questionee

Because while torture may get you an answer to your question, there is always the possibility that the "questionee" is giving you any information you want just to stop the pain.

The Unit Steven Barnes 2007

Because while torture may get you an answer to your question, there is always the possibility that the "questionee" is giving you any information you want just to stop the pain".

The Unit Steven Barnes 2007

Im not commenting on this particular post/subject but if your a journalist and ask a question you should allow the questionee to answer the question without interruption.

Think Progress » VIDEO: Bret Baier Interviewing Obama Vs. Bret Baier Interviewing Bush 2010

The same goes for the questionee to not interrupt the questioner until they have finished speaking.

Think Progress » VIDEO: Bret Baier Interviewing Obama Vs. Bret Baier Interviewing Bush 2010

This episode marked a first for Lost: Someone (Jack) actually ASKED what was going on, and I could not believe my eyes, the questionee (Faraday) actually ANSWERED that question!

The Tail Section » Ratings for “The Constant” Are In 2008

Of course, I think it is actually a method of questioning, not a method of selecting the questionee.effayQuote

The Volokh Conspiracy » Teaching to Different Learning Styles in Law School 2009

If the questionee takes the position that there's nothing they can think of that would break that law, what they've effectively admitted is that they don't believe there are any limits or restrictions on campaign financing, at which point they should be quizzed as to what they think those existing laws actually mean.

So ... what WOULD be breaking the law then? CC 2008

On the other hand, if the questionee is forced to provide a theoretical scenario which would violate the law, then we've made progress; we've actually had them admit that it is possible to break those laws, and now it's just a matter of focusing the scenario more and more tightly until you locate the dividing line between what they consider both legal and illegal.

Archive 2008-04-01 Lindsay Stewart 2008

If the questionee takes the position that there's nothing they can think of that would break that law, what they've effectively admitted is that they don't believe there are any limits or restrictions on campaign financing, at which point they should be quizzed as to what they think those existing laws actually mean.

Archive 2008-04-01 Lindsay Stewart 2008

On the other hand, if the questionee is forced to provide a theoretical scenario which would violate the law, then we've made progress; we've actually had them admit that it is possible to break those laws, and now it's just a matter of focusing the scenario more and more tightly until you locate the dividing line between what they consider both legal and illegal.

So ... what WOULD be breaking the law then? CC 2008