Trump prosecutor Jack Smith wants to use ANONYMOUS WITNESSES against trump!!

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
You can't allow anonymous witnesses. They may all be trump-hating democrats or people paid to testify against trump.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/judge-cannon-rejects-jack-smiths-attempt-keep-names/

feb 7 2024 Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, shut down Special Counsel Jack Smith’s attempt to keep names of government witnesses and other discovery under seal in the classified documents case against Trump.

Jack Smith last June indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami.

Jack Smith has been fighting to keep the names of government witnesses a secret. He also opposed the unsealing of discovery material because one document confirms the existence of another FBI investigation.

Cannon blasted Jack Smith and denied his request to keep names of government witnesses secret.

“Although substantiated witness safety and intimidation concerns can form a valid basis for overriding the strong presumption in favor of public access, the Special Counsel’s sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing,” Cannon wrote.
Click to expand...
 
The public needs to know who these witnesses are. Then people can step forth and say, "I know that guy. He's a drug dealer and not to be trusted."
 
They are witnesses who Smith requested their names not be made public given that nearly anyone who even criticizes Trump stands a good chance of getting death threats from the cult and personal character attacks from Trump and his stooges, which is exactly why Trump wants their names out there

And Trump’s Judge is just as blatant, commenting that they’d get the same protection as any witness, and her coming from the State that Trump bought up the “second amendment” solution
 
there seems to be a HUGE disconnect for people when it concerns rights supposedly protected by the US Constitution, such as the right to confront our accusers.

why are liberals ALWAYS trying to negate parts of the Constitution that don't work for them?
 
That actually is against the constitution, we have a right to face accusers, trials are public (for a reason). Witnesses do not get to maintain anonymity. This will not fly.

There is a reason we have a Witness Protection Program, it is because they have to face the accused and they are known so we give them new identities and places to live, etc. to protect them after they bear witness to actions of dangerous defendants.
 
Damocles said:
That actually is against the constitution, we have a right to face accusers, trials are public (for a reason). Witnesses do not get to maintain anonymity. This will not fly.

There is a reason we have a Witness Protection Program, it is because they have to face the accused and they are known so we give them new identities and places to live, etc. to protect them after they bear witness to actions of dangerous defendants.
Click to expand...
Lol, Trump will face the witnesses and his counsel will have the right to question them, the public just won’t be given their identities.
 
Phantasmal said:
Lol, Trump will face the witnesses and his counsel will have the right to question them, the public just won’t be given their identities.
Click to expand...

Trials are public. Again, for a reason... it is also a right. See the 6th Amendment. Trials are by right public, therefore the witnesses will be known. Unless the defendant waives his right to a public trial we will know who these witnesses are.
 
archives said:
They are witnesses who Smith requested their names not be made public given that nearly anyone who even criticizes Trump stands a good chance of getting death threats from the cult and personal character attacks from Trump and his stooges, which is exactly why Trump wants their names out there

And Trump’s Judge is just as blatant, commenting that they’d get the same protection as any witness, and her coming from the State that Trump bought up the “second amendment” solution
Click to expand...

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause states, "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

The right to confront one's accuser or an adversarial witness existed long before the states ratified the Constitution. The confrontation clause was present in the common law, and there is evidence that it existed in Roman law.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-6th-amendment-s-confrontation-clause.html
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there seems to be a HUGE disconnect for people when it concerns rights supposedly protected by the US Constitution, such as the right to confront our accusers.

why are liberals ALWAYS trying to negate parts of the Constitution that don't work for them?
Click to expand...

Witnesses have been shielded and protected for decades but the bar for counsel to get that granted in a hearing is high and the context of the testimony really, REALLY matters to get this to pass.

They must establish that the person is at threat, or they may be CIA under cover agent, or a police cooperator, etc, and the hearing and judge must agree that shielding the person, but allowing the person evidence is ok and it must hold up if appealed.

Only an idiot thinks this is a Dem thing.
 
Last edited:
volsrock said:
The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause states, "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

The right to confront one's accuser or an adversarial witness existed long before the states ratified the Constitution. The confrontation clause was present in the common law, and there is evidence that it existed in Roman law.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-6th-amendment-s-confrontation-clause.html
Click to expand...


He will be confronted with the witnesses against him, in Court, and Trump’s legal team already has already been provided copies of materials and evidence that the prosecution intends to use at trial, they know what the witnesses are going to testify

As I said, to protect their safety, Smith requested their names be kept secret, otherwise, Hannity would probably have their names, addresses, and phone numbers on air that night
 
Damocles said:
That actually is against the constitution, we have a right to face accusers, trials are public (for a reason). Witnesses do not get to maintain anonymity. This will not fly.

There is a reason we have a Witness Protection Program, it is because they have to face the accused and they are known so we give them new identities and places to live, etc. to protect them after they bear witness to actions of dangerous defendants.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Using anonymous witnesses is unconstitutional and unethical.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The public needs to know who these witnesses are. Then people can step forth and say, "I know that guy. He's a drug dealer and not to be trusted."
Click to expand...

What a completely idiotic comment. The Judge and/or jury determines the credability of a witness during a criminal proceeding.
I wouldn't want to worry about a bunch of Trump worshipping scum having access to my name either
 
Nordberg said:
Not true. The judge after the Trump defamation trial warned the jurors not to let people know they were on the trial. It said it would endanger them and their families.
Click to expand...

No - the judge said it before the jury reached their verdict. And that sort of obvious bias by the judge is why the verdict will be quickly overturned.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
No - the judge said it before the jury reached their verdict. And that sort of obvious bias by the judge is why the verdict will be quickly overturned.
Click to expand...

In his final comments to the jury, the judge told the jury to never disclose that they were on the jury.
Why? Because Trump can convince his conditioned idiots to commit violence and the Judge knew it.
 
Damocles said:
That actually is against the constitution, we have a right to face accusers, trials are public (for a reason). Witnesses do not get to maintain anonymity. This will not fly.

There is a reason we have a Witness Protection Program, it is because they have to face the accused and they are known so we give them new identities and places to live, etc. to protect them after they bear witness to actions of dangerous defendants.
Click to expand...

Trump will recognize them


He just can’t tell the public who they are so you can shoot them for him


You want witnesses to be murdered so they will fear coming forward


Man you have changed dude
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top