Posted on 09/27/2019 4:01:42 AM PDT by knighthawk
How can you intimidate an anonymous, likely imaginary whistleblower who has no direct knowledge of anything?
Well, to be fair to them, it sounds like intimidation. If O or Clinton had said this about their whistleblowers, this site would be up in arms about it...
Seems like my copy of the Constitution doesn’t allow anonymity of witnesses. Perhaps the one (or many) accusing the President should stand in the open air of society, and be subject to scrutiny. If not, I think their actions/criticisms are crimes for which they should be punished. If their names are disclosed, and they can’t justify their words, they should suffer a lifetime of ignominy.
“The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness
You’re a liar.
“One of Trump’s biggest handicaps is the lack of a useful DOJ from day one with Sessions on through this Bagpipe Player.”
That does seems to be the popular consensus here, but just for the sake of argument - let’s say he had had a different DOJ all this time and had thrown lots of ex Obama officials in jail for their crimes.
Certainly, it would be the justice they deserve - but are you sure it would have been the best outcome, politically?
Are you sure his passivity in the face of this three year political witch hunt (and Mueller’s utter lack of findings) hasn’t earned him some good will with independents and undecided voters, for transparency and accountability?
Are you sure throwing ex Obama officials in jail wouldn’t have backfired politically - reinforcing the Left’s narrative that he is a ruthless and vindictive authoritarian who prefers to dispatch political rivals through a weaponized DOJ, rather than through the democratic process?
I think President Trump was not handicapped by anyone or anything - I think it was his choice all along to submit to the witch hunt, knowing it would show him to be an accountable and transparent leader - that it would vindicate him as honest and uncorrupted.
I think it was his choice all along to refrain from seeking conviction of ex- Obama officials - knowing that eventually the truth would come out that it was his enemies who were corrupt, not him - and knowing that until the people knew the truth, it would be a mistake for him to seek convictions.
If his re-election is as slam dunk as I expect it to be, it will be hard to argue that he has not been in control of the strategy all along - hard to argue that he has been handicapped in any way.
I’m not saying President Trump instructed Sessions to recuse himself, or ordered Barr to stand down, but he did appoint both of them, and as their boss he could have forced a different outcome - if that’s what he really wanted. I think he wanted this outcome and has won a lot of hearts and minds (and votes) with this strategy.
Am not.
Defending yourself is now a crime.
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.