Donald Trump

[Dax777]

By definition, it does not include EVIDENCE. The committee said what was included in the stuff left out and it is not evidence, that is the whole point. “Records that were not elevated…..” means stuff that never became evidence. If Trump had such evidence he would produce it. Keep flogging that dead horse.

Errhhh, no! Don't extrapolate unnecessarily. We know they did not keep some RECORDS. Whether those records constitute EVIDENCE is not for you or I to speculate on. It may or may not be evidence. But whatever it was, they should have kept ALL records and minutes properly so it can be reviewed by independent bodies in future. If they so choose.

Also, Trump wouldn't have evidence of what they did or did not do. He wasn't there. But as a matter of principle, they should have kept ALL minutes of ALL meetings related to J6. Even those records 'they concluded "did not further their investigative purpose."

A new body might be interested to know why certain documents did not warrant further investigation. But that's hard to do when you don't preserve ALL the records you examined. Isn't it?

 

[KS55]

Errhhh, no! Don't extrapolate unnecessarily. We know they did not keep some RECORDS. Whether those records constitute EVIDENCE is not for you or I to speculate on. It may or may not be evidence. But whatever it was, they should have kept ALL records and minutes properly so it can be reviewed by independent bodies.




Also, Trump wouldn't have evidence of what they did or did not do. He wasn't there. But as a matter of principle, they should have kept ALL minutes of ALL meetings related to J6. Even those records 'they concluded "did not further their investigative purpose."

A new body might be interested to know why certain documents did not warrant further investigation. But that's hard to do when you don't preserve ALL the records you examine.

No you are wrong again on a matter of law. The definition of evidence is quite specific. “Elevated” means ‘this info was given in evidence’. If something was not given in evidence, it is not evidence. The reason for this distinction is obvious. Thus, for eg, counsel cannot in summing up refer to stuff that was not given in evidence.
Besides, Trump sued the committee to avoid giving evidence on his own behalf. He can’t have it both ways.
Your dead horse is really suffering.
PS. In any proceeding each side decides what evidence they will give. There is no requirement to keep data that they rejected. If Trump turned down the opportunity to give evidence, that is the end of it. Thus in an appeal you cannot use data that you had at trial but declined to use. Again, it is obvious why.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

No you are wrong again on a matter of law. The definition of evidence is quite specific. “Elevated” means ‘this info was given in evidence’. If something was not given in evidence, it is not evidence. The reason for this distinction is obvious. Thus, for eg, counsel cannot in summing up refer to stuff that was not given in evidence.
Besides, Trump sued the committee to avoid giving evidence on his own behalf. He can’t have it both ways.
Your dead horse is really suffering.
PS. In any proceeding each side decides what evidence they will give. There is no requirement to keep data that they rejected. If Trump turned down the opportunity to give evidence, that is the end of it.

There are people who clearly think he can have it both ways. ^^^

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

No you are wrong again on a matter of law. The definition of evidence is quite specific. “Elevated” means ‘this info was given in evidence’. If something was not given in evidence, it is not evidence. The reason for this distinction is obvious. Thus, for eg, counsel cannot in summing up refer to stuff that was not given in evidence.
Besides, Trump sued the committee to avoid giving evidence on his own behalf. He can’t have it both ways.
Your dead horse is really suffering.
PS. In any proceeding each side decides what evidence they will give. There is no requirement to keep data that they rejected. If Trump turned down the opportunity to give evidence, that is the end of it. Thus in an appeal you cannot use data that you had at trial but declined to use. Again, it is obvious why.

SMH. It's always some conspiracy. It can never just be the common sense, logical answer. There always has to be an out, a "should, woulda, coulda" so they can claim "we'll never know the real truth." All to excuse away their own fecklessness.

 

[Dax777]

No you are wrong again on a matter of law. The definition of evidence is quite specific. “Elevated” means ‘this info was given in evidence’. If something was not given in evidence, it is not evidence. The reason for this distinction is obvious. Thus, for eg, counsel cannot in summing up refer to stuff that was not given in evidence.
Besides, Trump sued the committee to avoid giving evidence on his own behalf. He can’t have it both ways.
Your dead horse is really suffering.
PS. In any proceeding each side decides what evidence they will give. There is no requirement to keep data that they rejected. If Trump turned down the opportunity to give evidence, that is the end of it. Thus in an appeal you cannot use data that you had at trial but declined to use. Again, it is obvious why.

No I am not wrong. And this is not about "a matter of law" as you put it. 'Evidence' itself is not what's at issue here.

The appropriate claim at issue here is the "preservation of records." Did they or did they NOT fail to preserve records. If they didn't, then why didn't they?

You say it's because it wasn't evidence. But that's coz you have an incorrect understanding of what's at issue. Evidence is what's presented at the hearing or at some of the meetings. What is being claimed here is that the meetings notes are not properly preserved.

It is the prerogative of the J6 committee to determine what they deem relevant evidence. And use that. But keeping all records of meetings including those the J6 committee didn't think aided there own investigative purpose is normal.

This is about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. And that is what has been claimed. And they are not denying it.

That's the point.

 

[Dax777]

SMH. It's always some conspiracy. I can never just be the common sense, logical answer. There always has to be an out, a "should, woulda, coulda" so they can claim "we'll never know the real truth." All to excuse away their own fecklessness.

Exactly, hence why you should do what you are supposed to do to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

It's not like this is some hard work. The damn thing is bloody recorded. Did they run out of tape or something?

 

[Vic]

as I say he is just spouting some bollocks he is told to by those seeking to RUIN the USA when he takes office

Fixed

 

[KS55]

No I am not wrong. And this is not about "a matter of law" as you put it. 'Evidence' itself is not what's at issue here.

The appropriate claim at issue here is the "preservation of records." Did they or did they NOT fail to preserve records. If they didn't, then why didn't they?

You say it's because it wasn't evidence. But that's coz you have an incorrect understanding of what's at issue. Evidence is what's presented at the hearing or at some of the meetings. What is being claimed here is that the meetings notes are not properly preserved.

It is the prerogative of the J6 committee to determine what they deem relevant evidence. And use that. But keeping all records of meetings including those the J6 committee didn't think aided there own investigative purpose is normal.

This is about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. And that is what has been claimed. And they are not denying it.

That's the point.

Just no. Your horse is dead.
So Trump says there is evidence which will prove his innocence which was suppressed. But evidence is not at issue? No, it’s (non evidentiary) records! God save us. Even by your standards of sophistry, that is nonsensical.
BTW. Can you tell us what reg requires the keeping of these ‘records’?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Just no. Your horse is dead.
So Trump says there is evidence which will prove his innocence which was suppressed. But evidence is not at issue? No, it’s (non evidentiary) records! God save us. Even by your standards of sophistry, that is nonsensical.
BTW. Can you tell us what reg requires the keeping of these ‘records’?

I can't see anything in the National Archive Records Administration (NARA) reg's that dictates records of committee discussions should be entered into the archives.

 

[Dax777]

Just no. Your horse is dead.
So Trump says there is evidence which will prove his innocence which was suppressed. But evidence is not at issue? No, it’s (non evidentiary) records! God save us. Even by your standards of sophistry, that is nonsensical.
BTW. Can you tell us what reg requires the keeping of these ‘records’?

You are under the impression we are arguing. We are not.

Again, you are hyper focused on the wrong thing. The Georgian Congressman stated they have failed to keep adequate records of their deliberations. You are worried about what evidence convicts or exonerates Trump. However, the Congressman is much more interested in the actions of the committee.

You seem to be struggling with this distinction and accusing me of all and sundry. Relax, I'm simply just pointing out what the Congressman is telling you is at issue..


As for your question: It's not a reg. It's the Constitution itself

ArtI.S5.C3.1 Requirement that Congress Keep a Journal​