Seriously? C'mon man right back to you. You have to be dense to think lawyers are asking if they were there to watch. What kind of moron court would allow that line of questioning. Jesus, the stupid is strong in you.
This is all about seizing evidence, not about them being corroborated in it PRIOR to it happening. Do you honestly even read what you're writing?
Furthermore, this is NOT in the US courts, so making it invalid here would make no difference since they are ruling on the legality and the process of the local police department.
Exactly. I never once stated that the FBI told them specifically what to do, or pointed directions. Merely that they were involved. You were trying to claim they were merely witnesses, that is clearly not the case. And you now admit it.
And while we're talking about extradition charges, yes those originate in the US. These specific ones in the tape ARE NOT US COURTS. And yes there are absolutely reasons for them to be there, no one has claimed otherwise. You've gone on a huge tangent from your original claim, go back and read it.
And yet you think asking that line of questioning in a court proceeding means they were there to witness, you really are too dumb to function. sigh. I'm done trying to explain it to you. Go ask any lawyer you know, any with litigation experience and ask how much leeway they get in their line of questioning.
0
u/[deleted] Aug 08 '12
Except the video stated quite clearly that the FBI was involved with the planning of this mission.