[noiseman]

Although I’m not an attorney, I was involved in many civil trials in my (pre-retirement) employment. And one basic thing I know is that evidence cannot be introduced without a witness testifying to its origin and authenticity. The attorneys can’t testify, nor in a criminal case as with this one, can the prosecutor testify. So it seems to me that in this case someone would have to testify first to the authenticity of the alleged documents and to their level of classification, and I don’t see how that could be done without the jury seeing them. Otherwise, the prosecutor could just fill some file boxes with blank sheets of paper and expect the judge and jury to just assume that they contain the documents he alleges they contain. Even if he put an FBI agent involved in “the raid” on the stand to testify to their legitimacy, you still have to enter the actual documents into evidence (though it could be under a protective order to avoid disclosure to the general public).

I can’t fathom a trial in which the evidence is never seen by the jury (nor presumably, by the judge). “Everybody knows that…” doesn’t fly in court, even for facts that might seem obvious. Nothing more than “Just trust me” from the prosecutor should lead to an automatic dismissal.

[CFW]

BREAKING: President Trump files a DEFAMATION lawsuit against
@ABC and George Stephanopoulos for saying he was found liable for rape which he wasn’t.

[noiseman]

I should have added: How would the prosecutor even show a specific document to a witness to have them authenticate it, without the “unwashed” jury seeing it? If not simultaneously shown to the jury, he could be showing the witness the Sunday comics for all they would know. Also, I would think the prosecutor would have to go through that exercise with every individual document.

[Robert A Cook PE]

ALL that we have “seen” (been told by the prosecutor) as “evidence” so far is a leaked photograph of empty folders on a piece of carpet.

And democrat party claims.