So we want all on the stand to filibuster instead of answering the questions while under oath?
No, but it is totally permissible when it involves a kangaroo court conducting a show trial.
Andrew McCarthy-—”NY justice is the Soviet way”:
“This whole NY justice system is fraudulent in the sense that these are elected Democrats. NYAG Latetia James is an elected Democrat who campaigned for high office on a vow that she would use the power of the state to “get Trump,” which is the Soviet way of going about your business.”
Yes... nobody filibustered. He just gave detailed answers to the open ended questions and said things they don’t want to hear. Are you on the side of the tyrant judge here who ruled 20 acres of beachfront property in palm beach is worth only 18 million?
Don’t be stupid.
When it is an absurd clown show Stalinesque joke of a trial like this one? Absolutely.
If the leftist idiots are going to be this unhinged, there's no reason Trump shouldn't continue doing everything he does to cause them to reveal more and more of their mental illness.
So we want all on the stand to filibuster instead of answering the questions while under oath?>>> Well the oath says whole truth. And that takes a while to get out. Not a trial not a judge and not a court.
When it comes time for your own political show trial, you can behave however you like.
Read the transcript. Trump answered every question posed to him. The prosecutor and judge just didn’t like the answers. Trump didn’t give them the answers they wanted or expected.
The prosecutor is a moron.
So we want all on the stand to filibuster instead of answering the questions while under oath?
The “progressive” left is transforming our nation into that grotesque vision.
Have you ever been deposed?
Have you ever been called as a witness in a Court of Law?
There is a tactical method of answering questions that incorporates all the further facts and context necessary to a truthful understanding of both the deceptiveness of the question, and the complete truth of your answer.
I’ve won settlement from opposing counsel using this tactic during a deposition. They come to understand the relative strength of your case vs theirs, and that grasp often clarifies that continuing the case against you isn’t a hill worth dying on.
Done before a Jury it immediately highlights what a weasel the questioner is while it simultaneously affords the jury a far more complete grasp of the landscape of the case.
Plus if your mode of answering is challenged, you have the instant fallback that you swore to tell the WHOLE truth, and — by God — you’re gonna.