At the outset of that video it's apparent she is oblivious to the meaning of "independent" ... and in the latter half she suddenly realizes that the questioner is onto her feeble "independence" and starts backpedaling. But it's people like this, petty bureaucrats and cogs in the huge machine that made it possible to injure millions, if not billions, of people with the coerced "vaccines."
I find it difficult to call these products actual vaccines because the CDC / FDA had to change the definition of "vaccine" to incorporate these hideous experimental gene products.
They changed the definition of āvaccine.ā Iām sure use of the term is designed to make people more willing to get it, and likely fits in with some legal precedent for mandates.
The guy questioning her is missing something here. She was not just on Pfizer's dole prior to becoming an "independent" board member...she never quit and is and has been on the payroll all along. How about the other four?
He couldnāt ask her about the others. That would considered not relevant to her testimony. And likely speculative too. As if she is privy to all the details about the others. What others on the board did before being on it or how much they got paid is of no consequence to why she is being questioned.
This is the textbook example of why a defense lawyer tells you not to talk to the police, even if you have nothing to hide. It is also a textbook example of whoever the other sideās lawyer is (says this is cross exam) not preparing their witness. A lawyer doing his/her job properly tells that witness that their job on cross exam is to answer the question asked and nothing more. Her response just made that lawyerās point so much more potent than without her excessive ramblings.
Iām also surprised nobody objected to the question as to why Pfizer doesnāt just use employees. Bad lawyering. That calls for speculation. She isnāt a Pfizer manager or executive and the only thing she could offer would be purely speculative or conjecture.
At the outset of that video it's apparent she is oblivious to the meaning of "independent" ... and in the latter half she suddenly realizes that the questioner is onto her feeble "independence" and starts backpedaling. But it's people like this, petty bureaucrats and cogs in the huge machine that made it possible to injure millions, if not billions, of people with the coerced "vaccines."
I find it difficult to call these products actual vaccines because the CDC / FDA had to change the definition of "vaccine" to incorporate these hideous experimental gene products.
Absolutely right. Do you remember any vaccines that you continually had to take?
I also noticed they started calling the flu shot the "flu vaccine" this year.
They changed the definition of āvaccine.ā Iām sure use of the term is designed to make people more willing to get it, and likely fits in with some legal precedent for mandates.
The guy questioning her is missing something here. She was not just on Pfizer's dole prior to becoming an "independent" board member...she never quit and is and has been on the payroll all along. How about the other four?
Exactly.
You got this from the clip? I replayed and she says "pfiser pays me for..." then she talks about having been an advisor, past tense.
He couldnāt ask her about the others. That would considered not relevant to her testimony. And likely speculative too. As if she is privy to all the details about the others. What others on the board did before being on it or how much they got paid is of no consequence to why she is being questioned.
This is the textbook example of why a defense lawyer tells you not to talk to the police, even if you have nothing to hide. It is also a textbook example of whoever the other sideās lawyer is (says this is cross exam) not preparing their witness. A lawyer doing his/her job properly tells that witness that their job on cross exam is to answer the question asked and nothing more. Her response just made that lawyerās point so much more potent than without her excessive ramblings.
Iām also surprised nobody objected to the question as to why Pfizer doesnāt just use employees. Bad lawyering. That calls for speculation. She isnāt a Pfizer manager or executive and the only thing she could offer would be purely speculative or conjecture.