Is this email the smoking gun?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I realize that some of you may have already seen this by your comments repeating the "I love it" part from Junior, but I couldn't find a specific thread with this attached. Maybe it's in the hundred pages of RussiaGate somewhere...

Anyway, I think this is pretty much the smoking gun.

The email shows that Goldstone had Russian oligarch clients colluding with Russian govt officials and acting as their agents and further that Goldstone and the Russian lawyer exposed knowledge of that foreign interest to Junior. He was still okay with having the meeting.

So, specifically I am referring to the following:

Goldstone: The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
Goldstone: This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump -
helped along by Aras and Emin.
...
...
Trump Junior: ... ... I love it ... ...​

In another thread, one of the other Russian [Russian American] participants says that they left a cache of documents at the end of the meeting.

I think this email is enough evidence for probable cause and for an indictment/arrest warrant. I also think that if there is any evidence that Trump knew about this, then it's enough for representatives to call for impeachment which they have done.

So, does anyone agree or disagree that this is the smoking gun?

 

[barbos]

Why do we keep multiplying threads?
What is Crown prosecutor? She is a defense lawyer, have never been a prosecutor, let alone Crown one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why do we keep multiplying threads?

Спасибо, Иосиф Сталин

What is Crown prosecutor?

Генеральная прокуратура Российской Федерации

She is a defense lawyer, have never been a prosecutor, let alone Crown one.

Нет, Чайка

 

[barbos]

Oh, OK.
Is this email from Jr. twitter?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh, OK.
Is this email from Jr. twitter?

Yes. Twitler junior came forward with the email in an [alleged] effort of transparency but he didn't reveal all attendees nor that [allegedly] documents were left at the end.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, OK.
Is this email from Jr. twitter?

Yes. Twitler junior came forward with the email in an [alleged] effort of transparency but he didn't reveal all attendees nor that [allegedly] documents were left at the end.

Well, the Trump idea of 'transparency' is to admit to what you've been caught at.
By the fake news...
Certainly not to admit to anything before you're forced to...

 

[barbos]

OK, I admit, this is a smoking gun, certainly as far as Trump campaign go. But "russian" (technically they are azeri) players will deny it.
I find it interesting that Agalarov has a lot in common with Trump, both have real estate background and both have idiot sons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OK, I admit, this is a smoking gun, certainly as far as Trump campaign go. But "russian" (technically they are azeri) players will deny it.
I find it interesting that Agalarov has a lot in common with Trump, both have real estate background and both have idiot sons.

It appears that the Russians traded intel and electoral help for greatly reducing a fine for a Russian company guilty of money laundering. This email is one half of the equation.

This may be in addition to other collusion.

 

[Deepak]

OK, I admit, this is a smoking gun, certainly as far as Trump campaign go. But "russian" (technically they are azeri) players will deny it.
I find it interesting that Agalarov has a lot in common with Trump, both have real estate background and both have idiot sons.

It appears that the Russians traded intel and electoral help for greatly reducing a fine for a Russian company guilty of money laundering. This email is one half of the equation.

This may be in addition to other collusion.

Muller asked, "Would you collude with Russia if they paid you a million rubles?"

"Yes," they answered.

"And if they paid you five rubles?"

The irate Trump Admin fumed, "What do you think we are?"

"We’ve already established that," returned Muller. "Now we’re trying to determine the degree."

 

[barbos]

OK, I admit, this is a smoking gun, certainly as far as Trump campaign go. But "russian" (technically they are azeri) players will deny it.
I find it interesting that Agalarov has a lot in common with Trump, both have real estate background and both have idiot sons.

It appears that the Russians traded intel and electoral help for greatly reducing a fine for a Russian company guilty of money laundering. This email is one half of the equation.

This may be in addition to other collusion.

To be fair, Trump Jr. promised nothing. But the whole thing is consistent with how business is run by Trump and in Russia.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, but nobody can put the Russian government in jail for being corrupt criminals. The same doesn't hold true for Dipshit McFartstick's useless spawn.

 

[barbos]

Yes, but nobody can put the Russian government in jail for being corrupt criminals.

In this particular case it's oligarchs, not russian government, there is a difference just ask Khodorkovsky, he knows
Anyway, what is the company which was supposedly fined for money laundering and wanted Trump to reduce it?

The same doesn't hold true for Dipshit McFartstick's useless spawn.

Come on, stop acting outraged, he is pretty accurate representation of WallStreet variety of businessmen.

 

[Deepak]

In this particular case it's oligarchs, not russian government, there is a difference just ask Khodorkovsky, he knows

 

[Philos]

Folks,

Couple of things,

1) In entrapment, the victim does not have to actually buy the drugs, hard evidence of them going into the trap with the intention to get them is enough AFAIK.

2) I believe that there is a crime on the statutes regarding foreign nationals lobbying in the US for favours from government. This could pressure the Russian lawyer to sing, as she will have no protection from Putin and face possible jail time in the US.

Its early days, but watch this space.

A.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I realize that some of you may have already seen this by your comments repeating the "I love it" part from Junior, but I couldn't find a specific thread with this attached. Maybe it's in the hundred pages of RussiaGate somewhere...

Anyway, I think this is pretty much the smoking gun.

The email shows that Goldstone had Russian oligarch clients colluding with Russian govt officials and acting as their agents and further that Goldstone and the Russian lawyer exposed knowledge of that foreign interest to Junior. He was still okay with having the meeting.

So, specifically I am referring to the following:

Goldstone: The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
Goldstone: This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump -
helped along by Aras and Emin.
...
...
Trump Junior: ... ... I love it ... ...​

In another thread, one of the other Russian [Russian American] participants says that they left a cache of documents at the end of the meeting.

I think this email is enough evidence for probable cause and for an indictment/arrest warrant. I also think that if there is any evidence that Trump knew about this, then it's enough for representatives to call for impeachment which they have done.

So, does anyone agree or disagree that this is the smoking gun?

It's interesting but hearsay so may be used in questions in an investigation and to probe further but does not offer proof since it is someone making claims of what others have stated.

The question is, whether any documents did pass hands that relate to this specific event.

However Aras Agalarov built the Trump tower in Russia so that is simply a thread to look at.

There is sleaziness here but then that's politics.

Publicists also have a habit of bragging about what they have gotten before they get it. So I would say, "So what if A talked to B, let's see what A actually produced."

It's not clear what a crown prosecutor is, since one such post does not exist in Russia. Russia has a Prosecutor General named Yury Chaika. The title of crown prosecutor suggests working for a monarch. However, even under the Tzar, the title was still Prosecutor General

The above information may be enough to start an investigation but not close such.

- - - Updated - - -

In this particular case it's oligarchs, not russian government, there is a difference just ask Khodorkovsky, he knows

Who can argue with such authentic gibberish.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's interesting but hearsay so may be used in questions in an investigation and to probe further but does not offer proof since it is someone making claims of what others have stated.

In one sense, the issue of hearsay is a red herring--that is, as applied to intent of Trump Jr and any attempted collusion with Russia--it is a red herring. If you mean, actual collusion with Russia, no, it's not proof. But again it does show he was a-okay to collude with Russian government.

The question is, whether any documents did pass hands that relate to this specific event.

The former counterintelligence officer did say they left documents there. That's enough for attempted collusion, for intent, and/or treason in my book. Whether it's actual collusion directly with the government is another question.

However Aras Agalarov built the Trump tower in Russia so that is simply a thread to look at.

There is sleaziness here but then that's politics.

Publicists also have a habit of bragging about what they have gotten before they get it. So I would say, "So what if A talked to B, let's see what A actually produced."

It's not clear what a crown prosecutor is, since one such post does not exist in Russia. Russia has a Prosecutor General named Yury Chaika. The title of crown prosecutor suggests working for a monarch. However, even under the Tzar, the title was still Prosecutor General

Yes, I already explained to barbos ,Chaika was the person being discussed. Goldstone who wrote that is British and thinking in British terms, not the correct formal title.

The above information may be enough to start an investigation but not close such.

Yes, it's enough to start an investigation of Trump Jr. That's because it's probable cause and therefore it's also enough for an arrest warrant and other warrants for search and seizure to help such investigation and prosecution of Trump Jr along.

 

[Opoponax]

It's interesting but hearsay so may be used in questions in an investigation and to probe further but does not offer proof since it is someone making claims of what others have stated.

.

You don't know what the fuck hearsay is and you don't know its exceptions and exclusions. I've told you this before, but you keep making up your own rules.

The Slimeball Jr. email isn't hearsay. It's a fucking admission/statement against penal, pecuniary, or proprietary interests, or it could be a statement by a party opponent depending on how its offered. As for the email itself, or a copy, a document is admissible unless there's a genuine dispute as to its authenticity. But no one is disputing its authenticity.

As for what another party might say about who was at the meeting, as long as they were at the meeting, then they have personal knowledge, which is then admissible as personal knowledge. If they acted on what was said at the meeting in any way, then their testimony is admissible as an effect on the hearer of a given statement. If they read something at the meeting and then did something, it's admissible as an effect on the reader.

Now please feel free to counter with a statement about how dogs in Finland piss on the leeward side of trees in February.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's interesting but hearsay so may be used in questions in an investigation and to probe further but does not offer proof since it is someone making claims of what others have stated.

.

You don't know what the fuck hearsay is and you don't know its exceptions and exclusions. I've told you this before, but you keep making up your own rules.

The Slimeball Jr. email isn't hearsay. It's a fucking admission/statement against penal, pecuniary, or proprietary interests, or it could be a statement by a party opponent depending on how its offered. As for the email itself, or a copy, a document is admissible unless there's a genuine dispute as to its authenticity. But no one is disputing its authenticity.

As for what another party might say about who was at the meeting, as long as they were at the meeting, then they have personal knowledge, which is then admissible as personal knowledge. If they acted on what was said at the meeting in any way, then their testimony is admissible as an effect on the hearer of a given statement. If they read something at the meeting and then did something, it's admissible as an effect on the reader.

Now please feel free to counter with a statement about how dogs in Finland piss on the leeward side of trees in February.

Hearsay is that which was heard from others and is unsubstantiated. In this case it is the reporting of another person’s words which quote the words of others. Without substantiation at this point it is hearsay. Granted however there are certain exceptions. The definition is not ‘black and white’ hearsay can be called second-hand evidence or rumour.

During the OJ Simpson Trial, though his wife’s diaries contained statements about physical abuse they were inadmissible as evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence are given here where the parties may well argue before the Judge whether evidence of this sort can be admitted or not.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+Rules+of+Evidence

In the instance I quoted it was about the publicist who reported one person speaking to another. That is unlikely to be admissible.

As for the dogs, there would be film evidence and first hand reports of the Scientists to can identify the piss or saw the dog doing it (and also identify it forensically). There would be more pieces to fit together.

One person reporting what one person said to another and there is nothing else there is little to go on.

There are of course various circumstances where a court or an investigative committee could accept or reject hearsay.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

.

You don't know what the fuck hearsay is and you don't know its exceptions and exclusions. I've told you this before, but you keep making up your own rules.

The Slimeball Jr. email isn't hearsay. It's a fucking admission/statement against penal, pecuniary, or proprietary interests, or it could be a statement by a party opponent depending on how its offered. As for the email itself, or a copy, a document is admissible unless there's a genuine dispute as to its authenticity. But no one is disputing its authenticity.

As for what another party might say about who was at the meeting, as long as they were at the meeting, then they have personal knowledge, which is then admissible as personal knowledge. If they acted on what was said at the meeting in any way, then their testimony is admissible as an effect on the hearer of a given statement. If they read something at the meeting and then did something, it's admissible as an effect on the reader.

Now please feel free to counter with a statement about how dogs in Finland piss on the leeward side of trees in February.

Hearsay is that which was heard from others and is unsubstantiated.

There is no "heard from others" here. Instead there is "heard from THE GUY." Therefore, the email is a fact. The email is not hearsay. The closing of Donald Trump Jr's response is in the email and that is also a fact.

In this case it is the reporting of another person’s words which quote the words of others.

As already explained, whether the Prosecutor General actually said anything isn't even relevant. The email could have said "The Tooth Fairy General of Russia wants to send you documents to help you win the election." At the point that Donald Trump Jr responds he "loves it" [a fact] and goes to the meeting [a fact] his intent is to collude with a foreign government and engage in an illegal conspiracy.

Without substantiation at this point it is hearsay.

and YOU WOULD BE RIGHT, if Chaika were on trial. Chaika is not on trial or the primary subject of potential crimes, indictment, arrest, or search and seizure of property related to such. Donald Trump Jr IS THE SUBJECT. Therefore, your claims to unsubstantiated hearsay are a red herring.

Granted however there are certain exceptions. The definition is not ‘black and white’ hearsay can be called second-hand evidence or rumour.

That Chaika said anything at all is indeed second-hand. However, the email is a PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR himself, i.e., Donald Trump Jr. His words "I love it" and his assent to meet are facts not derived from secondary or tertiary sources and therefore not hearsay.

During the OJ Simpson Trial, though his wife’s diaries contained statements about physical abuse they were inadmissible as evidence.

If they were diaries written by OJ Simpson and submitted to the public where OJ said, "Hey everyone. I want to be transparent. Here are my diaries. Use these in any investigations you are pursuing." Then, it would not be hearsay.

If OJ Simpson wrote in his diaries that Pat Benatar told him that the Tooth Fairy of Russia wanted him to do it and the Tooth Fairy of Russia were on trial, not OJ Simpson, then likely his diary would be inadmissible in court as to the Tooth Fairy of Russia's culpability.

The Federal Rules of Evidence are given here where the parties may well argue before the Judge whether evidence of this sort can be admitted or not.

We are not in court, but your explanation of hearsay as a dependency on primary versus secondary evidence is confused because you are mistakenly applying it to Chaika as the subject, instead of Donald Trump Jr.

In the instance I quoted it was about the publicist who reported one person speaking to another. That is unlikely to be admissible.

Perhaps, if Chaika were on trial as stated above, this could be an issue. Chaika is not on trial.

As for the dogs, there would be film evidence and first hand reports of the Scientists to can identify the piss or saw the dog doing it (and also identify it forensically). There would be more pieces to fit together.

In this case, we have Donald Trump Jr admitting it in writing and then delivering it to the world as public property.

One person reporting what one person said to another and there is nothing else there is little to go on.

That is applicable to Chaika since we can observe with our own eyes what Donald Trump Jr wrote and what Goldstone wrote to him. We cannot observe what Chaika said or wrote in primary source documentation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hearsay is that which was heard from others and is unsubstantiated.

There is no "heard from others" here. Instead there is "heard from THE GUY." Therefore, the email is a fact. The email is not hearsay. The closing of Donald Trump Jr's response is in the email and that is also a fact.

In this case it is the reporting of another person’s words which quote the words of others.

As already explained, whether the Prosecutor General actually said anything isn't even relevant. The email could have said "The Tooth Fairy General of Russia wants to send you documents to help you win the election." At the point that Donald Trump Jr responds he "loves it" [a fact] and goes to the meeting [a fact] his intent is to collude with a foreign government and engage in an illegal conspiracy.

Without substantiation at this point it is hearsay.

and YOU WOULD BE RIGHT, if Chaika were on trial. Chaika is not on trial or the primary subject of potential crimes, indictment, arrest, or search and seizure of property related to such. Donald Trump Jr IS THE SUBJECT. Therefore, your claims to unsubstantiated hearsay are a red herring.

Granted however there are certain exceptions. The definition is not ‘black and white’ hearsay can be called second-hand evidence or rumour.

That Chaika said anything at all is indeed second-hand. However, the email is a PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR himself, i.e., Donald Trump Jr. His words "I love it" and his assent to meet are facts not derived from secondary or tertiary sources and therefore not hearsay.

During the OJ Simpson Trial, though his wife’s diaries contained statements about physical abuse they were inadmissible as evidence.

If they were diaries written by OJ Simpson and submitted to the public where OJ said, "Hey everyone. I want to be transparent. Here are my diaries. Use these in any investigations you are pursuing." Then, it would not be hearsay.

If OJ Simpson wrote in his diaries that Pat Benatar told him that the Tooth Fairy of Russia wanted him to do it and the Tooth Fairy of Russia were on trial, not OJ Simpson, then likely his diary would be inadmissible in court as to the Tooth Fairy of Russia's culpability.

The Federal Rules of Evidence are given here where the parties may well argue before the Judge whether evidence of this sort can be admitted or not.

We are not in court, but your explanation of hearsay as a dependency on primary versus secondary evidence is confused because you are mistakenly applying it to Chaika as the subject, instead of Donald Trump Jr.

In the instance I quoted it was about the publicist who reported one person speaking to another. That is unlikely to be admissible.

Perhaps, if Chaika were on trial as stated above, this could be an issue. Chaika is not on trial.

As for the dogs, there would be film evidence and first hand reports of the Scientists to can identify the piss or saw the dog doing it (and also identify it forensically). There would be more pieces to fit together.

In this case, we have Donald Trump Jr admitting it in writing and then delivering it to the world as public property.

One person reporting what one person said to another and there is nothing else there is little to go on.

That is applicable to Chaika since we can observe with our own eyes what Donald Trump Jr wrote and what Goldstone wrote to him. We cannot observe what Chaika said or wrote in primary source documentation.

Despite its simplistic definition, hearsay is not a black and white definition. Hearsay also means rumour.
The emails referring what a party said to another party would in themselves be a lead but insufficient to establish as something that took place.

Re OJ, this would not be hearsay but these were from his former wife. However this was something disputed by the Prosecutor but rejected by the judge in this instance.

While not in court our estimation of hearsay would need to be persuasive enough to convince a judge.
There is a lot to look at even, even for a simple case.