The FBI Agent has the same name as known FBI Agent who specializes in Child Pornography cases.
FBI Agents have code names and special protection as federal employees. Witnesses have further protection under WitSec, and the secrecy entailed by federal Witness Protection programs is questionable both as to efficacy and as to motivation and honor.
A witness comes forward and speaks out, under subpoena for a particular court case, then goes into hiding, under a rule of silence and Omertà — essentially a gag order under Mafia enforcement, part of "the usual" DA's "deal" with the defendant.
But it's not realistic to expect a human witness to sacrifice the remainder of his or her natural or family life to such extreme secrecy.
Past and present POTUS get Secret Service protection for life, but they don't stay in hiding, and they continue to be outspoken on political issues of interest to them.
What are people hiding from, or what do they have to hide as witnesses in court? There's a severe moral hazard to the masked testimony of an anonymous witness.
A witness is essentially a "whistleblower" who can be expected to continue being outspoken on issues similar to the court case that led to the subpoena. It is sometimes possible for a witness to "shut up" and "move on" but a certain amount of honor is lost by a strategy of diving back into a hole like a rat.
Would somebody remind me what office Hunter Biden is running for?
That's more or less equivalent to Trump's daughter Ivanka. What's she doing at the White House?
The pipe pictured has a small bowl on the end, which is more concurrent with a meth pipe. Crack pipes are 4" long tubular glass and a small piece of copper Chore Boy is usually stuck into the end.
Several in the dumpster at any given apartment building. Possession? Possession with intent to deliver?
There's no mens rea or actus reus to the mere possession of something. Possession is not in and of itself an "act" that may be prosecuted in court. If there was an intent to possess something then there would possibly have been some "act" whereby the defendant acquired or came into possession of the controlled substance or item. Purchase? Receive as a gift?
Intent to deliver? If the cops had knowledge of that, why didn't they wait and bust the parties in the deal, if they knew there was a deal going down? How else do they prove "intent to deliver?" The cops just "discover" some prohibited substance or banned item on a person without a proper warrant to have searched for it in the first place.