Rick Fischer
Sep 2, 2018 · 1 min read

To this end, if a president were to be indicted, it would be a significant thing as it would ultimately mean that there is witness testimony and physical and factual evidence of wrongdoing.

Would that that were true. But one tactic underway today is to indict the President for a process crime as was done against Scooter Libby and President Clinton. Get the target under oath by any means necessary, subject them to hours of testimony, compare their statements against the testimony of others or find inconsistencies in their own testimony, and presto, a process crime. It’s called a “perjury trap” for good reason.

If you believe indictments mean “physical and factual evidence of wrongdoing”, I think you are too idealistic and naive. The FBI can manufacture crimes out of thin air, as I believe was done against Papadapoulos and Libby and countless others.

The agents who interviewed General Flynn did not believe he lied to them, but Mueller indicted him for lying to the FBI anyway, ignoring the fact that the agents never revealed to Flynn that he was being interrogated, and extorted a guilty plea from him. This was a manufactured “crime” that did not stem from wrongdoing.

The threat against the institution of the presidency is much more serious than is being admitted today, and the Democrats in their hatred of President Trump don’t give a rat’s ass about the consequences. We can only hope it fails before more precedents are established.