• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is this email the smoking gun?

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
screen-shot-2017-07-11-at-11-47-23-am.png


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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,202
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Why do we keep multiplying threads?

Спасибо, Иосиф Сталин

barbos said:
What is Crown prosecutor?

Генеральная прокуратура Российской Федерации

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

Нет, Чайка
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
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.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,202
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,202
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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.
 
Last edited:

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,202
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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.
 

Philos

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
1,451
Location
UK South West
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
screen-shot-2017-07-11-at-11-47-23-am.png


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 :)

Ib1BnnH.jpg

Who can argue with such authentic gibberish. :)
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,384
Location
California Central Coast
Basic Beliefs
Apathetic Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
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.
 
Last edited:

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
.

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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.
 
Last edited:

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

They are insufficient to establish that Chaika ever said or wrote anything. They are sufficient to establish that Donald Trump Jr wrote something because they are direct evidence he did.

whichphilosophy said:
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.

The judge rightly blocked it probably because it was not enough to establish, i.e. was not a primary source of OJ saying he did it. Donald Trump Jr, on the other hand, writing an email that he "loves" the idea of a meeting is direct evidence that he wrote the email that he "loves" the idea, i.e. not hearsay.

whichphilosophy said:
While not in court our estimation of hearsay would need to be persuasive enough to convince a judge.

Since we are neither in court, nor is this hearsay, we don't have to convince a judge in court. Instead, a warrant for further informations would be applied and this evidence is direct evidence open to all public of the misdeeds of Donald Trump Jr.

whichphilosophy said:
There is a lot to look at even, even for a simple case.

Okay, but this isn't a case where Chaika is being prosecuted. It's a case where Donald Trump is going to be investigated and possibly charged. Court is not relevant yet and it's not hearsay.
 

Deepak

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

And Trump Jr is floating rumors about himself? Look you clearly don't know what you're talking about here - the reason the diaries were omitted was because of Brown's unavailability to be cross-examined nor did they meet any of the exceptions for admission of heresay, such as statements against self-interest. And by extension you're dragging Judge Judy's name through the mud needlessly.

Indeed, what we have here is Trump Jr offering his own statements, against his self-interest, and which he's vouching to be truthful. You must have a very high opinion of Kasowitz if you think he's going to be able to suppress this.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
And the only point in calling the email "hearsay" is to pooh-pooh the extent to which it legitimately shows an attempt by the three Trump stooges to conspire with foreign sources against the interests of an opposition party in an election campaign. That, on the face of it, is against the law.

The fact that Guccifer 2.0 dumped damaging materials (and there is an allegation that the Russians actually left a hard copy of such materials with the stooges) and that Donald Trump said he had such materials and would release them publicly strongly--all of this just days after the meeting--suggests that he was very much aware of what was going on. It is hard to escape the perception that he was inviting such collusion a month later (in July) when he caused a media firestorm over his direct public plea to Russia to hack into computers in search of Hillary's "missing emails". Although Republicans brushed off the outrage as "a joke", we now see that it was no joke at all.
 

Opoponax

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,384
Location
California Central Coast
Basic Beliefs
Apathetic Atheist
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.

Once again, rock solid proof that you nothing of which you fucking speak. You don't know our hearsay rules, so you really need to STFU about it.

Fuck this. You're on ignore.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
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.

And Trump Jr is floating rumors about himself? Look you clearly don't know what you're talking about here - the reason the diaries were omitted was because of Brown's unavailability to be cross-examined nor did they meet any of the exceptions for admission of heresay, such as statements against self-interest. And by extension you're dragging Judge Judy's name through the mud needlessly.

Indeed, what we have here is Trump Jr offering his own statements, against his self-interest, and which he's vouching to be truthful. You must have a very high opinion of Kasowitz if you think he's going to be able to suppress this.

I'm giving examples of hearsay which can not always be black and white.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,109
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Hearsay is irrelevant here. It would only apply to proving what the Russian lawyer said, but that doesn't matter as to Jr's liability.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
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.

Once again, rock solid proof that you nothing of which you fucking speak. You don't know our hearsay rules, so you really need to STFU about it.

Fuck this. You're on ignore.

I am quite aware of hearsay rules where in a court the judge will evaluate whether such evidence can be accepted in whole or part

However the definitions are correct as given below

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay
Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
Law The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Hearsay.aspx

Hearsay Definition:
Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them


I also provided an example at the OJ Simpson Trial. You are welcome to supply examples to show what you read is incorrect. Saying someone has no (direct) knowledge does not illustrate your point.

- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to quote the Federal Rules of Evidence but you will find there is no all inclusive definition of hearsay.

Hearsay is irrelevant here. It would only apply to proving what the Russian lawyer said, but that doesn't matter as to Jr's liability.

Proving what the Lawyer said would normally mean this is beyond hearsay in terms of weight of evidence.
 

Deepak

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And Trump Jr is floating rumors about himself? Look you clearly don't know what you're talking about here - the reason the diaries were omitted was because of Brown's unavailability to be cross-examined nor did they meet any of the exceptions for admission of heresay, such as statements against self-interest. And by extension you're dragging Judge Judy's name through the mud needlessly.

Indeed, what we have here is Trump Jr offering his own statements, against his self-interest, and which he's vouching to be truthful. You must have a very high opinion of Kasowitz if you think he's going to be able to suppress this.

I'm giving examples of hearsay which can not always be black and white.

Your examples aren't offered to expand the discussion, but instead are an attempt at obfuscation. You might as well claim that short putts can be challenging and offer the Golden Bear's 1964 Tournament of Champions display as an example. The reason her diary was excluded is not analogous to the Trump Jr emails and is about as clear-cut as hearsay rulings get.

Your rationale is about as authentic as gibberish gets.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Heh.
Even if it is 'hearsay' that she was connected to the Russian government, it would not help Junior's situation if he could provide an email saying, "I'm unconvinced of her bona fides as a government representative. Can someone prove to me that i'm actually going to meet with a Kremlin Agent?"
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And Trump Jr is floating rumors about himself? Look you clearly don't know what you're talking about here - the reason the diaries were omitted was because of Brown's unavailability to be cross-examined nor did they meet any of the exceptions for admission of heresay, such as statements against self-interest. And by extension you're dragging Judge Judy's name through the mud needlessly.

Indeed, what we have here is Trump Jr offering his own statements, against his self-interest, and which he's vouching to be truthful. You must have a very high opinion of Kasowitz if you think he's going to be able to suppress this.

I'm giving examples of hearsay which can not always be black and white.

No, you're cherry picking examples from a legal dictionary in hopes it will help your claims. It's a desperate move on your part to retain your motivated reasoning. The problem is, just because you can attempt to shoehorn legal terms teased out of a legal dictionary, (also one from a foreign country to you, if memory serves) does not in fact, make you an attorney. If all we had to do is pick legal terms out of LegalZoom.com we could all be lawyers. There's more to it than that, as you well know. There's more to jurisprudence than that, such as precedent, and whether those terms even apply to this case. Here, as has been explained to you, The OJ trial has no bearing on this type of investigation, sorry, thanks for playing, you lose, you don't even get a lousy version of our home game "Shitty Lawyer". Please play again.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

LordKiran

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
3,225
Location
PA
Basic Beliefs
In a single statement? Pff

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So anyway, Trump's PR lawyer, Jay Sekulow made a statement 'I'm not aware of any other conversation with Russians.'

Any other? Well sure... it is a gun... and smoke is still coming from the barrel, but I don't see a second gun.

Also guns don't collude with foreign agents, people do.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,202
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
So anyway, Trump's PR lawyer, Jay Sekulow
Last name sounds slavic, especially Bulgarian. He must be a russian too, close enough at least.

Anyway, it seems information which these russians were offering to Trump as dirt was not related to stolen podesta emails.
So "russian" hackers are off the hook.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
I'm giving examples of hearsay which can not always be black and white.

No, you're cherry picking examples from a legal dictionary in hopes it will help your claims. It's a desperate move on your part to retain your motivated reasoning. The problem is, just because you can attempt to shoehorn legal terms teased out of a legal dictionary, (also one from a foreign country to you, if memory serves) does not in fact, make you an attorney. If all we had to do is pick legal terms out of LegalZoom.com we could all be lawyers. There's more to it than that, as you well know. There's more to jurisprudence than that, such as precedent, and whether those terms even apply to this case. Here, as has been explained to you, The OJ trial has no bearing on this type of investigation, sorry, thanks for playing, you lose, you don't even get a lousy version of our home game "Shitty Lawyer". Please play again.

The purpose of a dictionary is to define the meaning of words so as to ensure greater understanding of one’s own language or another. Different subjects have their own dictionaries to provide a greater understanding of their specific nomenclature.

It follows that legal dictionary defines what something means in law. US and UK law have close similarities in their definitions, though there are differences at times by way of how the different courts have interpreted the application of such definitions in certain circumstances. This is called case law. Legislation (frequently drawing upon case law) is another means.

Then in addition to understanding the legal terms from a dictionary, we have to understand how a court interprets definitions. In this case it is the understanding and applicability of hearsay.

The OJ trial provided an actual example where the diary was deemed hearsay, but it is possible a court in another country or other county may have differed in its interpretation.

Apart from Case Law there is also statute.

Your reply is enfeebled by the fact that it did not offer contrary opinions sourced in law and its interpretation therein. Nor did you provide an opinion based on your analysis of the definition and application of the said definition.

Thus defining the meaning and applicability of nomenclature is by no means cherry picking but logical analysis.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
This entire sentence is self-contradictory. Do you know how words work?


Hearsay also means rumour.

Wrong.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

For legal purposes, Hearsay: Is a statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Sounds pretty black and white to me.

You will have to read the whole section because a court will determine the applicability of hearsay.

Further the legal definition will state
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay

Law The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
‘everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay’
as modifier ‘the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings’


This is not to say you brought up something that was wrong but hearsay is often viewed in many instances as rumour unless there is more than that alone. Word on the street would be rumour.

In fact this is something that ties up the courts and would not be black and white and often a subject of dispute within a case for the judge then to determine if it is can be accepted as useful evidence.



A person hearing something said by another who heard from another would not likely be applicable unless something else supported it. We have things such as sworn testimony and other factors that would reinforce it.

A person who witnesses something is, under oath very likely to have his/her statement accepted in the court.

A whole thread could be devoted to just what hearsay is and when it is or is not acceptable.

My own point is that someone quoting that someone else spoke to someone else about something is poor practice if determining what the party at the end of the chain said evidence does not stand alone. It needs more than that.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
.

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.

Wow it is so amazing how willing you are to speak nonsense out of ignorance... don't you ever get embarrassed or feel shame in your made-up exaggerations.

An audio recording of two people speaking is not "hearsay" because the audio recording is not a person.
An email between two people having a conversation about what they are doing is not "hearsay" because the email wasn't speaking.. That's just stupid.

If in the email person A said that they thought person B was doing something, then that would be hearsay from Person A.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So anyway, Trump's PR lawyer, Jay Sekulow
Last name sounds slavic, especially Bulgarian. He must be a russian too, close enough at least.
Actually Sekulow spends most of his time trying to save Christians from being fed to lions in America. Or at least, that is the way he thinks the nation is.

Anyway, it seems information which these russians were offering to Trump as dirt was not related to stolen podesta emails.
So "russian" hackers are off the hook.
Says who? Oh... the people who keep lying about the meeting. Though, you definitely have a point... wait... why is the Russian government not involved in what appears to be an attempt to give intel to a campaign in order to make a sweet deal in a money laundering settlement with the US Justice Department?
 

LordKiran

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
3,225
Location
PA
Basic Beliefs
In a single statement? Pff
This entire sentence is self-contradictory. Do you know how words work?




Wrong.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

For legal purposes, Hearsay: Is a statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Sounds pretty black and white to me.

You will have to read the whole section because a court will determine the applicability of hearsay.

Further the legal definition will state
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay

Law The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
‘everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay’
as modifier ‘the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings’


This is not to say you brought up something that was wrong but hearsay is often viewed in many instances as rumour unless there is more than that alone. Word on the street would be rumour.

In fact this is something that ties up the courts and would not be black and white and often a subject of dispute within a case for the judge then to determine if it is can be accepted as useful evidence.



A person hearing something said by another who heard from another would not likely be applicable unless something else supported it. We have things such as sworn testimony and other factors that would reinforce it.

A person who witnesses something is, under oath very likely to have his/her statement accepted in the court.

A whole thread could be devoted to just what hearsay is and when it is or is not acceptable.

My own point is that someone quoting that someone else spoke to someone else about something is poor practice if determining what the party at the end of the chain said evidence does not stand alone. It needs more than that.

Documents are not hearsay. Are you so desperate to not be wrong that you'll argue in the face of basic facts in order to not admit it? You need to let go of your ego, it makes you look incredibly foolish.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So anyway, Trump's PR lawyer, Jay Sekulow made a statement 'I'm not aware of any other conversation with Russians.'

Any other? Well sure... it is a gun... and smoke is still coming from the barrel, but I don't see a second gun.

Also guns don't collude with foreign agents, people do.

Looks like His Flatulence was talking with the Russians back in 2015:

http://boingboing.net/2017/07/12/2015-russia-trump-chatter.html
We already knew this.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
So anyway, Trump's PR lawyer, Jay Sekulow made a statement 'I'm not aware of any other conversation with Russians.'

Any other? Well sure... it is a gun... and smoke is still coming from the barrel, but I don't see a second gun.

Also guns don't collude with foreign agents, people do.

Looks like His Flatulence was talking with the Russians back in 2015:

http://boingboing.net/2017/07/12/2015-russia-trump-chatter.html

This is not news considering this was well publicised at the time.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
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.

Wow it is so amazing how willing you are to speak nonsense out of ignorance... don't you ever get embarrassed or feel shame in your made-up exaggerations.

An audio recording of two people speaking is not "hearsay" because the audio recording is not a person.
An email between two people having a conversation about what they are doing is not "hearsay" because the email wasn't speaking.. That's just stupid.

If in the email person A said that they thought person B was doing something, then that would be hearsay from Person A.

Correct but I was not referring to an audio recording but someone who mentioned someone spoke to someone else.

An audio recording of the persons themselves is of course direct. Email to email is correct and the electronic signature and tracing to the mail box is as good as signed letters.

If Joe says that Fred saw Sam do something that is hearsay. Expressions such as word on the street is hearsay.

Compliments: Lord Kiran and you both qualified your statements with examples. Some other posters tend to omit this.
 

Deepak

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wow it is so amazing how willing you are to speak nonsense out of ignorance... don't you ever get embarrassed or feel shame in your made-up exaggerations.

An audio recording of two people speaking is not "hearsay" because the audio recording is not a person.
An email between two people having a conversation about what they are doing is not "hearsay" because the email wasn't speaking.. That's just stupid.

If in the email person A said that they thought person B was doing something, then that would be hearsay from Person A.

Correct but I was not referring to an audio recording but someone who mentioned someone spoke to someone else.

An audio recording of the persons themselves is of course direct. Email to email is correct and the electronic signature and tracing to the mail box is as good as signed letters.

If Joe says that Fred saw Sam do something that is hearsay. Expressions such as word on the street is hearsay.

Compliments: Lord Kiran and you both qualified your statements with examples. Some other posters tend to omit this.

Trump Jr communicated with Goldstone (a foreign national) to arrange a meeting exchanging information of value against the Clinton campaign. Trump Jr posted the email transcript on Twitter.

Explain clearly how this is hearsay. No long winded diatribes about hearsay existing and hoping everyone forgot what the question was. If you cite examples then keep the party relationships identical.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Correct but I was not referring to an audio recording but someone who mentioned someone spoke to someone else.

An audio recording of the persons themselves is of course direct. Email to email is correct and the electronic signature and tracing to the mail box is as good as signed letters.

If Joe says that Fred saw Sam do something that is hearsay. Expressions such as word on the street is hearsay.

Compliments: Lord Kiran and you both qualified your statements with examples. Some other posters tend to omit this.

Trump Jr communicated with Goldstone (a foreign national) to arrange a meeting exchanging information of value against the Clinton campaign. Trump Jr posted the email transcript on Twitter.

Explain clearly how this is hearsay. No long winded diatribes about hearsay existing and hoping everyone forgot what the question was. If you cite examples then keep the party relationships identical.
The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,109
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
So the word hearsay is itself hearsay?
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...

It doesn't look Greek. It looks like it comes from "hear" and "say," as in I heard someone say such-and-such. I suspect both hear and say have Germanic origin since hear is hoeren and say is sagen in German. However, since it's a legal term and depends upon the existence of various citizen rights it may have developed out of British common law, as opposed to anything before that. Of course, this is just my opinion and I wasn't actually there when the term developed throughout history, so don't quote me on this in court.

Regarding hearsay, I read this on the Internets which might be completely untrue. WHO KNOWS??!! I mean, we can't really know anything. Everything is hearsay. For all I know, I am the exact same person as whichphilosophy. Anyway, here is the Internets:
Issue. The second hurdle is hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Thus, by definition, when emails are used to prove their contents, they are hearsay. If the practitioner is not careful, this objection can destroy his or her case and keep out important pieces of evidence.

Solution. There are two ways to overcome a hearsay objection: (1) claim the email is not hearsay and (2) claim an exception to the hearsay rule.

The practitioner should first consider arguing that an email is not hearsay because it is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, the practitioner should argue that the email is being introduced to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted. For example, proof that certain operative words were conveyed is not hearsay. The words “I will offer you this widget for $5,000” or “I accept your offer” in an email would not be considered hearsay because they are offered to prove those words were communicated, not whether they were true.

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigat...entication-hearsay-issues-email-evidence.html

The email is not hearsay because it is a record of the putative defendant who has substantiated it as true. No prosecution in their right mind would object to it as hearsay. The defense is already screwed over with Junior having submitted as evidence against himself. He gave a big gift to a potential prosecution. Of course, who knows, though. Maybe the American Bar Association is pretending that this is what Fed R Evid 801(d)(2) says.
 
Top Bottom