Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
47. And what does Clapper have to do with "Waaah, waaah, Obama has no Paaaaaaants!!!"
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:24 PM
Mar 2014

You aren't making your case. Just as Assange didn't make his with that absurdly childish insult.

Pssst--here's a clue for you....the people who need to "charge" Clapper with misconduct are in CONGRESS. You might want to direct your inquiry to them, rather than screeching at Obama. Here's some background:

The US Congress, by right of a 1938 law has the right to require people to appear before either body (House or Senate). This is issued in the form of a subpoena in most cases. When a person fails to appear or fails to testify, Congress is empowered by the same law to find the person in contempt of congress. More loosely, any person who impedes a congressional investigation may be cited as being in contempt. Acts impeding an investigation include failing to appear when summoned, failing to produce requested documents, or lying to congress in an attempt to obstruct an investigation.

Contempt of congress is very much like being held in contempt by a judge or a federal or state court. If you fail to answer a subpoena in a regular court can earn you a contempt citation. Similarly refusing to answer questions if you do appear and are doing things like hiding evidence pertaining to an investigation, you can be charged with contempt.

Another similarity in contempt of congress is your rights if you receive a subpoena. Under most circumstances, you can claim 5th Amendment rights if testimony you give would be self-incriminating. If the House or Senate is investigating some scandal that directly concerns the person subpoenaed, the person need not incriminate himself by giving testimony. Still, failure to answer the subpoena and appear as appointed may have repercussions. It is in fact breaking a law.

Under current US law, a person found in contempt of congress has committed a misdemeanor, may serve up to 12 months in prison and may be fined. It is up to the house conducting the investigation to determine whether such fines or a prison sentence are appropriate. Sometimes Congress does not act even on cases where a person is in longstanding contempt. The hope may be that simply declaring someone in contempt of congress may result in his or her appearance, though this is not always the case.....




Now...what does that have to do with "Obama's pants," hmmmmm?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Shorter Assange: Please don't forget about me. I still matter! nt geek tragedy Mar 2014 #1
... MADem Mar 2014 #27
So many foreigners worried about American citizens' constitutional and privacy rights. TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #2
Guess we're even bigwillq Mar 2014 #12
...^ that 840high Mar 2014 #53
There are a few of us Americans who are worried about the same thing. former9thward Mar 2014 #39
Yep. nt Mojorabbit Mar 2014 #57
Not only that, he can keep them on, too, Jules BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #3
Boom! babylonsister Mar 2014 #4
... tammywammy Mar 2014 #13
LOL Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #15
Ahahaha! BenzoDia Mar 2014 #20
LOL FSogol Mar 2014 #21
And with that, you win the thread... SidDithers Mar 2014 #22
Unlike several of our Democratic presidents. And Assange was single... Luminous Animal Mar 2014 #24
Hmm...why the swipe at Democrats unrelated to this thread? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #37
Interesting, ain't it? Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #50
How quickly a poster gets to the Clenis is usually an indicator for me. I mean, I get msanthrope Mar 2014 #59
Boom, indeed, goes that dyn-o-mite! Full marks! nt MADem Mar 2014 #28
Well DUH! No Dem Pres gets control of every intel operation since BFEE took it over in the early70s. blm Mar 2014 #5
Still a predator I see Politicalboi Mar 2014 #6
We also know when the American people take something seriously. randome Mar 2014 #7
Obama's pants must be with his comfortable walking shoes and peace prize. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #8
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #9
Totally agree treestar Mar 2014 #17
Well, Congress makes law...and all approprpriations start in the House. MADem Mar 2014 #29
We know Assange's had trouble keeping his own pants on. pnwmom Mar 2014 #10
Going to address the topic at hand? 1000words Mar 2014 #16
I don't think I'd touch that pnwmom Mar 2014 #18
This RW asshole surfaces every time the RW assholes in this country start talking shit. ProSense Mar 2014 #11
Yes, he's wearing "mom pants" according to Sarah Palin and her echo chamber. CJCRANE Mar 2014 #14
Interesting Interview...once one gets past Subject Line (Not your Fault) KoKo Mar 2014 #19
Ah! The long-awaited 627th Epistle of St Julian to the Peanut Gallery! struggle4progress Mar 2014 #23
Interesting how many replies attack Assange rather than address the issue. Scuba Mar 2014 #25
The 'issue' is that Obama isn't wearing any pants? randome Mar 2014 #26
And another. Scuba Mar 2014 #34
The point is pretty obvious. I'm not surprised that you don't want to address it. /nt Marr Mar 2014 #42
What issue? Obama's trousers? Assange's petulant boredom? MADem Mar 2014 #30
Look, still another. Scuba Mar 2014 #32
You'd think, when there's "still another," that perhaps you're on the wrong side of the argument...? MADem Mar 2014 #35
I'm not backing Assange, I'm criticizing those who try to deflect his revelations by smearing him. Scuba Mar 2014 #36
What "smear" -- pray tell? Did he not use a lame, sexist reference to try and "smear" Obama? MADem Mar 2014 #38
You keep missing the point. I have not defended Assange. Scuba Mar 2014 #41
No, I'm afraid YOU keep missing the point, and I'm not the only one pointing it out. MADem Mar 2014 #45
Has Clapper been prosecuted yet? Did I miss that? Scuba Mar 2014 #46
And what does Clapper have to do with "Waaah, waaah, Obama has no Paaaaaaants!!!" MADem Mar 2014 #47
Why would Clapper be prosecuted? No a single congressperson has initiated the action msanthrope Mar 2014 #60
What's it tell me? That the NSA has dirt on all of them. Scuba Mar 2014 #61
Or, maybe, the elements of perjury cannot be proved. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #62
Doesn't matter, he confessed. Scuba Mar 2014 #64
Um, yeah...it does matter. You can lie, without committing perjury. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #65
because he cloaked his message in horrible sexist dogshit terms cali Mar 2014 #33
He's saying the same BS Palin was treestar Mar 2014 #40
Exactly right. As always, the pattern speaks volumes. woo me with science Mar 2014 #67
I saw this. grrrr. sexist dogshit. as if leadership means you have to a have a penis. cali Mar 2014 #31
This is the guy who called Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism." msanthrope Mar 2014 #43
it's not more excusable for me cali Mar 2014 #48
And due credit to you for the consistency cali mcar Mar 2014 #54
Perhaps those defending this swipe might want to consider... OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #55
With the allegations of the CIA spying on that Congressional oversight committee... Marr Mar 2014 #44
many really seem not to care G_j Mar 2014 #58
That's rich, coming from a guy who hangs out in his bathrobe in the Ecuadorian embassy, Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #49
The stone in the shoe.... msanthrope Mar 2014 #68
I have no love for him, but he is completely correct. nt 1awake Mar 2014 #51
It doesn't matter who wears the pants. As long as there is no transparency and oversight Autumn Mar 2014 #52
Then why isn't he talking about that? randome Mar 2014 #66
A better question is why isn't the President talking about these issues. Autumn Mar 2014 #69
The better point is that no one has the pants. DirkGently Mar 2014 #56
No One has the Pants...Surveillance State is it's OWN COUNTRY... KoKo Mar 2014 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Julian Assange: Is Presid...»Reply #47