pressure needed to get Obama to agree to answer any real questions.

Quote:As an ex-prez, can he be forced to testify before Congress?

I think so, but I suspect the subpoena would have to be voted on by the full House/Senate, and probably upheld by a federal judge.

Quote:If there are criminal charges filed against some of his WH staff, I would suspect defense lawyers would want input from the man to try to save their clients skins.

That is precisely what happened when some of Nixon’s aides were put on trial after he resigned. One of those aides (John D. Ehrlichman) issued a subpoena for Nixon’s testimony. The decision to enforce that subpoena (or not) was in the hands of a judge who hated Nixon deeply and would have loved the chance to see him placed on the witness stand. But Nixon was near-death and doctors appointed by the judge to examine him reported that he could not safely testify until about 3-4 months had passed. The judge was unwilling to wait that long, and so he quashed the subpoena.

I think Obama was too smart to get his hands dirty. He told his underlings what he thought. He didn't have to tell them what to do. He didn't want to know.

(05-19-2018 02:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  What I'm saying is that investigators will eventually want to know, what he knew, and when he knew it.

I think we are a long, long way from that. Somebody like Comey or Lynch or Rice would have to turn against him first, in order to create the kind of pressure needed to get Obama to agree to answer any real questions.

Quote:As an ex-prez, can he be forced to testify before Congress?

I think so, but I suspect the subpoena would have to be voted on by the full House/Senate, and probably upheld by a federal judge.

Quote:If there are criminal charges filed against some of his WH staff, I would suspect defense lawyers would want input from the man to try to save their clients skins.

That is precisely what happened when some of Nixon’s aides were put on trial after he resigned. One of those aides (John D. Ehrlichman) issued a subpoena for Nixon’s testimony. The decision to enforce that subpoena (or not) was in the hands of a judge who hated Nixon deeply and would have loved the chance to see him placed on the witness stand. But Nixon was near-death and doctors appointed by the judge to examine him reported that he could not safely testify until about 3-4 months had passed. The judge was unwilling to wait that long, and so he quashed the subpoena.

Susan Rice is the weak link and she already sent herself the inauguration day memo to CYA indicating discomfort with the preceding events. Trump needs to offer her a job.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-19-2018 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think Obama was too smart to get his hands dirty. He told his underlings what he thought. He didn't have to tell them what to do. He didn't want to know.

I think you are giving him too much credit. The operation and Intel gathered were in the Presidential Daily Briefings and the records are at the Eisenhower SCIF. He went all in Hillary. I don't think he'll go to jail, for the better of the country, but I think he is up to his neck.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-19-2018 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 02:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  What I'm saying is that investigators will eventually want to know, what he knew, and when he knew it.

I think we are a long, long way from that. Somebody like Comey or Lynch or Rice would have to turn against him first, in order to create the kind of pressure needed to get Obama to agree to answer any real questions.

Quote:As an ex-prez, can he be forced to testify before Congress?

I think so, but I suspect the subpoena would have to be voted on by the full House/Senate, and probably upheld by a federal judge.

Quote:If there are criminal charges filed against some of his WH staff, I would suspect defense lawyers would want input from the man to try to save their clients skins.

That is precisely what happened when some of Nixon’s aides were put on trial after he resigned. One of those aides (John D. Ehrlichman) issued a subpoena for Nixon’s testimony. The decision to enforce that subpoena (or not) was in the hands of a judge who hated Nixon deeply and would have loved the chance to see him placed on the witness stand. But Nixon was near-death and doctors appointed by the judge to examine him reported that he could not safely testify until about 3-4 months had passed. The judge was unwilling to wait that long, and so he quashed the subpoena.

Susan Rice is the weak link and she already sent herself the inauguration day memo to CYA indicating discomfort with the preceding events. Trump needs to offer her a job.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Rice is the only link if this investigation goes back to former President Obama. If it gets to Rice she will either take one for her President. Or spill everything. I think she protects the former president

(05-19-2018 01:18 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Well, I don't see this happening before the mid-terms. I think afterwards Gowdy will be in the private sector, no? What a shame he wouldn't be AG.

don't be so certain that isn't already in the works....

and if not, UofMstateU posit is the easy option #2....

there's no way Gowdy lets this one go,.....

like ol' boy, he's learned how to bide time and pounce as req'd.....

tried to tell you guys DJT's main objective was to get these arseholes up off their collective arses......

be patient....the shitestorm is coming.....he's getting ready to fk their world up further.....

(05-19-2018 03:24 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think Obama was too smart to get his hands dirty. He told his underlings what he thought. He didn't have to tell them what to do. He didn't want to know.

I think you are giving him too much credit. The operation and Intel gathered were in the Presidential Daily Briefings and the records are at the Eisenhower SCIF. He went all in Hillary. I don't think he'll go to jail, for the better of the country, but I think he is up to his neck.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Across the line he has hired unethical people who will do anything to win. He picked them because of that. He just told them we will do whatever it takes to win and preserve "my legacy." He knew what type of people he had working for him. He may get into the weeds on something like killing an al Queda leader where he wants credit, but he is plenty willing to avoid the detail other times.

(05-19-2018 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 03:24 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think Obama was too smart to get his hands dirty. He told his underlings what he thought. He didn't have to tell them what to do. He didn't want to know.

I think you are giving him too much credit. The operation and Intel gathered were in the Presidential Daily Briefings and the records are at the Eisenhower SCIF. He went all in Hillary. I don't think he'll go to jail, for the better of the country, but I think he is up to his neck.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Across the line he has hired unethical people who will do anything to win. He picked them because of that. He just told them we will do whatever it takes to win and preserve "my legacy." He knew what type of people he had working for him. He may get into the weeds on something like killing an al Queda leader where he wants credit, but he is plenty willing to avoid the detail other times.

even a village idiot like myself understood what was going on when the DNC made him the poster child......

what's seriously disturbing is how it grew to the level of corruption.....

fk 'em.....fk every g'dammmed one of 'em....

and people actually believe these stupid fks have 'their best interest' at heart.....

again, I've inherited ding-a-ling land....

(05-19-2018 04:29 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Anyone who thinks the half black president will ever be embarrassed by all of this crap is a bigger numbskull than Mach. The whole investigation will be swept under the rug or ended with pardons before Hussein ever has to answer a question.

that's an easy 'gibbon'....

I don't know. If this can even loosely be tied to Obrother, I think all those sealed records will find the front page of some failing newspapers. Trump isn't going to sit on his hands. He will punch back.

(05-19-2018 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think Obama was too smart to get his hands dirty. He told his underlings what he thought. He didn't have to tell them what to do. He didn't want to know.

Ah yes, I can envision the meeting now.

President: Okay all of you. We've got a very serious charge here that candidate Trump may be in Putin's back pocket. The FBI is doing their job, stay clear of them wink wink, I don't want to hear about anyone in my administration doing anything that could be considered against the law wink wink, by the book wink wink, I want it all by the book wink wink.

Susan Rice in a court room: Yeah, that's what the Magic Man said, he wanted everything by the book.

Rice is the only link if this investigation goes back to former President Obama. If it gets to Rice she will either take one for her President. Or spill everything. I think she protects the former president
[/quote]

Shiate, if you were Rice you'd probably fear the heat behind your head, you know, the kind that Seth Rich felt before it became real. She'll stay quiet.

I just got back from watching Chappaquidick and man those Demons haven't changed a bit. They're still crooked as ever.

(05-19-2018 01:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  What I'm saying is that investigators will eventually want to know, what he knew, and when he knew it.

As an ex-prez, can he be forced to testify before Congress?

If there are criminal charges filed against some of his WH staff, I would suspect defense lawyers would want input from the man to try to save their clients skins.

Discuss.

Congress cannot compel a President to sit before them. That would be violative of the concept of 'co-equal' branches of government.

As an example, Congress cannot compel higher officers of the Executive branch to testify, and further, if one shows up, they cannot 'force' them to speak about Executive branch issues.

When a higher officer does come before Congress, they do so willingly after being 'invited'. And the second sentence in the preceding paragraph goes directly to the concept of Executive privilege.

Given the limitations on subordinate members of the Executive branch, there is no way that the highest ranking person of the Executive branch would be subject to stuff that lower ranking members are not subject to.

He could be subject to subpoena for matters that dont fall into the Presidential role, but as for matters in the performance of the office both a sitting President and an ex-President would not just be immune from Congressional subpoena but would enjoy Executive privilege that covers just about any and all topics related to what one does as a President.

Quote:Congress cannot compel a President to sit before them.

Okay, but he's an ex-president. Any difference there?

(05-19-2018 06:42 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:Congress cannot compel a President to sit before them.

Okay, but he's an ex-president. Any difference there?

edited my response above to cover that.