Why does Chuck Rosenberg always put so much emphasis of proof of whether some act is

[triron]

recalled or not (by the suspect), the suspect being perhaps Trump?
Circumstantial evidence can be used to make some determination beyond a reasonable doubt.
He did this on Rachel's show tonight. Gate's testimony shows Trump likely lied to Mueller.
Rosenberg throws shade on this using the caveat of 'recall'. Disgusting imo.

[Stallion]

1. Circumstantial Evidence is Evidence But the Jury/Judge decides the weight

to be given to the inferences raised by circumstantial evidence. Rosenberg comes from a criminal background where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt so a good defense lawyer should be able to raise a reasonable doubt about a case built on inferences

[coti]

10. You get 3 or 4 solid inferences out of pieces of circumstantial evidence and triangulate and it

can start getting pretty freaking difficult to explain away...in realistic terms of course, some people just don't give a shit. And some people just can't think like that.

[pnwest]

2. I don't get negativity from him at all, that he's

throwing shade - except to point out that the R’s are sneaky fuckers who CYA themselves with that caveat. It’s wise to remember that yes, we all know trump lied in the written testimony, but it’s much harder to prove that he can’t recall something than to prove he actually did something. I don’t see how pointing that out makes Rosenberg the bad guy...?

[Cartaphelius]

3. Umm... Because it is the law!

Failure to PROVE something in a court of law, is grounds for dismissal.

Therefore, proof in CRITICAL especially facing a potential Trump Nominee
to the bench!

WORDS MATTER.

[StarfishSaver]

4. I believe his point is that it's difficult to prove someone committed perjury if not to s

they say they can't remember something.

If someone says "I don't recall saying that" and it's proven that they did say that, it's virtually possible to prove they're lying since you can't read their minds and it's possible they actually don't remember saying it.

This doesn't mean they didn't say it or that it can't be proven they said it - it's just hard to prove they're lying about their recollection.

[triron]

7. I agree it's 'possible' but would a reasonable person believe them if cuircumstantial evidence

points otherwise. It's possible also that vote counts in 2016 were biased toward Trump relative to exit polls
(when the probability of that happening is nearly 1 in a million), but mathematics indicates otherwise.

[StarfishSaver]

13. You're talking about two different things

Saying you don't recall something isa separate issue from whether there is circumstantial proof that you did it.

What Rosenberg was saying was that Trump claiming he doesn't recall doing something is different than him claiming he didn't do it.

If he says he didn't do it and other evidence - circumstantial or otherwise - surfaces that he did it, he's caught in a lie. But if he says he doesn't remember doing it and other evidence proves he did it, he's not caught in a lie since it's difficult, if not impossible to prove that he actually did remember it at the time he made the statement.

[triron]

16. No I am talking about just that. If circumstantial evidence shows most likely that the

conversation did in fact take place and that it was of great consequence to the suspect, then it is reasonable
to believe the suspect is lying. For instance how many people forget their wedding vows (literally)?

[Stallion]

18. ....but is it BEYOND a reasonable doubt?

you seem to be arguing the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely" and its "reasonable to assume" ) rather than the criminal standard

[StarfishSaver]

20. You would be free to draw that inference if you are a juror, but the "I don't recall" injects

enough of a reasonable doubt for most people to make it very difficult to prove perjury in actual cases. You may not like that and you can argue against it all you want, but I'm just explaining to you how the law, prosecutions and trials actually work and any lawyer who has any experience in these matters will tell you the same thing.

[coti]

12. Right- this is why "I don't recall" is such a popular answer from those on trial nt

[StarfishSaver]

14. Exactly

That was Rosenberg's point.

[TomSlick]

5. I listened to the interview. I didn't hear any "shade" at all.

Chuck is simply a good lawyer. Any lawyer worth his/her salt can tell you the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the case.

[triron]

8. I can see how you see it that way but I don't. Maybe Rosenberg didn't want to go further.

[StarfishSaver]

15. TomSlick's exactly right

Lawyers are trained to think that way. It's drummed into us to see, understand, and even be able to argue both sides of any issue. This isn't to be slick (no pun intended), but the only way to ensure your argument is as strong and tight as it can be is to fully understand and be able to counter any and every argument that can be used against it. That's why a good lawyer's arguments and explanations usually include a "but on the other hand" component.

[TomSlick]

19. And that's why we drive our clients crazy.

That and a penchant for law Latin - or better yet - Norman French.

There once was a lawyer named Tex,
who was lacking in organs of sex.
When arraigned for exposure,
he said with composure,
de minimis non curat lex.

[StarfishSaver]

21. :-)

[Stallion]

22. We Charge More for Latin Words and Confusing Words Like "Inapposite"

[TomSlick]

24. What really gets expensive is when I quote literature.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll

[greyl]

6. He was talking about proving perjury and he made perfect sense.

It's hard to prove someone can't remember an event, though it may be without a doubt that event actually happened.

[triron]

9. Wow I would like you on my jury if I am ever accused of perjury.

[greyl]

11. I don't get the feeling you're reading for comprehension,

but I can't prove it. I just know it's highly likely.

[stopdiggin]

26. ohhh. burn! (nt)

[NCLefty]

17. He's explaining the law as he knows it.

Since I am not a lawyer, I will defer. :p

[StarfishSaver]

23. Plenty of people around here feel perfectly comfortable arguing the law with lawyers

Which I find interesting. People without any medical training rarely argue medicine with doctors and those who know nothing about cars argue about engines with mechanics. But for some reason, people with no legal training or experience have no problem arguing with lawyers about the law. And get snippy about it when they're told they don't know what they're talking about.

So I appreciate you showing deference to the perspective of Rosenberg, a very experienced lawyer.

[Hekate]

25. Gravitas. Because he is a very serious man, and these are very very serious times. ...

I appreciate his POV and his demeanor. If everyone were like him it would be a snoozefest, but they're not.