reply to post by babybunnies
If every crackpot out there who wanted to challenge the President was able to call him as a defense witness, he'd NEVER get any work done. I believe
the judge to be correct in this ruling.
Absolute rubbish!
If the proof is provided, concrete and unequivocal - it would only need be presented once, not every five minutes!
The law is the law, the POTUS is NOT above it and is subject to it's vagaries just as the rest of us are.
He is a president, not a deity.
Being voted into an office, even a high office, certainly doesn't make one immune from prosecution or automatically pure of intent and deed, it
simply means he had wealth and wealthy backers enough, to enable him to convince more of YOU to scribble an X in one box rather than another.
The primary linchpin of any democratic civilization, HAS to be the rule of law, to which every human being participating within that jurisdiction, is
subject.
Without it, we no longer have that civilization. Instead we would have a totalitarian dictatorship.
The 'leader' of that democratic civilization, in fact - ESPECIALLY the leader, ought to go the extra mile to accommodate the law, EVEN dare i say at
the expense of a fleeting presidential blush or two.
A brief and magnanimous surrender of presidential pride, is preferable to destabilizing and making a mockery of the rule of law, and the good standing
of an entire nation.
TPTB are often fond of claiming, in defense of wire tapping or civil spying; that the public who are innocent or have nothing to hide, have nothing to
fear from being 'monitored' by the state...is the same then not true of the one, single guy that MILLIONS of YOU guys voted into his current
position?
As for the the guy who's going to be hung out to dry by the military kangaroo court, if the law states that as a defendant he has the LEGAL right to
call whomever he wishes as a witness, or have produced whatever exhibit he wishes in support of his defense, then the court is legally obligated to
oblige.
If he is then denied those basic legal rights when being accused of and prosecuted for an alleged crime, the 'trial' in itself then becomes illegal
if he is denied the right to make his case for his defense. It also makes a laughing stock of the law, and erodes it's authority significantly.
Either follow the rule of law, or dismiss the case. The court cannot claim a legal moral high ground, by running roughshod over those very legalities
put in place to protect the innocent from tyranny from the state.
It's akin to any one of us being charged for a crime we did not commit, and taken before a court to be tried for the crime, and not permitted to
assemble a case in our own defense!
