F
F_Marturana
Guest
Couldn’t Corn testify?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
F_Marturana . . .
Almost always these guys KNOW the answers to the questions they are asking (Strzok knows that too).
Sometimes an attorney will even hyperbolically say . . . “Never ask a witness a question that you do not know the answer to.”
Part of the reason they are “asking” is to enter the testimony into the official record.
That official record is where they (a jury, or a judge, or in this case Congress) will be called to draw their conclusions from in large part.
Once that official record is established, OTHER proceedings in the future MAY be drawn from it too.
That is part of the reason WHY an attorney tells his client not to give any extraneous information.
Because even if it can’t be used against you at THIS proceeding, it can still “hop out of the cake” against you at some future legal proceeding.
Strzok’s answers were well crafted.
His attitude was inappropriate though and I am surprised his attorneys didn’t “coach him up” on THAT.
That is WHY the Congressmen commented on his “smirking” etc. So that became part of the record.
The smirking routine just irritates the interrogator(s) too and can work against you that way as well.
He probably could but they would still ask Strzok the same questions.Couldn’t Corn testify?
Almost always these guys KNOW the answers to the questions they are asking (Strzok knows that too).
Sometimes an attorney will even hyperbolically say . . . “Never ask a witness a question that you do not know the answer to.”
Part of the reason they are “asking” is to enter the testimony into the official record.
That official record is where they (a jury, or a judge, or in this case Congress) will be called to draw their conclusions from in large part.
Once that official record is established, OTHER proceedings in the future MAY be drawn from it too.
That is part of the reason WHY an attorney tells his client not to give any extraneous information.
Because even if it can’t be used against you at THIS proceeding, it can still “hop out of the cake” against you at some future legal proceeding.
Strzok’s answers were well crafted.
His attitude was inappropriate though and I am surprised his attorneys didn’t “coach him up” on THAT.
That is WHY the Congressmen commented on his “smirking” etc. So that became part of the record.
The smirking routine just irritates the interrogator(s) too and can work against you that way as well.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Strzok and his FBI “minders” are disintegrating.Strzok
D
dvdjs
Guest
Are you saying that Jordan’s veracity in his grilling is not on topic?I am going to ignorne your irrelevant question until you get back on the topic of the thread.
If not, why not?
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
[What does that mean, exactly??]Are you saying that Jordan’s veracity in his grilling is not on topic?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.