Is this email the smoking gun?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[blastula]

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.

It's beyond hearsay that you make no sense.

 

[Deepak]

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.]

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]

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]

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.

Trump's idea of transparency:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1340671-REG/tamron_sef95_95mm_solar_eclipse_filter.html

 

[LordKiran]

Despite its simplistic definition, hearsay is not a black and white definition.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

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]

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]

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.