TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › DOJ drops charges against New Black Panthers/Investigation Pending
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DOJ drops charges against New Black Panthers/Investigation Pending - Page 4

post #91 of 98
7/17/10 at 11:35am
Well, to go back to the original subject of the thread, J. Christian Adams, who was the DOJ prosecutor on the case and who resigned from the DOJ over the matter, has testified under oath to Congress. The DOJ has refused to allow any current employees to testify under oath about the subject.
Reply
post #92 of 98
7/17/10 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Well, to go back to the original subject of the thread, J. Christian Adams, who was the DOJ prosecutor on the case and who resigned from the DOJ over the matter, has testified under oath to Congress. The DOJ has refused to allow any current employees to testify under oath about the subject.

Very true. And you know, in all honesty no one knows how all this will turn out. I am completely open to the fact that the Civil Rights Comm after they hear all the testimony (IF they get to hear all the testimony) will judge that Adams is full of it and there is nothing wrong going on. What has me so crazy is so many people ignorning this and acting like it is no big deal. IF what Adams says is true, it's a BFD.
Reply
post #93 of 98
7/17/10 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
I guess you could ask any lawyer that question. But would you believe the answer?
Why exactly would we ask any lawyer why random people have a problem with being compelled to tell the truth?
Reply
post #94 of 98
7/17/10 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Well, to go back to the original subject of the thread, J. Christian Adams, who was the DOJ prosecutor on the case and who resigned from the DOJ over the matter, has testified under oath to Congress. The DOJ has refused to allow any current employees to testify under oath about the subject.
That's because Congress has different rules than criminal proceedings. Having Adams testify in a criminal trial to a situation to which he was not a witness would be admitting hearsay evidence. Hearsay isn't admissible. But, we've been over that.
Reply
post #95 of 98
7/17/10 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn View Post
I don't believe anyone in the above story has been asked to testify anywhere at this point. According to the filmmaker the workers tried to report the fraud and such but was ignored. Not like you can walk into a court room and just start testifying. Kinda have to have a trial or investigation going on.
There have been all manner of investigations. The fact that the investigations didn't get them the results they wanted doesn't mean they "were ignored". They would have no doubt be asked to testify if their allegations had proven to have merit and it actually came to a trial.
Reply
post #96 of 98
7/17/10 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn View Post
Very true. And you know, in all honesty no one knows how all this will turn out. I am completely open to the fact that the Civil Rights Comm after they hear all the testimony (IF they get to hear all the testimony) will judge that Adams is full of it and there is nothing wrong going on. What has me so crazy is so many people ignorning this and acting like it is no big deal. IF what Adams says is true, it's a BFD.
You know, we think a whole lot alike, just from slightly different angles. I'm completely open to the fact that there was widespread fraud and more than one instance of intimidation. But so much of what is being presented is from parties not present and hearsay. All it would take was one person to actually agree to testify that one of them had gotten in their face about who they were going to vote for.
Reply
post #97 of 98
7/17/10 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That's because Congress has different rules than criminal proceedings. Having Adams testify in a criminal trial to a situation to which he was not a witness would be admitting hearsay evidence. Hearsay isn't admissible. But, we've been over that.
They weren't specifically asking about the case. They were asking about the DOJ's dropping of the case. Entirely different kettle of fish. And, once he quit, he DID testify...so does that mean they can take hearsay evidence as long as he no longer works for the Department? That's just not logical.
Reply
post #98 of 98
7/17/10 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
They weren't specifically asking about the case. They were asking about the DOJ's dropping of the case. Entirely different kettle of fish. And, once he quit, he DID testify...so does that mean they can take hearsay evidence as long as he no longer works for the Department? That's just not logical.
I completely agree with you that it's not logical, but that's how rules of evidence works from criminal case to civil to congressional investigation. It's weird, but it's done. Think of the OJ trial. All the evidence that was ruled inadmissible in the criminal case was perfectly acceptable in the civil lawsuit (where he was found liable).

And, good (or bad ) lawyers may be able to find loopholes in all of them.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › DOJ drops charges against New Black Panthers/Investigation Pending