A monthly salary received for the work he provided his employer the previous month. Its no more his property than my paycheck two months from now is my property. My PTO hours are not my property either, if I haven't yet worked the hours to acquire them.
No, a PROBABLE cause hearing, in front of a judge, to see if there is enough evidence TO go to trial. Like a grand jury but not. So what?! You ever owned anything, then CHARGED yourself to USE that thing?
Yeap when and if this gets to Senate I'm certain Schiff, the Whistleblower and ole hunter will all be called to testify among others.
Too late now. Alas. The DP majority has voted to hold a sham political show trial. When will they ever learn?
Probable cause hearings occur after a filing of criminal charges and decides whether the defendant will face a criminal trial. Trump has not been charged with a criminal act and will not face a criminal trial even if impeachment occurs. And yes, I have owned something and then charged myself to use that thing. There are employees and costs which I would use, even if I were not also bringing dozens or hundreds of other individuals along (as Trump is doing), from the business.
BUYING MORE you know the ones just like they've BEEN BUYING? please let us know where anyone has been told not to sell Javelins until the favor is done? It sure as hell isn't on the call and you sure as hell are completely taking UK President's own words out of context.
I know I should ignore it to but it's so easy to bust his BS it makes it fun. Never a poster has added or subtracted words from a quote more, so it's rather simple to call him out then watch the pivot and do it all over again.
You just don't get it. Most Trump supporters dislike RP/DP establishment pols. We are very bipartisan.
Oh you think your side going to have a say over there after this joke? I'll be shocked if the Republicans don't figure out a way to have the whistle blower testify UNDER OATH in a dark room or something and Hunter Biden will be called up. They may not call Schiff do to some congressional rule but I know some are wanting him under oath as well and if the whistle blower confirms he met with Schiff's staff before the complaint, as has been reported, then most will want Schiff under oath.
That debate is over - you won. A kangaroo court is about to be convened, and everyone knows what kangaroo courts are all about. No justice.
And that may be what happens. In a courtroom we'd refer to this WB request unveiling as a 'discovery motion' after a showing that there is cause to believe one of these witnesses has exculpatory value that the prosecution has hidden.I have no idea how that works. And that may end up being an interesting ruling by Justice Roberts.
Our crooked pols have a lot to hide. Their desperation is being felt by many of their supporters - for no good reason.
Hey I got a question. In a pretrial discovery motion requesting a witness or a document be produced, that the prosecution does not deem relevant , does the defense have any burden or standard to meet?
I don't think elected Republicans share your confidence. Rep. Peter King’s retirement could make the Republican path to a House majority even tougher
A good question. The prosecution would object on relevance grounds, presumably, and then the burden shifts to the defense to establish that the piece of evidence/witness is relevant. It would be up to the jduge at that point to make a ruling, but I don't know of a particular standard. It is probably a low standard though, more probable than not, sort of thing. If the objection is based on more prejudicial than probative, then the burden would remain on the prosecution to establish that the prejudicial value substantially outweighs the probative.
Thank you. I see a Roberts ruling on that WB unveiling that may hinge on this same standard -except it gets complicated when he is weighing a job, with an anonymous identity.
And that's being done, even if he is a 'political opponent' of Donald Trump. The law doesn't seem to care.
Grassley and Burr have both come out with statements that the whistleblower should be permitted to remain anonymous, but if they can somehow ensure that such takes place, then I would tend to agree that they will get the whistleblower to testify. As an aside, he has already agreed to answer questions, in writing, under penalty of perjury.
