Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

9. Yes, he doesn't assert that this evidence is not already known

Reply to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:29 PM

Jan 2014

In fact, the usage in the context of the purpose of the letter somewhat implies that he IS referring to what is already public. The letter is characterizing the situation as we know it, not being a proffer.

Which makes it a very clever letter.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What "there is evidence" means to a lawyer [View all] jberryhill Jan 2014 OP

Thanks for the clarification, berryhill. elleng Jan 2014 #1

I'm betting that Wildstein has more 'evidence' and even some that will turn out to be a smoking gun Tx4obama Jan 2014 #2

Evidence is only relevant if it makes the truth of the matter asserted more likely Gothmog Jan 2014 #3

Evidence "tying Christie to having knowledge" jberryhill Jan 2014 #5

Maybe they have Christie's transcript from Faber College cthulu2016 Jan 2014 #10

But it was double secret probation. jberryhill Jan 2014 #13

Christie's response is a clue that it's more. ProSense Jan 2014 #4

Stock response jberryhill Jan 2014 #7

True, but ProSense Jan 2014 #8

Oh I did not mean to suggest it is "inconceivable" jberryhill Jan 2014 #11

What's important is that Christie's political future has been further damaged. onehandle Jan 2014 #6

Yes, he doesn't assert that this evidence is not already known cthulu2016 Jan 2014 #9

Indeed jberryhill Jan 2014 #12

I am watching Hardball Gothmog Feb 2014 #14