Whistleblower Act needs teeth

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, still can't use the anonymous info in court.
You can't say, "Tommy killed that guy.....the anonymous tipster said so".

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

Since the testimony of the whistleblower was used, he gets to be cross-examined.

It can be done from behind a screen.

Or in front of a screen.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No but-.....................
"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

That is fine.

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

Since the testimony of the whistleblower was used, he gets to be cross-examined.

It can be done from behind a screen.

Or in front of a screen.

Not sure what your practice is but you need to keep witnesses safe..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

Since the testimony of the whistleblower was used, he gets to be cross-examined.

It can be done from behind a screen.

Or in front of a screen.

Not sure what your practice is but you need to keep witnesses safe..

You also need to keep our justice system safe.
No secret witnesses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Tommy killed that guy, acting on a tip we went to Tommys place and found him digging a hole in his garden to bury a big knife.He was covered in blood and said "Its a fair cop guv".

And if you had evidence of wrongdoing, the testimony of an anonymous "witness" still isn't
admissible in court.

It isnt needed. We got everything we need.

Since the testimony of the whistleblower was used, he gets to be cross-examined.

It can be done from behind a screen.

Or in front of a screen.

Not sure what your practice is but you need to keep witnesses safe..

In that case, every witness in the country would have to be anonymous. That would open up the door for nefarious people to produce phantom witnesses that never existed.

In this case, to my knowledge, there has been no outrage over the leaker. He or she is in no more danger than any other participant in the impeachment. I am unaware of any serious threats.

What's really going on is Schiff Face doesn't want this person testifying under oath. His claim was he never met with the leaker; doesn't even know who he or she is. His claim is the leaker never approached him first, and that he or she took the necessary channels to forward their information.

I don't believe any of it. I think it's all a deep state lie to protect Schiff and not the leaker. Schiff has been known to lie in the past. There is no reason to believe the zebra has changed his stripes.