Written testimony is almost never allowed in a real legal setting
Your words.
Attachment 9452
It's also longstanding policy that whistleblowers remain anonymous but I guess we can throw that out too.
Printable View
Written testimony is almost never allowed in a real legal setting
Your words.
Attachment 9452
It's also longstanding policy that whistleblowers remain anonymous but I guess we can throw that out too.
Not in setting where the witness will be cross examined, I thought that was pretty obvious what I was getting at considering this is exactly what I said in my post. Once again the reasoning is simple, you can't cross exam a written statement. A written statement is going to provide one narrative and one narrative only and sure as shit that narrative is either going to be in favor of the defendant or against the defendant, depending on who is providing said statement. That's why there better be some extenuating circumstances for why a written statement will be allowed as opposed to the person providing oral statements, like the witness is now dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Rogue
Also again a defendant doesn't have to testify against himself at all so if all Trump wanted to provide was a written statement then Mueller is lucky he even got that.
You can hate Trump all you want but that doesn't mean our constitution and our system of justice goes to shit along with your unbridled hatred.
Dude I'm gonna vote for Trump and I think whistleblowers should be able to remain anonymous. They need to be vetted, for sure, but they should be able to remain anonymous.
They can remain anonymous and still be questioned in person. Again it's not unheard of for people to provide anonymous testimony in a court of law, but typically the person still provides testimony in person so they can be cross examined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
If Schiff is worried about leaks then perhaps that's just further proof that this entire thing is a sham.
Heck the person doesn't even have to be in the same room as the congresspeople, they can video teleconference this shit...well audio teleconference this shit. The whole point is the witness can be cross examined and not just provide written answers. That's nuts.
That's if you're for some reason in favor of anonymous testimony, which like I said you usually need a pretty damn good reason for wanting to remain anonymous, like you think the mob is going to put a hit out on you or something.
I'd be a bit more worried about the whistleblower related to Khashoggi. That's the juicy one now.
The allegation is kushner greenlight the arrest of the journalist on a phonecall to bin salman, and turkey intercepted the phone call. They then claim Trump was blackmailed by Erodgan into removing troops from Syria. That will not go over well in the public space. Again, it's an allegation at this point, but juicy for sure. So much for the party of national security...if true.
The double standard is sharp enough to leave wounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Rogue
You're so absolutely triggered now, it's hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's also clear you have absolutely no concept of the American legal system. Depositions and written testimony are done under oath or at the very least under penalty of pergury. How astute of you to figure out you cannot ask a document questions. This is why written testimony, it's review and supplementary written questions are all handled in advance of a hearing during DISCOVERY.
Written testimony, such as what's being offered by the whistleblowers legal counsel is conducted by a series of approved questions, then supplementary questions once the answers are received. They are the full force and effect of spoken testimony. Just like testimony, a question which isn't answered can be compelled by threat of perjury charge or by compelling an in person or likely telephonic appearance. This would be granted at the pleasure of Adam Schiff.
Next time you make a long post while completely ignoring recent precedent from your Commander and Thief, I'd recommend changing your panties afterwards. Because you smell like shit.
Also vetted by whom exactly? The only person that is confirmed to know who the whistleblower is is Schiff, the guy who couldn't be trusted not to blab to the world that the US was going to lead a raid to take out the ISIS head piece of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Another Democrat suffering from TDS who can't appreciate the nuances of what I am discussing. Don't worry, I'm not the slightest bit shocked that you and Some Rogue are buddy buddy. Maybe soon enough you two will be hanging out talking about how awesome it is that whites in South Africa being targeted by the government is okay because whities deserved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Here comes the projection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Blah blah blah. Are you saying you believe the whistleblower will provide oral testimony after "discovery" or something? Because if you believe that then do I have a wonderful deal on a bridge to sell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
It's funny you keep saying this as if it makes it okay. How did you even fit yourself AND a laptop inside of Adam Schiff's colon? That's quite impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Every single time you do this dumb ass shit. "It all good because Adam Schiff has to sign off on it." Like Adam Schiff is some moral authority figure or something. I almost feel bad for calling you Androidpk now, because Androidpk isn't this blatant in his hypocrisy and stupidity. He at least pretends to be objective and isn't just like "I put my full and complete faith in this complete partisan hack." Never thought the day would come where I would have to apologize to Androidpk for a comparison between him and another person, but yet here we are. Seran, the guy who thinks Clyder is a real person.
For the third fucking time, it is every defendant's constitutional right to remain silent. Trump didn't have to provide a single bit of testimony, oral, written, or otherwise. And you have the absolute audacity to tell me that I don't know how the legal something works? Holy fucking shit. I honestly feel bad now conversing with you because I legit feel like I'm picking on the mentally retarded kid at school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let's just imagine this absolute shit in any other scenario.
Let's say someone was accused of rape, we'll call this asshole Seran.
Seran is accused of rape, the person accusing them of rape isn't the one he raped, but rather it's someone who heard from someone who heard from the person who was raped. The judge meets with the accuser then the judge releases a statement and completely lies about what the accuser said. The piece of shit Seran is then forced to be a witness against himself while his defense lawyer is unable to question his accuser because the accuser wants to remain anonymous. The jury hears the written statement read out loud and Seran's defense lawyer can't question the document or really say much of anything.
Seran goes to jail based on third hand information, was never able to face his accuser, and the accuser was never even questioned in a court of law.
If this sounds like bullshit that's because it is. Even a piece of shit like Seran deserves a fair trial in court for rape. But Orange Man bad so I guess we ignore these miscarriages of justice because we are so blinded by our own partisan hatred that we don't care about fairness anymore, just as long as we somehow put Hillary Clinton in the White House!
Where do you Never Trumpers come from anyways? As soon as one of you gets embarrassed off of these forums another one takes their place. Like some sort of disgusting scourge.