Mueller has Substantiation of Comey’s Claims re Trump

[Allandavid]

Can you please show the subtantiation that the article speaks of.

Need to show proof and not just because the article says so.

@JGG made some great points in his can we all agree thread

The statements by Priebus. They were made contemporaneously, but separately from Comey’s, yet state the same claims...that Trump had attempted to influence Comey regarding the Russia investigation...

“The special counsel has received handwritten notes from Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, showing that Mr. Trump talked to Mr. Priebus about how he had called Mr. Comey to urge him to say publicly that he was not under investigation. The president’s determination to fire Mr. Comey even led one White House lawyer to take the extraordinary step of misleading Mr. Trump about whether he had the authority to remove him.”

 

[hislegacy]

The statements by Priebus. They were made contemporaneously, but separately from Comey’s, yet state the same claims...that Trump had attempted to influence Comey regarding the Russia investigation...

Claims are not evidence, nor coorboration on anything more than hearsay.

Which is inadmissible. Got any evidence?

 

[Allandavid]

Claims are not evidence, nor coorboration on anything more than hearsay.

Which is inadmissible. Got any evidence?

No, you’re wrong...

Claims ARE a form of evidence. The strength of that evidence is dependent upon the nature of the claim and any corroboration for that claim.

If I claim that I saw a kangaroo in my yard last night, that might be regarded as weak evidence that such a thing happened. If, however, my neighbour states that he looked out his window last night and saw a kangaroo in my yard, then MY claim is strengthened.

So it is with Comey. He has claimed that certain conversations with Trump took place. He took notes at the time which summarised those conversations. This strengthens his claim. He told colleagues of the conversations. This strengthens his claim. And now we find that Priebus has independently claimed that Trump made the same requests that Comey has claimed. This strengthens Comey’s claim...

 

[hislegacy]

So it is with Comey. He has claimed that certain conversations with Trump took place. He took notes at the time which summarised those conversations. This strengthens his claim. He told colleagues of the conversations. This strengthens his claim. And now we find that Priebus has independently claimed that Trump made the same requests that Comey has claimed. This strengthens Comey’s claim...

You have the same chance of Comey claiming he saw a kangaroo in his backyard being entered in as evidence as unsubstantiated claims by him and another person.

Unsubstantiated means there is no substance (proof)

The courts in the US do not accept “because I said so” as evidence.

 

[Allandavid]

The courts in the US do not accept “because I said so” as evidence.

I am more than happy for you to continue to broadcast your ignorance...

“Corroborating witness is a witness whose testimony supports or confirms testimony that is already given. For example, if “A” has approached the court to grant a divorce, s/he must bring to the hearing a witness who can corroborate the grounds for divorce stated by “A”.”

“Corroborating evidence means supplementary evidence that tends to strengthen or confirm the already existing evidence.”

Corroborating Evidence Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[bhsmte]

Claims are not evidence, nor coorboration on anything more than hearsay.

Which is inadmissible. Got any evidence?

If preibus notes confirm what comeys, it is evidence, plain and simple.

 

[Belk]

You have the same chance of Comey claiming he saw a kangaroo in his backyard being entered in as evidence as unsubstantiated claims by him and another person.

Unsubstantiated means there is no substance (proof)

The courts in the US do not accept “because I said so” as evidence.

In what bizzaro world does the US not accept the evidence of a witness?

 

[hislegacy]

In what bizzaro world does the US not accept the evidence of a witness?

A claim, with no substantiation is inadmissible in court. Some type of evidence has to accompany or prove the claim. Six people saying Belk robbed an old lady will not land Belk in Jail unless there is evidence of it.

 

[Belk]

A claim, with no substantiation is inadmissible in court. Some type of evidence has to accompany or prove the claim. Six people saying Belk robbed an old lady will not land Belk in Jail unless there is evidence of it.

Do tell.


Criminal Defense Attorney | Evanston, IL

• Posted on Oct 17, 2014

I think you are confusing two different concepts, the quantum of proof necessary to convict and the "corpus delecti" rule.

Can a person be convicted on testimony alone? Yes. The law in virtually every state is well settled that the testimony even of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. End of story.

The "corpus delecti" rule, which is the law in some jurisdictions but not necessarily in all, provides that a defendant's own confession cannot support a conviction standing alone, but there must in addition be some independent evidence that a criminal act was committed. That additional evidence, of course, can be witness testimony.

There is no requirement that there be some kind of physical evidence in order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction or to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, That is, shall we say, an urban myth. Prisons are full of people convicted on the basis of witness testimony only. It sounds as though you are seriously misunderstanding whatever is in your book . . . or that your book got it wrong


Can one be convicted solely on testimony with n - Q&A - Avvo

 

[AirPo]

A claim, with no substantiation is inadmissible in court. Some type of evidence has to accompany or prove the claim. Six people saying Belk robbed an old lady will not land Belk in Jail unless there is evidence of it.

It really pays to do a little research before posting -->

 

[hislegacy]

I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on tv. But if I go to the police and say you stole my tv. I would have to show proof that the tv was stolen.

If I testified that you had a paper, I would have to produce the paper.

 

[hislegacy]

It really pays to do a little research before posting -->

Good luck with that.

Where are the charges then?

Where is the indictment?

Nothing better than internet experts.

 

[AirPo]

I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on tv. But if I go to the police and say you stole my tv. I would have to show proof that the tv was stolen.[/url]No. That idea is almost laughable.

If I testified that you had a paper, I would have to produce the paper.

Is this a new fallacy, argumentum making things up, or is it already covered.

 

[AirPo]

Nothing better than internet experts.

I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on tv. But if I go to the police and say you stole my tv. I would have to show proof that the tv was stolen.

If I testified that you had a paper, I would have to produce the paper.

Nothing better than internet experts.

QED!

 

[hislegacy]

Good luck with that.

Where are the charges then?

Where is the indictment?

Nothing better than internet experts.

QED!

Still laughing?

 

[hislegacy]

There is a huge difference between testifying to an assault as mentioned in the link and saying there are papers that say something without producing the papers.

 

[AirPo]

There is a huge difference between testifying to an assault as mentioned in the link and saying there are papers that say something without producing the papers.

Nobody needs to produce anything just to satisfy someone one the internet.

 

[Allandavid]

I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on tv. But if I go to the police and say you stole my tv. I would have to show proof that the tv was stolen.

And the “proof” could be 5 other people who claim that they saw him carrying your tv from your house...!

Yes, you’re definitely not an attorney...

 

[hislegacy]

And the “proof” could be 5 other people who claim that they saw him carrying your tv from your house...!

Yes, you’re definitely not an attorney...

Well, when we see the charges filed and the outcome guilty you will be proven correct.

But as of now, there isn’t squat except for the NYTimes and they are not doing well in the accuracy ratings.

 

[AirPo]

Well, when we see the charges filed and the outcome guilty you will be proven correct.

But as of now, there isn’t squat except for the NYTimes and they are not doing well in the accuracy ratings.

Actually it's the ones whining about the MSM who are not doing well in the accuracy ratings.