Does Schiff Memo Rebut Nunes Memo? You Judge

President Trump has declassified the memorandum prepared by the Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also known as the “Democrat” or “Schiff Memo.”

The Schiff Memo is designed to rebut the three key points set out in the Republican Nunes memo. On Feb. 22, I wrote that the Nunes memo “suggests that the FISA process was abused.”

The purpose of this op-ed is to set out the Republican memo’s three key points and the Democratic responses thereto, to allow you to judge whether the Democrats have succeeded or failed in rebutting:


Nunes Memo, Point 1:

“That the Steele dossier was compiled by (Christopher) Steele on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia. ... That information, although known to the FBI and DOJ, was not disclosed to the FISA Court.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: The Department of Justice disclosed that Steele (Source 1) “was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source No. 1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired identified U.S. persons to conduct research regarding Candidate No. 1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia. They identified the U.S. Person and Source No. 1 as having had a longstanding business relationship. The identified U.S. person hired (Steele) to conduct research. ... The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate No. 1’s campaign.

Nunes Memo, Point 2:

“In September 2016, Steele admitted to (the DOJ’s Bruce) Ohr that he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’ This clear evidence of Steele’s ‘bias’ was recorded at the time, but not disclosed in any application made to the FISA court to surveil (Carter) Page.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: “Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, ... the DOJ repeatedly informed the court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias. DOJ explained in detail Steele’s prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI and the likely political motivation of those who hired Steele.”

Nunes Memo, Point 3:

“Deputy Director (Andrew) McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information.”

Schiff memo rebuttal:

I can find no attempt to rebut the Nunes’ memo’s third point.


Witnesses testifying in every U.S. court take an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A half-truth is not the whole truth. Affidavits for search warrants must set out facts, not conclusions.

They must describe with “particularity.” Had I been the judge, asked by the FBI and DOJ to issue a FISA warrant to spy on Americans involved in a political campaign, I would have demanded the specific facts—as opposed to conclusions. I would have wanted the whole truth, not half-truths. Particulars!

That Source 1 was approached by an identified U.S. person was “conclusory.” Were I the judge, I would have wanted the particulars that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had sent Clinton Campaigm law firm attorneys to hire Steele to dredge up damaging information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia” to undermine his presidential campaign. I would have wanted to know that Steele composed the dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and that they paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm.

I would have wanted to know that the FBI knew—rather than “speculated”—that the Clinton campaign and the DNC—rather than “identified U.S. persons”—were obviously looking—rather than “likely looking”—for information useful in taking down the Trump campaign.

And I would have wanted to know the full extent of Steele’s anti-Trump bias that made him desperate and passionate that Donald Trump not get elected president. Obvious bias and likely motivation are two very different things.

Would the FISA judge, had he been presented with the detailed facts set out in the Nunes memo, have issued the warrant? Or would he have concluded that Steele’s opposition research, paid for with 160,000 Democratic dollars, and created by an operative with a visceral hatred of Trump, wasn’t trustworthy?

As a judge who issued numerous search warrants in my 26 years, I would not have issued the warrant(s) had I been provided with the matters set out in either memo.

How about you?



Posted: QCOline.com April 5, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Teachers - the Last Line of Defense for Schools

The civilian AR-15, which has been labeled “an assault rifle,” is a semi-automatic rifle. During WWII, the U.S. produced about 5.4 million M1s, and 6.1 million M1 carbines.

Banning the AR-15 won’t eliminate semi-automatic rifles. Wikipedia lists all the mass murders that have occurred in U.S. schools. In 1940, there were 5 deaths at a Pasadena, Calif. school.

There were no further mass killings at any U.S. school until 1966, when five were killed at a Mesa, Ariz., school. Yet during that entire time, semi-automatic weapons were plentiful.


In the 1950s things were different. I never once as a boy even imagined that someone would enter my school with a gun and start killing. We left the back door to our house unlocked from morning until night.

Something has changed. Since 2005, there have been a dozen terrible school mass shootings. Some people blame “assault rifles.” Others, the National Rifle Association. Some, inadequate mental health registries. Others, video game creators, Hollywood, and television for glamorizing violence.

Word limits preclude me from attempting to assign blame here. My sole purpose is to suggest at least one concrete step that must be taken to prevent the next such massacre.

President Donald Trump, the NRA, and others have suggested allowing some teachers or other school personnel to carry guns after proper training. Others, including U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, disagree.

Opponents’ reasons include:

— There should never be a gun in a school;

— Teachers and administrators don’t want to carry guns;

--- Teachers and administrators may be mentally unstable, and may use their gun to perpetrate a school shooting;

— They lack the training or experience to safely and properly carry concealed. They may panic and fire into a group of children;

— Even if they have a gun, they might be in a remote part of the school and unable to confront the gunman;

--- Even with training, might lack the courage to confront a school shooter;

— Police are better trained and should be left to handle such situations;

— It may be traumatic for the kids to know that some teachers carry guns.

I would agree with the abstract proposition that there “never should be a gun in a school.” But when a gunman barges in, intent on being a “professional school shooter,” all wishful thinking goes out the window.

I want guns there to stop him before he can kill a single child or teacher.

The claim that teachers don’t want to carry guns is not entirely accurate. After the Parkland shooting, the sheriff of Butler County, Ohio offered to train 50 teachers. More than 50 teachers took up his offer within 20 minutes.

It is argued that teachers may be “mentally unstable.” If so, why are they being allowed to teach? Shouldn’t the school administration have the right to decide if a teacher is sufficiently stable to teach? To carry? Are teachers less stable than police officers? Have any police officers perpetrated a school shooting?

Some claim teachers are not properly trained to use firearms. But the essence of the president’s proposal is that they be properly trained before they are allowed to carry.

A quintessential point of NRA firearms training is that you don’t fire a gun unless you have a clear shot. You don’t shoot at a turkey surrounded by children. A teacher in even a remote part of the school can probably get to the would-be shooter in a minute or less. History shows, responding officers can’t. Moreover, a teacher will know the layout and students better than any responding officer.

Will a teacher have the courage to confront an armed intruder? Didn’t an unarmed coach put himself between the Parkland shooter and his student targets? Didn’t the county deputy take cover outside the school, rather than confront the shooter?

Clearly, the police are better trained to confront such situations. But they can’t until they arrive. Department of Homeland Security research reveals that the average duration of an active school shooter incident” is 12.5 minutes. The average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes.

Will students really be traumatized to learn some of their teachers are armed to protect them from would-be school shooters? Wouldn’t they be more traumatized knowing that no one will be able to protect them during the first 18 minutes?

Willing and properly trained school personnel—with authorization of the school administration—should form the last line of defense—not the first. Particularly, where fiscal or other considerations preclude having a sufficient number of police officers on site.



Posted: QCOline.com March 22, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Some Negative Ads Justified, Let Voters Decide Truth

Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner has been running negative ads. So has GOP opponent Rep. Jeanne Ives.

Our federal and state constitutions, first and foremost, protect political speech—even devastating speech—and leave it to the voters to ferret out lies and reject dishonest politicians.

I have never been against all negative political ads. I do, however reprobate those that intentionally misrepresent an opponent’s position, and/or lie about the opposing candidate.

But if the opposing candidate lies, or promises voters he will do one thing, only to do the opposite, I am in favor of any negative ads that truthfully demonstrate that conduct.

Two Gov. Rauner ads attack Rep. Ives, his gubernatorial primary opponent. Both are unarguably negative. But are either truthful? Substantially truthful?

The governor’s first TV ad begins with grainy, unflattering photos of Ives. Why? Is that how she really looks? Next it calls Ives “another Madigan lackey” for refusing to call Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan a crook (apparently as Gov. Rauner has been doing).

It concludes by claiming Ives supports Madigan’s Illinois income tax increase because when asked if she would repeal it, she truthfully answered that no governor can repeal a tax law on her own; only the Legislature can repeal a tax. Gov. Rauner knows that.

From beginning to end, this is an untruthful negative ad. It is intended to place Rep. Ives in a false light.

Gov. Rauner’s second negative ad says, “Jeanne Ives took thousands from a shady labor union tied to Mike Madigan. She voted against increasing your property tax exemption. Now, she’s criticizing Bruce Rauner for calling Mike Madigan a crook, brags about Madigan voting for her bills and complains Rauner is ‘picking on Madigan.’ Let’s recap. Jeanne Ives was for higher taxes, took shady money from Madigan’s cronies and now defends and defers to Madigan. Jeanne Ives might just be Mike Madigan’s favorite Republican and Illinois’ worst nightmare.”

What union? What exemption did she vote against? What higher taxes did she support. How is she Madigan’s lackey? Proof, please!

The governor, no doubt, feels justified. Rep. Ives ran a negative ad captioned, “Thank you, Bruce Rauner.” The Chicago Tribune criticized it as “racist, sexist and homophobic.” But does it tell the truth?


Ives refuses to pull the ad arguing that it “exposes Rauner’s betrayal of GOP voters.” The ad is clearly designed to spotlight Gov. Rauner’s alleged betrayal of his base. The people in the ad are obvious caricatures—exaggerations—created to burlesque Gov. Rauner’s alleged sellout of his Republican base by approving five bills.

First, a man dressed as a woman says, “Thank you, for signing legislation that lets me use the girl’s bathroom.”

Next, a young woman in a strange pink hat says, “Thank you, for making all Illinois families pay for my abortions.” 

Then, an African-American woman wearing a Chicago Teachers Union shirt, says, “Thank you for making the rest of the state bail out city public schools and teachers’ pensions.”

Next a guy wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt and a red handkerchief over his face says, “Thank you Bruce Rauner for opposing law-enforcement and making Illinois a Sanctuary State for illegal immigrant criminals.”

The ad goes on to thank Gov. Rauner for bailing out Exelon at taxpayer expense.

It then shows a copy of conservative National Review, labeling Gov. Rauner, “The Worst Republican Governor in America.”

The ad concludes by calling the governor “Benedict Rauner” (as in “Benedict Arnold”).

So are Jeanne Ive’s claims true? Substantially true? If so, Ives has the right to stand by her ad. However, if the voters judge her speech to be “racist, sexist and homophobic,” rather than “devastating political speech,” they can decide she’s not deserving of their votes.

A politician worthy of election doesn’t seek to shut down political speech. He engages in truthful counter-speech. The voter gets to decide where the truth lies.

(Before seeing Gov. Rauner’s ads, I had taken no notice of Jeanne Ives, nor seen her ad. I knew only that she was a state rep, running for Governor, and a former West Pointer.)

Posted: QCOline.com March 15, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

A Tool to Prevent School Shootings

There has been another murderous school shooting. This time in Parkland, Fla.

But this time the advance warnings to the police and FBI were so clear that something could and should have been done to stop it.

I propose a new criminal offense to clearly cover such situations. Here’s why. Traditionally, people come into our criminal justice system only after they commit their crimes.

In general, we do not imprison people because they may eventually commit a crime. Our criminal law has its roots in the English common law. There, every crime had two elements: an intent element, and an act element.

For example, it is not enough that a homicide occurs. That homicide must also be accompanied with a wrongful intent: If while I am chopping wood with an ax, the head of the ax flies off and kills my neighbor, I am not guilty of murder. I had no wrongful intent to kill. There was an act of killing, but no wrongful intent to kill.

Over the centuries, however, given the presence of a wrongful intent, acts in preparation to committing a criminal offense have been criminalized. Given an intent to murder, acts in preparation of the murder have become criminal offenses, even thought the murder itself has not been committed.

This category of criminal offenses is known as the “inchoate offenses.” They include attempt, conspiracy and solicitation.

An “attempt” occurs when a person with intent to commit the principle offense, i.e., murder, robbery, burglary, takes a "substantial step" toward the commission of that offense. A intends to murder B. A pays $5,000 to C to have C kill B. Or A buys a gun for use in killing B.

“Conspiracy” is committed when X and Y agree to rob a bank, and one or more of the conspirators "acts in furtherance" of the conspiracy. The intent is found in the agreement to rob the back. The "act in furtherance" can occur when X purchases weapons to use in the robbery, or when Y acquires the get-away car.

A “solicitation” occurs when with intent that an offense will be committed, the solicitor commands, encourages, or requests another to commit that offense. 

In the case of the 19-year-old who murdered 17 people at the Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, it appears the murderer announced his intent on YouTube: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” He then apparently took a "substantial step" toward the shooting when he purchased the AR-15. Also, according to reports he further proclaimed his intent to “shoot people with his AR-15.” Because he apparently acted alone, he could not be charged with either conspiracy or solicitation. Both require at least two people. But why not "attempt?" Probably because the offense of attempt has never been applied to precisely this factual situation. Possibly because the penalties for attempt are not sufficiently severe to deter this sort of heinous conduct.

Nevertheless, "attempt" can serve as the model. I suggest that the time has come for Congress and state legislatures to create a criminal offense clearly applicable to the facts of this case.

Here’s my proposed statute:

“A person commits the offense of preparation to Commit Mass Murder and/or Great Bodily Harm’ when before the commission of such mass murder and/or great bodily harm he states, announces or otherwise communicates his intention to commit mass murder and/or great bodily harm orally, in writing, or otherwise and he does any "act in furtherance thereof, "or that constitutes a "substantial step" toward the commission of that offense.

“A person convicted of this offense shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life, without possibility of parole or early release. The phrase ‘mass murder and/or great bodily harm’ would include murdering or inflicting great bodily harm on two or more persons at any school, church or other place of worship, pubic event, sporting event, or place of public accommodations where 10 or more people are or are reasonably expected to be present.

The term ‘substantial step’ would include but is not limited to, buying a gun, chemicals, biological elements, a vehicle, or a bomb or bomb making components consistent with the expressed intent, stated, announced or otherwise communicated intent of the person charged.

A person ‘otherwise communicates his intention’ when he writes it in his diary, records it on any media, or posts it on any social media, as well as when he tells anybody his intention, orally or in writing.”

Posted: QCOline.com March 6, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Nunes Memo Suggests that FISA Process Was Abused

On Feb. 2, President Donald Trump declassified a memorandum by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuse at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”Referred to as the “Nunes memo,” it deals largely with four applications made by the FBI and DOJ to the FISA court to intercept electronic communications of Carter Page.

The first was made on Oct. 21, 2016. Each application was good for only 90 days. Three were signed by FBI Director James Comey; one by Deputy Andrew McCabe. Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein signed the applications on behalf of Department of Justice.

As in the case of an ordinary search warrant, the judge hears only the government’s side of the case. As such, it is essential that the application tell the truth, which means the whole truth.


Proper use of the FISA application is “necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts” which includes information favorable to the target of the FISA application then known to the government.

The memo charges that in the case of Page, “the government had at least four independent opportunities to provide the FISA court with evidence favorable to Page.” Four times it failed to do so.

The memo further charges that:

1. The Steele dossier was compiled by Steele on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. They paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia.” That information, although known to the FBI and DOJ, was not disclosed to the FISA court.

2. In the FISA application to surveil Page, the Steele dossier was buttressed by a seemingly independent news article in Yahoo News by Michael Isikoff, detailing Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. “This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.” (Steele has since admitted in a British Court that he met with Yahoo News and several other outlets in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.) For these and other media contacts, Steele has now been terminated as an FBI source, for violating the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality.

3. Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr, who worked with Yates and later Rod Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr.

In September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr, that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president. This clear evidence of Steele’s ‘bias’ was recorded at the time, but not disclosed in any application made to the FISA court to surveil Page.”


To make things, worse, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS “to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump.” Fusion’s work was also paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

The memo concludes:

“While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting in other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steel dossier information.”

In every U.S. jurisdiction, an attorney has a “duty of candor” to the court. The lawyer cannot knowingly make a false statement of fact to a judge. He cannot withhold material facts from the court. And he has a duty to correct any false statement of material fact previously made.

A prosecutor in his official capacity, is the representative of all the people, including the defendant. It is as much his duty to safeguard the constitutional rights of the defendant as those of any other citizen, (the People v. Cochran, 1924). The U. S. Supreme Court said essentially the same thing in Berger v. U.S. (1935). That includes a duty to disclose to the defendant and the court all evidence that tends to negate guilt.

Lawyers who lie to the court, or withhold material facts, subject themselves to sanctions, including disbarment. Finally how Ohr could investigate in a case involving his wife’s employer, especially where his wife was actively involved, screams “conflict of interest.”

Posted: QCOline.com February 22, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

You Design U.S. Immigration Policies!

President Donald Trump and the Democratic leadership are at loggerheads over immigration.

The president wants a wall, and merit-based immigration. Democrats want open borders. What’s your solution?

Who would you allow to enter our country? Would you require that immigrants be literate? Would you require that immigrants be able to speak English? At least, broken-English?

Would you accept immigrants who believe Catholic Canon Law should be the supreme law of the land? Who believe Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the land?

Would you require that immigrants should be able to support themselves?

Would you accept immigrants who will not be able to support themselves, and who will immediately go on welfare? Is it the duty of taxpaying Americans to provide the new immigrants with free housing? Free food? Free medical care? Free schooling through high school? Free college?

Are you comfortable with accepting immigrants with no job skills who will compete for low income jobs with Americans who lack job skills? If you flood the job-market with immigrants with no job skills, will you depress wages? Make it harder for Americans with no or minimal job skills to find employment?

Would you accept immigrants who believe America is an evil country? The “Great Satan?” 

Would you accept immigrants who have no desire to assimilate? Who come to create in America a somewhat better version of the country from which they just emigrated?

Would you accept immigrants with criminal records for murder, robbery, burglary, rape, gun crimes, thefts, manslaughter? Would you accept immigrants who are drug dealers? Who have made a living transporting cocaine into the USA? Heroin? Who have worked for foreign drug cartels?

Would accept immigrants who have made their living by smuggling illegal aliens into the U.S. or come to America to fly airliners into our great buildings or drive a truck into a crowd of children? To plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, etc.?

Are you willing to admit immigrants who believe their “religion” requires them to kill heretics? Apostates? Americans of different faiths? To replace courts within our judicial system with courts that make their religious law the supreme law of the land?

With open borders and no wall, how would you propose to keep our "undesirable immigrants" you do not believe should be allowed in this country? Or are there no "undesirable immigrants, "as far as you’re concerned?

Should America open its borders to all, and concern itself with terrorism, heroin and cocaine sales, and criminal conduct only after the fact? Should we leave such matters exclusively to our criminal justice system after the crimes have been committed and perpetrators have been caught?

Or should our country be pro-active to prevent terrorism, drugs sales, and criminal misconduct at the hand of immigrants by carefully vetting, to keep such immigrants out of our country altogether?

As you consider each of the questions, ask yourself whose policies are better for dealing with these issues? The Democratic solution is keep the borders open! Therefore, a wall is unnecessary. Accept anybody who wants to come, any distant relative of anybody who is already here. Keep the visa lottery system, ignore the fact that, for all intents and purposes, only people from certain countries fly airliners into civilian buildings, engage in suicide bombings at weddings and funerals, use ambulances to perpetrate suicide bombings, and behead those they regard as infidels.

President Trump’s solution would give amnesty to over a million “Dreamers,” build a wall, end chain migration, end the visa lottery system, and go to a merit based immigration system.

Mr. Trump says he wants people to come who will love our country, and who will help better our country. Who do you agree with?

Whose program better addresses the issue I have set out above? What’s your program for dealing with those issues?

One other question: Why should we have less security at our borders than we do at our airports?


Posted: QCOline.com February 15, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Why Volunteer to be Burned at Stake?

President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied Russian collusion.

He further said he is willing to speak to special prosecutor Robert Mueller. But if the president speaks without preconditions, he’s utterly insane.

Even with preconditions as to the scope of the interrogation, he’s insane. Here’s why.


Mr. Trump could go in expecting to be questioned about Russian collusion—and “any matters that ... may arise directly from that investigation.” But Mr. Mueller’s powers are even broader. If Mr. Mueller feels a full investigation requires him to inquire into additional matters, Mr. Trump might suddenly find himself being examined on foreign investment violations pertaining to a hotel he built 10 years ago in Timbuktu, or on claims that he willfully understated his income to avoid taxation in 2013.

If you think that’s fanciful, consider that Paul Manifort has already been charged with money laundering, which seemingly bears no relationship to Russian meddling. Special counsel (prosecutor) Mueller was appointed to investigate the “Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” But the law also allows prosecution of related perjury, lying to the FBI, etc.

And if the special counsel feels that additional jurisdiction is necessary to fully investigate, that could be granted, upon his request, by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him.

One danger Mr. Trump faces is prosecutor Mueller deciding that the president has lied during the interview—even if the statement in question was not made under oath.

This danger is real, even if Mr. Trump is pure as the driven snow on the collusion issue. He still is in grave danger of saying something contrary to what one or more other witnesses have already said, and being charged with lying to the FBI, or some similar process crime.

Prosecutor Mueller and his team—many of whom are Democrat donors—have been investigating the president and his associates since May 17, 2017. They must have piles of statements. It is almost inconceivable that among that mountain of transcripts, Mueller wouldn’t be unable to find some statements of material fact that will contradict something the president says. That will afford the prosecutor a basis for charging the president with lying.

It matters not that that prior statement itself may be a lie, as long as it has the appearance of truthfulness to Mr. Mueller. Just consider the damage that has already been done by the bogus “Fusion GPS Dossier.”


What the president is up against, is equivalent to being dragged before the Papal Inquisition, circa 1250 A.D. Imagine the following taken scenario from “The Inquisition of the Middle Ages.” Would you voluntarily appear?

“The Inquisitor summons everyone within a certain radius to come forward and reveal to him whatever they have known or heard of anyone leading to the belief that he might be a heretic ... or that he had spoken against any article of faith ....


“In a trial by the Inquisition, a man would be reported to the Inquisitor ... for heresy, or his name would occur in the confession of another prisoner. A secret investigation would be made, and all accessible evidence against him would be collected. He would then be cited to appear or arrested. ... The accused was presumed to be guilty—or he would not have been put on trial!

“The Inquisitor prepared himself by collecting and studying all the adverse evidence that could be produced, while the prisoner was kept in sedulous ignorance of the charges against him.”

Generally, the Inquisitor was a well-educated cleric; the accused, more often than not, was illiterate, and entirely unfamiliar with mortal danger of being a witness against himself on a charge of heresy, while facing a trained interrogator.

This is what President Trump faces unless he sets limits on the scope of the interrogation: an educated and astute businessman facing a squad of trained prosecutors, most with Democratic leanings, who are looking to charge him with making false statements, while sitting on a mountain of depositions.

It is inconceivable, that with all the evidence already gathered, the president will not say something that an earlier depositions belies. If he talks to them at all, he’s insane.

If he goes in without preconditions, limiting the scope, he’s utterly insane.

If Mueller insists, without strict preconditions, the president should sue at least to delimit the scope of the investigation.

Posted: QCOline.com February 8, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea