The Murder Trial of Bobo the Clown

My good friend Bobo the Clown was indicted for murder.

The prosecutor had a video of Bobo walking into the bank. Shots were heard. Bobo left the bank with big bag.

The police were called. One bank teller was dead on the floor. Shot three times. In addition thousands of dollars were missing from the bank.

Bobo was arrested. He plead not guilty.

Bobo’s lawyer said it was a witch hunt. The police hated clowns. They were singling out Bobo because he was a clown.

So, the evidence was clear. But wait. just before the trial began 3 witnesses came forward. They all knew Bobo. They all said they saw Bobo with a gun and a bag of money. One of them even drove Bobo’s getaway car. A clown car.

Now, Bobo’s lawyer claims that these witnesses should not be allowed to testify. They are too late. They should have come forward earlier.

As it happens, the chairman of the jury, Moscow Mitch, agrees. Moscow Mitch , in addition to being chairman of the jury is a long time clown friend of Bobo. In addition Moscow Mitch decides what evidence can be presented at the trial. They go back a long way. He doesn’t want to hear anything else.

So, the fair trial begins.

Any bets on the outcome?




Filed under Constitution, Elections, GOP, government, impeachment, Politics, POTUS, Republicans, Trump, United States

6 responses to “The Murder Trial of Bobo the Clown

  1. whungerford

    Suppose J. Doe is called as a witness; the first question might be: “Are you the whistle blower?” J. Doe might refuse to answer. What then?

    Dismiss this witness.
    Ask more questions which J. Doe might well refuse to answer.
    Take J.Doe off to jail.

    Suppose any witness refuses to answer a question, possibly with the phrase “I don’t recall.” Do they quietly move on then? There is no one acting as a prosecutor who might badger, berate, or threaten a reluctant witness, is there?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bill. My understanding is this. If you are called as a witness you can only refuse to answer if that answer would incriminate you. So, I would love to see Pompeo, Duffy, Mulvaney, Pence, Perry, etc stand before the American people and say: I can’t answer questions about Mr Trump and the Ukraine because it may incriminate me.


      • whungerford

        The rules are foggy–if Pompeo were called, could he cite executive privilege as an excuse for not testifying? How might Chief Justice Roberts respond to that?

        During the Clinton trial, the witnesses were videotaped and the tapes submitted as evidence. The Senate evidently accepted that evidence for what it was whether individual Senators liked it or not.

        Some say the House should have gone to court to compel testimony from reluctant witnesses. I doubt those voices would now say the Senate should delay the impeachment trial for that reason. If reluctant witnesses are called and answer the call, I expect they will simply evade answering any embarrassing questions, and there will be no penalty for doing that.


  2. I say let them call the Bidens. What are they going to say? They know nothing about what Trump did.


  3. At this point, it looks like there may be witnesses, which is to me a mixed bag: if they insist on calling the Bidens, that’s banana republic stuff. What will the Dems do?

    We have to hope that Chief Justice Roberts decides his place in history demands he play a more active role than he seems temperamentally inclined to do.

    Clown car, indeed. Them’s some really creepy clowns!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s