RussiaGate

[Opoponax]

How is logical relevance defined in the UK?

Here, under the Federal Rules, evidence is logically relevant when it has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence, or make any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the Evidence. However, even logically relevant evidence may be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or when its presentation is unnecessarily cumulative. The court balances the probativeness of the logical evidence against its prejudicial effects.

Now, whether evidence is admissible as hearsay depends on whether it falls under an exception or an exclusion, of which there are many. Things like newspaper articles may be judicially noticed (courts take judicial notice of indisputable facts that are either matters of common knowledge in the community or capable of verification by resort to easily accessible sources of unquestionable accuracy), that is, the court may take notice of them and admit them, for example, as evidence of a person's prior consistent or inconsistent statement if presented with them by counsel. The court has wide discretion in this (and many) matters, so it depends once again on relevance and any unduly prejudicial effects, and of course reliability. Once admitted, the evidence can be used to impeach a witness or a defendant provided it doesn't fall into an inadmissible form of character evidence, which is overcome in case where the primary issue involves character (e.g. defamation or in a Trump case, fraud). There's much more to it than that though, really.

The point is, newspaper articles covering statements may or may not be admissible depending on what's in them and who said what. Evidence of this is clear in the fact that the courts who have struck down Trump's travel ban have explicitly taken notice of the language used by Trump and his people who in the past referred to it as a Muslim ban. This is because regardless of the words contained in the writing of a law, if the intent behind the law is discriminatory against a given class of people, the law will be struck down as unconstitutional. In a case of discrimination against national origin, the courts use the highest level of scrutiny, which is known here as "strict scrutiny." Very rarely does anything survive strict scrutiny. The saying is "strict in theory, dead in fact."

So as you can see, public statements posted in the media can be used in court. And really, it's the lawyers who will bring this information to be assessed for its admissibility. That the court can take notice of something is actually almost incidental, but it shows you that statements made in media by certain individuals as well as their conduct, can be admitted into evidence under the appropriate circumstances.

So all this horse-shit railing you're doing against the media is just that: horse-shit. Some of it would be admissible in court, some of it wouldn't. So to deride it all as hogwash is either the result of willful ignorance, or just plain ignorance.

You didn't contradict anything but expanded on what I was saying.

evidence is logically relevant when it has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence, or make any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the Evidence.

What you say just after and beyond is true.

There is always evidence but then what you are saying is about weighing it and avoiding bias.

I didn't mean to contradict. Rather, I was attempting to understand what your understanding of legal relevance is in the UK compared to what it is under U.S. Federal rules. The "legal relevance" doctrine simply means that even relevant evidence, if unduly prejudicial, etc. can be ruled inadmissible by a court. At the same time, as I painstakingly pointed out, evidence, whether considered extraneous or not, may be admissible depending on the circumstances, e.g. if the source is accurate and reliable. This was in response to your criticism that information gathered from media sources could never stand up, i.e., be admissible in court. And that's simply not true.

Again, Trump's explicitly expressed declaration in the media about a "Muslim Ban" has been the primary factor in assuring that his ban will never be implemented. Not just now, but pretty much as long as he holds office. That's because of the intent of the writer of the order. In this case, the writing will be attributed to Trump. And that's because Trump shot off his stupid mouth to the media. Similarly, declarations given in interviews with the media and its members, press releases containing statements, etc. can all be used against him as prior consistent or inconsistent statements coupled with an offering to show the meaning and intent of those statements.

What Trump didn't, and likely will never understand, is that his careless speech doomed his Presidency before it began. It is an obvious lesson that a nation's leader must take the measure of their thoughts and actions before implementing them. To do otherwise cripples the ability of a nation to function, which by now, has become abundantly clear. The current head of the Executive branch in the U.S. is moribund.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You didn't contradict anything but expanded on what I was saying.

evidence is logically relevant when it has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence, or make any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the Evidence.

What you say just after and beyond is true.

There is always evidence but then what you are saying is about weighing it and avoiding bias.

I didn't mean to contradict. Rather, I was attempting to understand what your understanding of legal relevance is in the UK compared to what it is under U.S. Federal rules. The "legal relevance" doctrine simply means that even relevant evidence, if unduly prejudicial, etc. can be ruled inadmissible by a court. At the same time, as I painstakingly pointed out, evidence, whether considered extraneous or not, may be admissible depending on the circumstances, e.g. if the source is accurate and reliable. This was in response to your criticism that information gathered from media sources could never stand up, i.e., be admissible in court. And that's simply not true.

Again, Trump's explicitly expressed declaration in the media about a "Muslim Ban" has been the primary factor in assuring that his ban will never be implemented. Not just now, but pretty much as long as he holds office. That's because of the intent of the writer of the order. In this case, the writing will be attributed to Trump. And that's because Trump shot off his stupid mouth to the media. Similarly, declarations given in interviews with the media and its members, press releases containing statements, etc. can all be used against him as prior consistent or inconsistent statements coupled with an offering to show the meaning and intent of those statements.

What Trump didn't, and likely will never understand, is that his careless speech doomed his Presidency before it began. It is an obvious lesson that a nation's leader must take the measure of their thoughts and actions before implementing them. To do otherwise cripples the ability of a nation to function, which by now, has become abundantly clear. The current head of the Executive branch in the U.S. is moribund.

I don't disagree. This is why we have the inquiry at the moment as I am sure you will agree to sort out which can be presented. Then there is less chance of inapplicable evidence being presented to waste the court time.

When I was in the UAE, it suspended travel for Egyptians during the Arab Spring, and those from Syria. Those nationals were advised not to leave the UAE or they could find it difficult to reenter even though they were working there.

Of course he shoots off his mouth, isn't that what he was voted in for?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So umm... I don't know if they can impeach based on Comey's testimony alone, but like we suspected, it is thorough and clearly seems to indicate Comey was fired in an attempt to obstruct justice regarding Flynn and Russia.

Oh wait, we have that Trump guy who stated flat out the firing of Comey relieved him of the Russia stress. So there are two people then.

I'm curious, is there a reason not to impeach Trump now, I mean one that isn't grossly partisan? Isn't obstructing an FBI investigation against the law? Isn't that a serious crime? Isn't that why Nixon ultimately resigned when he asked the CIA to denounce the investigation? Trump already did that too!

Trump's known transgressions already greatly exceed anything Nixon ever did. The reason the rethuglicans aren't on board with impeaching him yet amounts to "Well, that's just Trump being Trump." IOW, they have knowingly thrown their support behind a treasonous liar, conman and sexual predator.

You don't get it, do you? He's Making America Great Again. Your failure to understand how his actions accomplish this is your problem, not wrongdoing on his part!

(Never mind that what he's really doing it making it great for Putin.)

 

[whichphilosophy]

Trump's known transgressions already greatly exceed anything Nixon ever did. The reason the rethuglicans aren't on board with impeaching him yet amounts to "Well, that's just Trump being Trump." IOW, they have knowingly thrown their support behind a treasonous liar, conman and sexual predator.

You don't get it, do you? He's Making America Great Again. Your failure to understand how his actions accomplish this is your problem, not wrongdoing on his part!

(Never mind that what he's really doing it making it great for Putin.)

Given from what has been said, there seems nothing impeachable at this stage nor is there any established link with Putin.

 

[blastula]

Obstruction is impeachable. And, AGAIN, the investigation isn't public. You don't know everything that has been established or not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Given from what has been said, there seems nothing impeachable at this stage

Reminds me of Terry Jones' character in Eric The Viking.

King Arnulf: [Hy-Brasil is sinking, everything is collapsing and exploding] Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obstruction is impeachable. And, AGAIN, the investigation isn't public. You don't know everything that has been established or not.

What we do know is that Mueller has hired top ranks in the legal field for cybersecurity, finance, laundering, mob prosecutions, general criminal law.

 

[funinspace]

Reminds me of Terry Jones' character in Eric The Viking.

King Arnulf: [Hy-Brasil is sinking, everything is collapsing and exploding] Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!

Or:

"No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! No, no.....No, 'e's stunned! Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords. The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage! Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee! No no! 'E's pining!"

 

[blastula]

Obstruction is impeachable. And, AGAIN, the investigation isn't public. You don't know everything that has been established or not.

What we do know is that Mueller has hired top ranks in the legal field for cybersecurity, finance, laundering, mob prosecutions, general criminal law.

WP doesn't believe there is any investigation because Mueller doesn't personally give him a daily report.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What we do know is that Mueller has hired top ranks in the legal field for cybersecurity, finance, laundering, mob prosecutions, general criminal law.

WP doesn't believe there is any investigation because Mueller doesn't personally give him a daily report.

Even if he did, WP would still say it doesn't prove "collusion". WP's posts start reminding of QuestionMark?'s posts about where in the legal code it says we have to pay income tax.

 

[Deepak]

What we do know is that Mueller has hired top ranks in the legal field for cybersecurity, finance, laundering, mob prosecutions, general criminal law.

WP doesn't believe there is any investigation because Mueller doesn't personally give him a daily report.

Do we have any verified reports that this Mueller character even exists?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

WP doesn't believe there is any investigation because Mueller doesn't personally give him a daily report.

Do we have any verified reports that this Mueller character even exists?

I think we do, but Jared Kuschner... I think he is a shell person (like the one Andy Dufrense invented) that has been photoshopped into pictures.

 

[Elixir]

Obstruction is impeachable. And, AGAIN, the investigation isn't public. You don't know everything that has been established or not.

I doubt that he can even prove that Jared Kushner exists.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step -- complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Obstruction is impeachable. And, AGAIN, the investigation isn't public. You don't know everything that has been established or not.

I doubt that he can even prove that Jared Kushner exists.

Ever hear him speak? Obviously a hologram.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step -- complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.

Fake news. Donald Trump twitter account and Russian blogs are the only real news.

 

[barbos]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Fake news. Donald Trump twitter account and Russian blogs are the only real news.

I just want to know how Bloomberg knows it were russians hackers, and how he knows their intent was to delete the data?

 

[Opoponax]

Fake news. Donald Trump twitter account and Russian blogs are the only real news.

I just want to know how Bloomberg knows it were russians hackers, and how he knows their intent was to delete the data?

No. At this point the burden is on you to show it wasn't Russian hackers.

That Russians hacked the U.S. elections is a fact as sure as water is wet. That issue is settled by everyone who acknowledges basic reality.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

 

[barbos]

I just want to know how Bloomberg knows it were russians hackers, and how he knows their intent was to delete the data?

No. At this point the burden is on you to show it wasn't Russian hackers.

That Russians hacked the U.S. elections is a fact as sure as water is wet. That issue is settled by everyone who acknowledges basic reality.

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

 

[Juma]

No. At this point the burden is on you to show it wasn't Russian hackers.

That Russians hacked the U.S. elections is a fact as sure as water is wet. That issue is settled by everyone who acknowledges basic reality.

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?