While one can question (and I would) both the wisdom and judicial probity of the presiding Judge ruling unilaterally that Uncle Ron could not be called to offer evidence in the court case, that doesn't detract from the central concern here...
Although he wasn't called, he was named. As a defence witness, for a Neo Nazi, Aryan Nations adventurer caught red handed at New Orleans docks on his way to overthrow an elected, friendly, left-of-centre government by force of arms. Something he never denied doing, and yet denied legal guilt to the offence.
Ron was to have be called in Black's defence; what kind of witness was he expected to be?
An expert witness?
A character witness?
A material witness?
Was the Neo Nazi's defence to be "I was only obeying orders?"
None of this we know, and the question is always left unanswered when posed; why was Ron Paul the ONLY elected official on the defence witness list, and why was his the ONLY name from that list and not subpoenaed to appear by virtue of the Judge's executive fiat?
The first question goes some way to answering the second... But that makes the answer to that second question that much more consequential...
Judicial discretion when it comes to sparing elected officials blushes in low-level scandals is one of the thing that oils the wheels of the justice system. But that's not the issue here.
Why was he being called by the defence and why did Don Black feel that Uncle Ron's testimony would be helpful to his attempts to beat the rap for being the mastermind being the entire coup plot?
John Connelly wasn't called, nor was Strom Thurmond or Larry MacDonald... Why an obscure Congressman from the Texas 22nd?
It's time we knew.
No comments:
Post a Comment