April 19, 2019

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

The Special Counsel’s report is out — and as we suspected – there was NO collusion.  But, as Andy McCarthy has pointed out, the legal brain trust that wrote the report was able to turn American jurisprudence on its head by leaving open the “obstruction” thing.  The report cites ten instances of the president saying things that might be construed as bordering on obstruction, but in every instance he never acted on those feelings or followed through.

Attorney General Barr picked up those threads and concluded that given the pressure of the unwarranted and false claims of collusion that dogged this presidency for more than two full years, President Trump was expressing his frustration by simply venting (Barr was almost inferring that it was self-righteous venting).  But the effect of the Special Counsel’s ambiguity on this final issue is that it shifts the burden of proof  to the president to prove his innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt.  This is no small beer.  And one must wonder, was this contrived?  Or was the report written by sophomoric grudge-holders?

The left and the media (the same thing) is now angry at Barr, wants him to resign and seems eager to double down on the “obstruction” thing to keep the pot boiling for all stripes of anti-Trumpsters.  What is most troubling for this observer is that the left and the media (there it is again, repetition) now want us to believe that “venting” by someone accused of crimes they know they never committed is somehow unnatural.

Or are we missing something here?  I don’t know about you, but from an early age, I have tried to prove that I had not done things that I was being accused of and might be punished for.  And in every case, I was furious.  As a kid, I was spanked for truthfully – but loudly — insisting I had not done what Dad or Mom thought I had.  (But I wouldn’t rat out my younger brother or older sister.)  And now, as an adult, I still get angry if falsely accused.

Of late, two innocent public figures have been repeatedly and heatedly accused of horrid crimes and pilloried by the left and in the media.  In both cases these good men were Republicans – Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh – and President Donald Trump.  Both men are human and thus were angered – and let it show.  And so the media and the left (there I go again, repeating myself), insist, predictably, that such behavior (getting angry) — by innocent men being falsely accused is “unseemly” and “ill-befitting,” and so on.

Hogwash.  Real men fight back.  Cowards cower.  I’ll want real men by my side every time.  How about you?

Old Frank

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. No accused party in the U.S. is required to prove his or her innocence. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Mueller did NOT prove that President Trump was guilty of any crime. Mueller determined that he did NOT collude with Russia to effect the 2016 Presidential election. Furthermore, the report says that there are NO “sealed indictments”. Based on a DOJ precept that a sitting president cannot be indicted, “sealed” indictments are reserved for when such a person, serving as President, leaves office. Again, there are NO such “sealed” indictments waiting for President Trump to be opened when he leaves office. There is also no indication that ANY crime was committed by President Trump. The Mueller report says as much. Finally, it is NOT the purview of a special counsel to “exonerate” the subject or subjects of any investigation he has been assigned to pursue. He is merely a fact finder. The Mueller report, while not containing any statement by Mueller specifically saying that “I exonerate him” does indeed exonerate President Trump. There is NO evidence that would or could support indictment of President Trump. If there were a “sealed” indictment would have been produced., a “true bill”. Absent this, Trump IS INDEED exonerated. See: The 5th Amendment prohibition against requiring any person from answering to any crime without an indictment. Mueller has closed the case by having stated unequivocally that there are NO forthcoming indictments, sealed or otherwise, against anyone, including President Trump.