The biblical standard for obtaining a criminal conviction has been a staple of Western Civilization and the rule of law for centuries: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouths of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)
This legal standard prevents anyone from being convicted of a “crime” just because one person says they committed it. The alleged victim must have other witnesses or forms of evidence proving that a crime took place and that the alleged criminal committed the illegal act.
If you are not in possession of your neighbor’s backdoor barbecue, and he has no evidence or witnesses that you stole it, he cannot have you thrown in jail based on his accusation alone. It’s a legal standard that has worked better than any other in human history.
Even in cases where there are no human witnesses, the standard still applies. If one is in possession of stolen property, for example, and their fingerprints were left at the scene of a crime, a prosecutor can make a case of that. Pieces of physical evidence can substitute for actual witnesses to obtain a criminal conviction.
Tyrants and modern liberals are the only people who have ever attempted to thwart this biblical standard of law. Barack Obama granted himself the sole authority – on his own say-so, with no evidence required – to place any American’s name on the government’s terrorist “watch list.” Obama was his own witness and we had to just trust him on it.
These individuals face embarrassing, unjustified and extensive bodily searches if they try to get on an airplane. Obama and the Democrats pushed hard during his second term to strip away the Second Amendment rights of any American on the watch list (they failed).
How many of Obama’s political enemies did he place on the terrorist watch list? No one knows, but the answer to that question will be very interesting if any organization ever goes to the time and expense to investigate it.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed specifically to ferret out evidence that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. The American people rightly want to know, since a criminal investigation was launched, who the “two or three witnesses” are for Mueller. Which people or pieces of evidence created the certainty which allowed Barack Obama’s Harvard colleague, Rod Rosenstein, to appoint Mueller?
We know the answer to this question, thanks to former FBI attorney Lisa Page’s closed-door testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. Ms. Page was not nearly as defiant to the House as her former adulterous lover, FBI Agent Peter Strzok. When asked to explain her text message exchanges with Strzok that took place in May of 2017, right as Mueller was being appointed Special Counsel, Ms. Page gave a truthful answer.
She stated that the FBI had “literally nothing” that connected the Trump campaign with Russia. After the first nine months of the investigation conducted by the FBI, NSA and CIA, and even after planting at least six spies in and around the Trump campaign, they had “literally nothing.”
Although he testified to the contrary, Peter Strzok texted to Page at one point, “There’s no there, there.” In other words, there was no evidence and not a single witness.
Former FBI Director James Comey told the US Senate that when he left the FBI… Sorry, we had to stop and laugh at this. Mr. Comey says he “left” the FBI. That’s one way of putting it.
Anyway, when Comey “left” the FBI, there was “not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia.”
Those three individuals – Comey, Strzok and Page – were central to the entire investigation of Donald Trump, prior to Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel. All three have them have stated that Mueller does not have “two witnesses.”
In fact, Mueller doesn’t have any witnesses. All these months later, he still has produced no evidence that ties Donald Trump, his family or anyone in his campaign to “Russian collusion.”
We know that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for the so-called Russian dossier that was used to justify warrants for spying on the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton is the equivalent of the nutty neighbor claiming you stole her barbecue, even though you were out of town on vacation when it was stolen. So far, Mueller’s only “witness” is Hillary Clinton’s say-so. He’s going to have to do a lot better than that to meet the biblical standard for “evidence.”
~ Christian Patriot Daily
