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

Witnesses in mob cases wont testify if the mob boss can’t threaten to kill them with impunity
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want them murdered huh
 
The" silent witness rule" will play bigly in Trump's trials. When the document's case hits the courts, they will not have a public or open trial due to the extreme secrecy of what Trump stole. If a witness's identity being open would endanger him, he can testify in secret. The courts recognize the problem and will accommodate them. They also can put screens around a testifying witness. This is not a new problem.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
jurors are not witnesses and accusers. false equivalency.
Click to expand...

Read better. The testimony can be withheld from the public if the testifiers are in danger or the testimony would air classified information. Try a little. The fact that the judge told the jurors that, was revealing about how crazy and dangerous Trumpys are.
 
Nordberg said:
Read better. The testimony can be withheld from the public if the testifiers are in danger or the testimony would air classified information. Try a little. The fact that the judge told the jurors that, was revealing about how crazy and dangerous Trumpys are.
Click to expand...

public trials are a natural right to keep the government transparent. ANY exception to that allows oppression or tyranny. Something you snowflakes need to accept that freedom is dangerous, but it's much preferable to tyranny.
 
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...

facing your accuser is an important aspect of liberty and law

but of course shit stains have no idea.
 
evince said:
You want them murdered huh
Click to expand...

No. I want the constitution to be upheld.You can say the same line about the brave souls who actually are in witness protection because they spoke up. They were not given "anonymity" because they could not have such and uphold the 6th Amendment rights of the accused. The reality is, in a world where the government could have "anonymous witnesses" the government would then have the power to just make it up and have "anonymous witnesses" corroborate their lies. The action of totalitarians codified and cheered by Democrats is still the action of totalitarian government.

We cannot allow anyone to go through any trial without the 6th, that would quite literally be the action of a tyrannical government.
 
Damocles said:
No. I want the constitution to be upheld.You can say the same line about the brave souls who actually are in witness protection because they spoke up. They were not given "anonymity" because they could not have such and uphold the 6th Amendment rights of the accused. The reality is, in a world where the government could have "anonymous witnesses" the government would then have the power to just make it up and have "anonymous witnesses" corroborate their lies. The action of totalitarians codified and cheered by Democrats is still the action of totalitarian government.

We cannot allow anyone to go through any trial without the 6th, that would quite literally be the action of a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

It’s not Unconstitutional
 
"names and identifying information of federal employees, and third persons who may be unknown"
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66828011.amp



Special Counsel Jack Smith's filing says the "narrowly tailored" order would prevent harassment of witnesses.
Mr Trump hit back online, accusing Smith's team of misconduct, writing: "they won't allow me to SPEAK?"
He has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
ADVERTISEMENT

The request was unsealed by District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan and was filed a week earlier. It was among a slew of older court documents from the case that were released on Friday.
Prosecutors say their proposed order - which they never refer to as a "gag order" - is "a narrow, well defined restriction" that is necessary to prevent disinformation, threats and "prejudicing" the case.
If approved, it would ban Mr Trump from making statements "regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses" and "statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating".
It does not place any restrictions on Mr Trump from quoting from public record court documents or proclaiming his innocence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top