Replies

They should, at the very least, subpoena the so-called whistleblower.
Trump has a right to face his accuser, and his defense team should have an opportunity to cross-examined him.

A local man contributes the following dem talking point to the local paper: “Suppose an upstanding citizen sees a known criminal enter a bank with a gun and then calls the police. The police catch the career criminal putting the money he robbed back, and claims that he was in fact not robbing the bank but trying to prove the bank manager was crooked. Does the bank robber, caught in the act by the police have the right to cross examine the upstanding citizen who called the cops? Of course not!’

In his scenario, the known criminal in PDJT, the whistle blower is just a fine citizen reporting a crime. The police are the House Democrats. Only problem is the “bank robbery” is just a phone call, which rarely a crime. Nevertheless, this has been printed at least twice in the local paper, which is quite conservative.

Somebody should retort by asking, what if the police find out later that the "fine citizen" and the "bank manager" conspired to make the person entering the bank look like he was robbing it?

What if the person was just legally depositing a check and taking some cash when the citizen and the manager showed the police a cherry-picked clip from their security camera showing the man with money at the teller counter, but they hid the deposit slip in a room in the basement?

What if the manager had another teller tell the police, "I saw him hand a note to the teller and take money from him, and I just assumed he was robbing him." What if another customer in the bank said he told the police the man was robbing the bank because that's what the other teller told him?

-PJ

“.. Does the bank robber, caught in the act by the police have the right to cross examine the upstanding citizen who called the cops? Of course not!’...”

Of course he DOES! The accused ALWAYS has the right to face his accuser.