The RHINO Project.
True D's who are pretending to be R's.
Many states have had the Mask Mandates for MONTHS. But the CDC says recently, if we all wear Masks, the Kung Flu will be gone in 4-6 weeks. Uh, WTF? We've ALREADY been wearing them for MONTHS?
Coronavirus updates: CDC chief says masks could halt outbreak in 4-6 weeks;
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/07/15/covid-19-california-testing-moderna-vaccine-best-buy-requires-masks/5436928002/
Possible loophole? If they got married as a FARCE to avoid testimony, that probably won't hold up.
Spousal testimonial privilege
This type of spousal privilege has been recognized throughout history and pre-dates our Constitution and even our country. It arises from the notion that married spouses are one entity and so are not competent to testify against themselves through their other (if not better) half. Under this type of spousal privilege, one spouse cannot be compelled to give testimony against his or her spouse who is a defendant in a criminal trial or the subject of a grand jury proceeding. The accused spouse may claim the privilege or the other spouse may claim it on behalf of the accused spouse. The spouses must be married at the time that the privilege is asserted; so an ex-spouse can be compelled to give testimony about a defendant to whom he or she was previously, but is no longer, married.
Exceptions to the spousal testimonial privilege exist where a spouse:
is charged with a crime against the other spouse
is charged with a crime against a child of either spouse
is charged with a crime against a third party in the course of committing a crime against the other spouse
is asked to testify about matters pre-dating the marriage, or
is charged with human trafficking for immoral purposes (such as prostitution)
In each of these situations, even current spouses may be compelled to testify against an accused spouse in a criminal trial or grand jury proceeding.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/can-spouses-be-forced-testify-against-one-another
> confidentiality privilege
In Funk,
the defendant sought to admit on his behalf the testimony of defendant's
wife in an effort to reverse the defendant's conviction for conspiring to
violate a prohibition law.48 The Supreme Court in Funk asserted that even
if Congress passed no applicable legislation, the Court could repeal any
common-law rule by using the criteria of "reason and experience. ' 49 The
Court reasoned that the function of all rules of evidence is the ascertainment
of the truth and that the common law is not static, but molds itself to
changing circumstances. 50 Courts, therefore, should make continual determinations as to whether an evidentiary privilege still serves the policy which
underlies the privilege. 5 ' The Funk Court noted that justifications for the
marital privileges change with time and with society's changing needs . 2 The
Funk Court stated that the law of the marital privileges, therefore, mnust
change if the rationale underlying the privileges changes.53 Furthermore, the
Court in Funk explained that changes in evidentiary law should be premised
on reason and on the continually enlightening educational device of experience.5 4 Funk thus commenced an ongoing analysis to test the viability of the
marital privileges.
The United States Supreme Court in Wolfle v. United States, 55 reaffirmed
the Funk ruling, holding that federal courts should interpret common-law
evidentiary principles in the "light of reason and experience. ' 56 The Wolfle
Court dealt solely with the confidential communications privilege. 7 The
principal issue before the Supreme Court in Wolfle was the admissibility of
a statement in a letter from a husband to his wife. 8 The accused husband
asserted the confidential communications privilege in order to prevent admission of the incriminating statement into court.5 9 The Supreme Court noted
that courts presume that spouses intend private marital communications ta
be confidential. 6° The Court, however, did not honor the communications privilege since the prosecution offered the statement through the testimony
of the accused's stenographer who dictated the letter.6
' The Wolfle Court
observed that the confidential communications privilege protected marital
confidences essential to the preservation of the marriage. 62 Nevertheless, the
Court in Wolfle explained that marital communications made in the presence
of third parties are not privileged since the communications are not considered confidential. 63 Since the communication transpired in the presence of
the stenographer, the communication was not confidential, and the Court
allowed the admission of the stenographer's testimony.64
Found on pg. 206. There is more.
Interesting stuff.
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2848&context=wlulr