Sixth Amendment?

I’ve taken a little look at the sixth amendment.  As near as I can tell, the right to face your accuser only applies for defendants in criminal court.  That means that the worst killer or rapist has the right to face his accuser.  This includes victims as well as any witness.

There are three reasons for this.  First, it is a verification that the witness exists.  Without the sixth amendment, the prosecution can just make up the witness and claim he is real.

Second, the accused is able to question the witness.  Believe it or not, some witnesses do lie.  When the witness is put on the witness chair under oath, it gives the accused the ability to challenge the witness’s testimony.  Strange as it seems, some witnesses don’t tell the truth.  Sometimes they intentionally lie, even under oath.

Third, it gives the accused a chance to uncover motives.  For instance, if the witness stands to gain a few million dollars by giving false witness, it might be a good thing for the jurors to consider during deliberations.

Unfortunately, President Trump does not have this right.  He is not being tried in a criminal court.  He is being railroaded by a bunch of dummycrats that hate him.  Instead of a jury, if impeached, he will be judged by senators.  There is no doubt in my mind that he will not be found guilty.

However, the false charges brought by the false witnesses are also being displayed (very selectively) before the public.  Even if there is no impeachment, the falsities remain and the president never gets a chance to challenge any of it.

Hence, he is not even being treated as well as a serial killer.

May I remind you, we don’t even know if these whistleblowers exist?  Assuming he does, we don’t know his motives.  Finally, there is no opportunity for the president’s lawyers to challenge the accuracy of what they say.

Is this really the way to run an impeachment?  I am sure that if our forefathers considered such a thing, they likely would have written the sixth amendment a little differently.

Then again, they likely never considered the likes of the dummycrats.

Deceit and Lies About Deceit

Some time ago, Rep. Shiff lied by saying he had positive proof of collusion between President Trump and the Russians.  Now we know better.  If he had the proof, as much as he hates Pres. Trump, he would have produced it.  Instead, he says nothing more about it and hopes we will forget about it.

Then, a short while ago, he attempts to make us believe a supposed conversation President Trump had with the president of Ukraine.  It might be laughable but for two things.  First, there are millions of people that believed his deceit and continue to believe him to this day.  After all, he never made an apology and there are those that continue to quote the lier rather the real wors of the president.  Intentionally, he and his conspirators permit the deceit to live on.

Second, The Speaker of the House endorsed the lie.  Staightfaced, she said it was the truth.  (It wasn’t even a believable lie.)

Finally, Rep. Shiff lied about having talked to the so-called wistleblower.  This prompted four Panochios from even the liberal media.

Were there any corrections issued by Shiff or Pelosi?  Were there any apologies from either of them or any of those in the media who were in cahoots with them.

Then what did Shiff, the lier say when he was confronted?  He tells another lie, of course.  What else would you expect?

It is why I call them dummycrats.  It would seem they don’t know how to tell the truth, not even when they are confronted.

The Mess Inside

One of the lines in “My Fair Lady” that I found humorous was when Professor Higgins makes the remark about women:  “Straitening up their heir is all they ever do.  Why don’t they straighten up the mess that is inside.”

Normally I don’t make personal remarks like this, but, sorry.  I just can’t resist.  It would seem to particularly apply to Rep. Ilhan Omar.  More than that, in her case, the mess that is outside is pretty bad too.  It is no wonder she wants to keep it under wraps.

Who’s the Racist?

President Trump has said nothing racist.  He has done nothing racist.  On the contrary, he has done very much to help the African-Americans and the Hispanics.

On the other hand, all those of the squad all expect special treatment because they are racist.  It is casual to the most obvious observer.  Every time someone says anything about them, they yell racism.  It is a reflex and said without giving it any thought.

Not only are they racist, but they are also dumb.  It’s why all call them dummycrats.

Decrease the Costs of Healthcare

If you really want to cut the cost of healthcare, one way you can go about it is to keep the lawyers out of it.  Doctors have to pay a great deal for malpractice insurance.  Let me restate that.  We who visit doctors pay a great deal for malpractice insurance.  It is a cost of business for doctors and we pay every bit of that cost.

Well, that is not totally true.  Most of us don’t pay the doctor.  We pay insurance companies and the insurance companies pay the doctor.  Regardless of how many hands it goes through, it is our dime that pays for that doctor to keep his practice.  Even if the cost is paid by an employer, it is part of our pay package.  In a way, when the payment is made through other means, it is worse.  By isolating us from the knowledge of the cost, we remain ignorant of just how much is paid for that visit to the doctor because we have sniffles.

It wouldn’t be so bad, but in most malpractice lawsuits, the doctor is not even at fault.  However, the insurance company usually settles to avoid paying legal fees as well as the off chance that the jury improperly awards the case to the plaintiff.  Let us face it.  Paying ten-thousand for sure appears better than possibly paying ten-million.  So the lawyer gets forty percent of ten-thousand, four thousand for simply threatening to sue.

When it happens in small numbers, it isn’t any big thing.  However, there are lawyers that make their fortunes making such lawsuits, even though they know that they would lose the suit should it go to trial.  So you and I pay no-good-bums to sue good doctors without good cause.

If the lawsuits were not permitted, thousands of lawyers would have to find another line of work and the price of healthcare would plummet.

Unfortunately, that is not all of it.  Everyone knows about defensive medicine.  There are many doctors that order tests that serve no purpose other than to keep out of court.

Then there are the medicines.  A pharmacology company spends money and years to come up with a new drug that serves a very important purpose.  Then, after all the testing and all, they finally release the drug so that they can start realizing a profit.  Then, one week later, some lawyer takes the company to court in hopes of getting a big settlement out of it.

It happens all the time.  One day I hear of a new drug that really helps and within a week, the advertisement comes on TV, “If you took (whatever the drug is) and suffered (whatever the problem is) then contact (whoever the lawyer is) and we will make you a millionaire.  (And, by the way, we will become a billionaire.  And, by the way, we will drive the cost of meds up roughly thirty to forty percent.)

Lest you get the wrong idea, I am not advocating completely taking the lawyers out of medicine.  It would be a horrible idea.  However, we really need to take a long hard look at our tort system.  Indeed, it would be a good idea to look at it in general, not just the world of medicine.  Everything we buy includes legal fees.  Worse, there are some products that never make it to the market because of lawyers.

My suggestion is that the lawyers should be held to a higher standard.  I don’t know how it would be, but lawyers who do such things should have their licenses pulled and they should be fined.  If we could figure out a way to do it, the cost of medicine, as well as other things, would immediately drop.  Not only that; I wouldn’t have to listen to those ridiculous commercials.  TV and radio would have to find a replacement for their programming.

Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope for anything to be done.  The lawyers make the laws.  They benefit from them.  I doubt that they will do anything that will decrease their fortunes.

Mayor Pete’s Oversight

Mayor Pete would do well to put aside his pride and remember Who ultimately makes the rules.  If he doesn’t get right with Jesus Christ before meeting Him face-to-face, homosexuality will be amoung his least conserns.  God will not likely be impressed by smart-allecy remarks, especially the ones where he implies he has some say-so in what is right or wrong.  He needs to remember that when we think we are smarter than God, we are always wrong.

The Barr Report

Those who have read any of my books will tell you I use my imagination.  Well, let me use a lot of imagination as I ask you a rhetorical question.  By the way, given the nature of the question, it will likely take a lot of imagination on your part too.

Imagine you go into work as you usually do.  Then, a little after lunch you get called in to see the boss.  He hands you a check and tells you that your services are no longer needed.

Most of us would be struck by the remark and right away, you would likely ask why.  It would stand to reason.  Most of us would want a reason.  Then he says, “I don’t want any child molesters working for me.”

“Impossible,” you say?  To be sure very unlikely, that is assuming you are not guilty.  Yet it would be very possible if it weren’t for one thing,  It is against the law for anyone to repeat anything that is said in a grand jury proceeding.

I am sure there are thousands of people who have served on grand juries and they know exactly what I am talking about.  The first thing I was told when I was selected was that I was not to repeat anything I heard during any of the sessions.  It is standard and one of the reasons is to keep things from happening as I described above.

You see, all sorts of accusations are made during those sessions, many of which are not true.  If someone made an accusation against you during a session, if they were allowed to repeat it, your reputation would be at risk and you might not even know where it came from.  By the way, the grand jury might not even be investigating you.  It might just be an offhand remark made by a witness who doesn’t like you.

It is one of at least three reasons that all proceedings are kept secret.  It protects the innocent person who is accused and others who are not being investigated.  It keeps your boss, your family and friends from being told the lie.  By the way, it even protects you if you are guilty.  Well, that isn’t totally true.  After all, you are innocent until you are convicted.  Nonetheless, I’m sure you get the idea.

I would say that those dummycrats are really stupid to demand the results of the Mueller Report including the minutes of the grand jury.  However, I am sure it is not stupidity.  I am sure they are well aware of the law.  I am sure it is covered during the first month or so of law school.  Therefore, I have to assume they want AG Barr to break the law.  Moreover, they clearly have no respect for the privacy of others.  They have no problems causing innocent people problems, embarrassment, or maybe even their job.  I have to assume it is just because they are dumb…and maybe a bit thoughtless as well.

Incidentally, even though most reporters are aware of the law, it would appear that few understand why.  I can sort of understand that.  Before I was selected for the grand jury, I didn’t know anything about it.  For that matter, I didn’t know what grand juries do.  Still, you would think professional reporters would take a few minutes to educate themselves.

It is true that the information can be made public by a judge, it is still a bad idea.  It sort of defeats the purposes of the law.