re: Why is HOR resisting Hunter testifying in public?

Don’t lawyers typically depose witnesses before they put them on the stand?

Probably same reason.

quote:

---

Because they want to be able to depose him and then edit the recording to fit their narrative

---

Just like the Democrats did with the Jan. 6 taped video footage? You are, I believe, the most obtuse hypocrite on this board. Tarzana is running a close 2nd.

quote:

---

You're a condescending prick. OP asked a legit question.

---

Want to see condescending, here we go.

1. You’d think after spending a life sitting in their mom’s basement putting up over 11k posts someone would understand how to figure out to which post I was responding.

2. The OP was a legit question, but since some one couldn’t figure out to which post I was responding let me explain it further, and show you to what I was responding and why I responded that way. Here is what I was responding to.

quote:

---

Because they want to be able to depose him and then edit the recording to fit their narrative. If They’ve ever been serious about the “Investigation” they should take his testimony in public. I think they lack the guts.

---

This is to whom I was responding.

So as some have stated, but others obviously can’t read,
Let me explain it.

The rules of deposition are different than the rules for open testimony in congress.

Time is limited for each person’s questioning in open congressional testimony, not in a deposition. In a deposition it’s possible to pin people down on the answer to a question, in open congressional testimony, it’s possible to grandstand or allow lawmakers from one party to “steal time” from the other party.

Quite simply, if you are deposed, while your lawyer is present to insure you have counsel, you’ll either have to answer or take the 5th amendment. In open congressional testimony, you can be more evasive and get away with it.

This is the process that has been followed in recent precedent on serious matters.

My response was to a post that assumed quite a bit and was significantly partisan claiming that someone wanted to commit fraud by editing testimony then leaking the edited version.

The post to which I responded needed, in my opinion, to be called out on its bullshite because while a committee may or may not have the receipts, (we’ve seen quite a few alleged documents in this case) to assume that evidence will be made up is the type of cognitive dissonance that needs to be called out and ridiculed to the point of crawling back in its hole. We’ve entertained thoughts like that post too long and it’s one of the reasons society is where it is right now.

So Sparky, I hope this explains it to you without resorting to an ad hominem attack.

Hw would fall in there for sure