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

Is this email the smoking gun?

Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

http://boingboing.net/2017/07/12/2015-russia-trump-chatter.html
Click to expand...
We already knew this.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

This is not news considering this was well publicised at the time.
 
Malintent said:
whichphilosophy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
whichphilosophy said:
Malintent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deepak said:
whichphilosophy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...
 
So the word hearsay is itself hearsay?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hearsay is a middle English word

Middle English heren seien, Old English herdon secgan
hear (what some others)say.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

1525-35; orig. in phrase by hear say, translation of Middle French par ouïr dire

Synonyms:
1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
Other synonyms exist such as rumour. However hearsay can be rumour in certain cases.

The point in the previous post will be correct if the mail quoted is directly from the person making a statement and if called for the mail is also authenticated.

Also mail(from the originator's mailbox) and delivered to the recipient's mailbox is considered valid communication where the 'signature' is an electronic signature.

There are still instances where electronic signatures are not accepted but this is a dwindling area.

Useful reference (for the USA)
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/06/what-are-e-signatures-are-they-legally-valid.html
 
whichphilosophy said:
Hearsay is a middle English word

Middle English heren seien, Old English herdon secgan
hear (what some others)say.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

1525-35; orig. in phrase by hear say, translation of Middle French par ouïr dire

Synonyms:
1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
Other synonyms exist such as rumour. However hearsay can be rumour in certain cases.

The point in the previous post will be correct if the mail quoted is directly from the person making a statement and if called for the mail is also authenticated.

Also mail(from the originator's mailbox) and delivered to the recipient's mailbox is considered valid communication where the 'signature' is an electronic signature.

There are still instances where electronic signatures are not accepted but this is a dwindling area.

Useful reference (for the USA)
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/06/what-are-e-signatures-are-they-legally-valid.html
Click to expand...

Again, nobody gives a fuck about your arguments. You're wrong.
 
ZiprHead said:
Again, nobody gives a fuck about your arguments. You're wrong.
Click to expand...
It's cute how he can go on and on and on about 'quoting actual legal references' when it suits him, to be precise, then quotes common usage when that suits him better.
 
Anyhow, back to the smoking gun question ...
Trumpy just opened his fat burger hatch and told everyone exactly where the smoking gun is.
"NOoooo, not my FINANCES! Don't look at my fucking FINANCES! VIOLATION!!!!"
 
Elixir said:
Anyhow, back to the smoking gun question ...
Trumpy just opened his fat burger hatch and told everyone exactly where the smoking gun is.
"NOoooo, not my FINANCES! Don't look at my fucking FINANCES! VIOLATION!!!!"
Click to expand...

OOOhh! Mueller is going to violate FFvC :eek: Hopefully, the Ruskies get it on vid...
 
Opa!

Jimmy Higgins said:
Deepak said:
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.
Click to expand...
The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...
Click to expand...
We all different, but in the end, we all fruit.
 
funinspace said:
Elixir said:
Anyhow, back to the smoking gun question ...
Trumpy just opened his fat burger hatch and told everyone exactly where the smoking gun is.
"NOoooo, not my FINANCES! Don't look at my fucking FINANCES! VIOLATION!!!!"
Click to expand...

OOOhh! Mueller is going to violate FFvC :eek: Hopefully, the Ruskies get it on vid...
Click to expand...


He doesn't want it get out all the taxes he pays on adoption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom