To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
No problem. If it’s a secret source then the “evidence” cannot be admitted.
27 posted on
05/09/2018 12:34:38 PM PDT by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
To: Jim Robinson
That is true. Informants/witnesses are forced to testify in federal court, unlike state courts where they can “sometimes” shield the informant. But, even then, if the defense wants to confront an accuser, they can ask the court to make them show up.
32 posted on
05/09/2018 12:51:47 PM PDT by
qaz123
To: Jim Robinson
No problem. If it’s a secret source then the “evidence” cannot be admitted.But meanwhile they are threatening other potential witnesses, possibly with "name-redacted's" help.
39 posted on
05/09/2018 1:05:05 PM PDT by
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe)
To: Jim Robinson
No problem. If it’s a secret source then the “evidence” cannot be admitted.Exactly!
And on the other side of the coin ...
Trump cannot answer any of Mueller's questions because ... national security concerns. Check mate!
65 posted on
05/09/2018 2:31:21 PM PDT by
TigersEye
(This is the age of the death of reason.)
To: Jim Robinson
.
>> “If it’s a secret source then the “evidence” cannot be admitted.” <<
No problem, they’ll just fake another source!
Nothing they do is honest or legitimate.
.
121 posted on
05/11/2018 2:39:57 PM PDT by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson