Fantastic question, and well stated. That actually cuts to the quick, doesn't it? A lot of the things I was thinking about would be revealed by answering this.
My point was that this was nothing new. The meeting had been hashed over at least a year ago, so obviously saying that he had denied it was false.
You have no point. Trumps have been lying from the very beginning when Trump said during a debate that he had never met Putin and never had a conversation with him and it was all downhill from there to the recent, yes, Don jr met with Russians to get dirt on Hilary (which is illegal). Follow the bouncing ball as I feel you have been nodding off way to often and are well behind.
...yes, actually it does matter. What part of "the judge gave permission" don't you understand. ...who committed perjury?...or are you simply making up stuff again? ...I have not posted here for very long but that seems to be your MO.
No, again, he's an expert, not a witness. If someone was on trial for real estate fraud, you could sit in the courtroom and listen to the trial and then be called as an expert on real estate. You would be asked on real estate procedure, not on your opinion of the defendant.
He is most definitely a witness. Whether he's an expert or not is moot, as the term "expert" has no reliable method of measurement of criteria. It's an empty term of self-aggrandizement. The fact he is being paid a ridiculous sum of money to create, tailor and present an "opinion" that will support the prosecution's theory makes him a highly suspect witness. Allowing him to hear other witness's testimony that he has been paid to independently corroborate with his "expert opinion" makes his "opinion" worthless.
No. I have been a witness in several trials. Was never permitted to view any of the trials, nor were any of the "experts". There is no legal/logical reason to ever allow it, other than to suborn perjury.
...lol...my god, were you ever called as "an expert"?...you either can't grasp the simple difference between the two or you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Ridiculous. Go ahead and quote me the "simple" law or STFU and stop trolling with your unsupported denials and childish "no, it's not". Bring something factual to the debate for once or go troll on Huffpost.
...lol...someone has their knickers in a bunch...why would I need Huffington Post?...as if that's relevant...and when was the first or last time you brought "something factual" to a debate? But per your request, here ya go...enjoy; "A factual witness is an individual who is knowledgeable towards the facts of the case through a direct participation or observation of the intricacies involved. For example in a murder case, a factual witness would be an observer of the actual murder or an acquaintance of the individuals involved in the case. The factual witness simply delivers truthful statements regarding the character of those involved or an account of what they saw take place. In contrast, an expert witness is an individual who holds a specialized knowledge in a particular educational field concerning the case. For example, an expert witness can be a doctor who is well-versed in a particular field of medicine. As an expert witness the individual will use his or her advanced knowledge of a particular subject to elucidate on a piece of information regarding the trial to facilitate an appropriate verdict." ...clear it up any?
No, it was during a court hearing on the charges, which is part of the trial record. Maybe you should consult your attorney before An expert witness is still a witness. The only difference is he is being paid an enormous sum to say what his employers (the prosecution) want him to say.
