Judge Andrew Napolitano Confirms New Select Committee Can Subpoena Barack Obama to Testify on Bengha

a reply to: Indigo5
I think it is a title you keep, unless it is stripped from you due to misconduct on the bench.

a reply to: freakjive

Congress needs to grow a set of titanium balls. Just do it. Ask some questions.

a reply to: SirKonstantin

Biden too, and his son, for oddities on legal procedure over Ukraine.

Congress needs to get on the ball.

We're waiting. Remember some of you are up for reelection soon.

a reply to: freakjive


Its about time Congress found their spine...

Investigate it....
resolve it in a timely and professional manner...
charges if needed / end the investigation if not.

So long as this doesn't spiral into more of a circus than it already has. Also if they are going to go through the motions then they better follow it thru to the end.

a reply to: xuenchen

Contrary to what people see on TV invoking the 5th amendment is not that simple. If the person is not the target of an investigation they cannot invoke the 5th amendment.

Refusal to testify when the person in question has relevant information, in the criminal law realm, can be arrested with a material witness warrant. That would come from the DOJ so I don't see it occurring.

Also people need to keep in mind that when dealing with impeachment issues the definitions used are defined by Congress and not the federal body of law. High crimes and misdemeanors in this realm are established by Congress. All impeachment is for is to remove an elected official from their position, which in turn opens the door for possible criminal prosecution.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: freakjive

"Judge Andrew Napolitano Confirms New Select Committee Can Subpoena Barack Obama to Testify "

Maybe off topic? But why do people call him "Judge" if he hasn't been a judge in 20 years? I think he was a judge in New Jersey briefly in the early 90's? Is it one of those titles you get to keep? I think "Fox News Commentator" seems more accurate since he has been doing that longer than he sat on the bench 20 years ago.

The same reason we refer to former Presidents as Mr. President. It falls into the "respect" column as the title was earned. Secondly it reinforces to the people watching that as a former judge, he most likely knows what he is talking about without having to state time and again he was a judge.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The same reason we refer to former Presidents as Mr. President. It falls into the "respect" column as the title was earned. Secondly it reinforces to the people watching that as a former judge, he most likely knows what he is talking about without having to state time and again he was a judge.

Not to be contrarian, but...

(A) This strikes me as remarkable disingenuous and painfully funny...lest you always refer to our President as "President Obama"?

I would argue that Fox news Commentator Napolitano was "granted" the title of Judge in NJ, briefly, 20 years ago, rather than "Earned" it...but you are welcome to your opinion.

(B) History has taught us that being Judge doesn't immediately equate to "Know(ing) what he is talking about"...He was a NJ State Judge for a handful of years 20 years ago. Neither do I look to "Judge Judy" for constitutional interpretations.

I hope they do. I hope they do.

a reply to: Indigo5

There is a difference complaining about a President on line and doing it in person. The Office of the President is an entity unto itself and refers to the title and not the person.

I don't care for Obama as President. With that said if I were to ever meet him I would call him Mr. President.

As for the Judge, like I said. Its done to add credibility to what he is stating / talking about. He has also commented in the past, as most law enforcement does, about a person doing their due diligence with some of the issues he has talked about.

In this particular area I would agree with him on the ability of Congress to subpoena the President. After all it falls under checks and balances in the Constitution.


418 U.S. at 713-14

The President can invoke executive privilege which then would require the prosecutor to establish the need for the documents.

This would be where the current administration gets its ass handed to them -

Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case"

Initial source was Wikipedia followed up with Cornell Laws website.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with your definition of executive privilege, but disagree on what you think the requested materials contain. Largely these GOP led committees have been less concerned with discovering the facts surrounding Benghazi and more concerned with political maneuvering and embarrassing the administration. Thus they subpoena documents that contain little if any relevant data on the situation, but might contain "PR Strategy" and discussions surrounding communications, speech, public perception etc..Which has the potential to damage the administration, but also falls under executive privilege ...a way to afford Administrations to operate without the opposition virtually "bugging" the whitehouse and supeonaing any communications they feel like.


Put another way..>Daryl Issa is an asshat and even those amongst his own party know it.

1. Napolitano is not a judge anymore.
2. Congress can subpoena anyone it wants.
3. Congress cannot compel the President or any of his Cabinet Officers to appear, subpoena or not.
4. The President may, if he so choses, allow a Cabinet Officer to appear.
5. No President has ever testified before a Congressional Committee UNLESS THE PRESIDENT ASKED TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES.
6. The President will NOT appear himself. The President will ESPECIALLY not appear if Congress tries to use a subpoena.
7. An attempt by Congress to force the President to appear would undoubtedly end up in SCOTUS - and SCOTUS would laugh Congress out of the building.

a reply to: SirKonstantin

Sure democrats should set that one up. I'm sure they wouldn't because they voted n r in on it as well.

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
If Obama can be Subpoenaed for Benghazi, Then Lets Subpoena Bush for 9/11.

Remember when we tried that? The compromise was no recording, 1 person asking, Cheyney was in the room, and it was all off the record with prereviewed and approved questions.

a reply to: Indigo5

When an administration constantly gets caught up in scandals of their own making, it becomes more and more difficult to get cooperation from the administration.

Do you take the administrations word that the information they are withholding is not relevant to what's being investigated? If an administration has done no wrong then there is no reason they cant turn over documents to support that position. To me it would be like having the SS investigate Auschwitz. You will get a report that shows everything is ok and no violations of the law occurred.

When an administration starts stonewalling an investigation, hindering congressional oversight, further steps are taken. In case some people missed it, Congress has gone head to head with the administration, resulting in the situation being referred to the courts to consider the position of each side.

When the DOJ refuses to investigate situations where there is a clear law violation, it becomes ever more problematic. It also means explanations by the administration become less and less credible.


In this particular realm, politics and separation of powers / checks and balances, I am a firm believer in if you have nothing to hide then turn over the requested documents. The longer there is resistance the more criminal these people look. Obamas use of executive orders and blatantly illegal bypass of Congress, to me, moves us past the possibility of violations into the realm of the need to special prosecutors.

Regardless of party, I would rather see hearings / investigations rather than ignoring possible issues.

We don't know what those documents contain which is the reason for the request to turn them over.
White House lawyers are not protected by attorney-client privilege.

While Issa may be an "asshat" the same can be applied to Obama and members of his administration. Personally speaking I think people are to willing to ignore / write off some of Obama's scandals based solely on politics and race.

While the Republicans may think that, the fact remains that he is head of his committee. Those leadership positions are assigned by the party who has control of Congress, which means his assignment was signed off on by the Republicans.

Regardless of party / politics a general rule of thumb -

originally posted by: rnaa

1. Napolitano is not a judge anymore.

Which seems a bit irrelevant since all he is doing is giving his opinion based on his experience.

originally posted by: rnaa
2. Congress can subpoena anyone it wants.

Incorrect - Congress's authority to issue subpoenas must stem from a valid investigation. It cannot just issue a subpoena for the sole purpose of a fishing expedition for criminal behavior. It also requires the entity issuing the subpoena to have jurisdiction / oversight of the specific area.

Wilkinson v. United States - Congresses ability to issue subpoena is based on 3 criteria -
1 - the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second,
2 - the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress;
3 - specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

originally posted by: rnaa
3. Congress cannot compel the President or any of his Cabinet Officers to appear, subpoena or not.

Actually they can compel the President / cabinet members to comply with subpoenas. The problem is the refusal itself is a violation however because its coming from Congress, the question becomes political and not criminal (speech and debate clause applies and prevents the judicial branch from interference). As we saw with Clintons debacle he eventually gave depositions / interview on the topic.

originally posted by: rnaa
4. The President may, if he so choses, allow a Cabinet Officer to appear.

True and based on the above info.

originally posted by: rnaa
5. No President has ever testified before a Congressional Committee UNLESS THE PRESIDENT ASKED TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES.

The legal challenge in this area stems from executive privilege and how is covered by it. Since the Executive is its own branch of government, the argument is Congress cant compel the President, and by extension his cabinet / advisors, to testify no more than the President can order Congress to testify.

In the past the Executive and Legislative have always come to an agreement about testimony since the courts see the issues between branches as a political issue and not criminal/civil issue. Invocation of executive privilege can result in criminal / civil contempt charges, as we have seen against Holder and now Lois Lerner.

Criminal contempt is handled by the DOJ.
Civil contempt is handled by the courts.

For civil contempt the judge gets to determine if the information in question meets the requirement set forth for executive privilege.

originally posted by: rnaa
6. The President will NOT appear himself. The President will ESPECIALLY not appear if Congress tries to use a subpoena.

Its permissible to allow legal representation to appear on behalf of the President. We have seen this a couple times over the last few years dealing with the Presidents birth certificate issue. A court issued a subpoena for the President, who in turn was represented by his legal counsel.

The most recent cases dealing with President and subpoenas and just how far immunity / protection goes occurred in the Clinton administration, specifically the Lewinski scandal. In some of those instances the courts ignored the executives position and issued orders for members to appear before star's investigation.

originally posted by: rnaa
7. An attempt by Congress to force the President to appear would undoubtedly end up in SCOTUS - and SCOTUS would laugh Congress out of the building.

Since it deals with 2 separate branches I don't see scotus becoming involved. The speech and debate clause prevents the judicial from intervening and scotus rulings have made those situations a political question and not a legal one.

Recourse for Congress would be to authorize a special prosecutor, at which point the courts can get involved in order to determine if a person can or cannot be compelled to provide testimony / evidence.
If that fails then Congress can draft articles of impeachment to force the removal of the person in question (President / Cabinet secretaries / anyone covered under executive privilege) thus making them answerable to the courts.


I still say the government should be forced to comply with congressional oversight. If our government is violating the law then that is where checks and balances come into play, and rightfully so. To stonewall congressional investigations / hearings, imo, should not be allowed as it gives our government an easy ability to obfuscate and avoid being held accountable.

I forgot to add - The failure of the Executive to enforce the law falls within the jurisdiction of Congressional hearings / investigations. The question really becomes who is being investigated? If its not the President then I would say refusal to cooperate with a congressional hearing can have adverse effects, just like a material witness refusing to identify / testify.

The info above comes from Wikipedia / Cornell law / SCOTUS website

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

When an administration constantly gets caught up in scandals of their own making, it becomes more and more difficult to get cooperation from the administration.

And there you summarize every administration in the history of the USA.

"In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with the Kingdom of Great Britain.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Do you take the administrations word that the information they are withholding is not relevant to what's being investigated? If an administration has done no wrong then there is no reason they cant turn over documents to support that position.

No...

Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case"

en.wikipedia.org...

This seems fair? does it not?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
To me it would be like having the SS investigate Auschwitz. You will get a report that shows everything is ok and no violations of the law occurred.

Yes..Ad hitleratum...never squander an opportunity to compare the opposition to Nazis.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
When an administration starts stonewalling an investigation, hindering congressional oversight, further steps are taken.

10's of thousands of pages and communications...50 some-odd separate committees/hearings and investigations...many more than 9-11 warranted...you have an odd idea of "stonewalling".

originally posted by: Xcathdra
In this particular realm, politics and separation of powers / checks and balances, I am a firm believer in if you have nothing to hide then turn over the requested documents.

WTF? really? I want all internal communications amongst the house GOP leadership regarding Benghazi...all of the political strategy memo's, emails, transcripts of meetings...ALL of it. THAT should bring some light as to what is going on.

originally posted by: XcathdraWhile Issa may be an "asshat" the same can be applied to Obama and members of his administration. Personally speaking I think people are to willing to ignore / write off some of Obama's scandals based solely on politics and race.

Well, "personally" I think the claim that President (born Kenya - fist bump- terrorist) Obama has been treated with kit-gloves due to his race is laughable.