(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

Exactly. So what level of evidence tampering is okay, and what level is not? Where do you draw the line?

(02-14-2021 01:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

Interesting story. Looks like the main argument of doctored tweets isn’t really relevant, as the claims were based on preparatory photos from a NYTimes article, and the error was caught prior to the blown up tweet graphics being presented as evidence.

Quote: But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted. Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet, correctly dated January 3, 2021, which has since been taken down as his account is permanently suspended. They also showed the follow-up tweet with the same date.

"To be fair, the House managers caught this error before showing it on the Senate floor, so you never saw it when it was presented to you," Schoen said Friday.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busines...21-2%3Famp

Quote: "As Trump's attorneys spotlighted, while inexplicably condemning the managers for a draft graphic of a tweet barely visible on a computer screen inside a New York Times photo that was not shown in the Senate, it is necessary to format and blow up the text of tweets into a graphic so that Senators can see it. The text is entirely unchanged," the aide said.

"The final graphic accidentally had a blue verification checkmark on it, but the substance of it was entirely accurate. So what is Trump's attorneys' point? If anything, it is further evidence of President Trump's attention to and knowledge of what was being openly planned on Jan. 6 by his followers, even those without Twitter verifications," the aide continued.

"Furthermore, in self-evident context, it is simply not believable that President Trump recognized the frequently confused 'calvary' as anything besides the 'cavalry is coming.' "



The aide also pushed back against Trump's lawyers' allegation that the video the managers showed was strategically spliced to paint a false depiction of the former president's remarks. The aide noted Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) showed video of the former president stating that protesters should "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rial%3Famp

I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

No - it’s just unclear if the “doctored” evidence even made it into the trial.

Read my re-edited post above.

For me it doesnt matter if it made it in or not. The mere fact that it was made gives me all I need to know about the party generating it.

Manufacturing evidence is..... manufacturing evidence. Really cant cut it any other way. And the fact that evidence was manufactured gives one (at least me) very clear insight into the party that does it or allows it. Regardless if it goes into the trial or not.

I think your delineation on the act of spoliation is rather kneejerk.

Quote:Are all typos or mistakes considered doctoring evidence?

What do you consider the word 'manufacture' to mean? How is adding something in a 'typo'? "Adding in" isnt a mistake; its a state of mind.

To me, adding anything into or altering evidence is....... doctoring evidence.

To you apparently the mindset to add or alter is completely dependent on whether it gets into trial. Trust me, I got it.

Let's actually dissect the issue - there was a tweet used as evidence, and the House managers presented it. As they said, they made a graphic to represent the tweet in order for it to be blown up and be visible.

One piece of information said to be "doctored" was the date. The initial draft said Jan 3, 2020 instead of Jan 3, 2021. Who hasn't mistakenly written the year incorrectly the first few days of 2021?

The second is that a blue check was added to the tweet, where it shouldn't have been - a person he retweeted didn't have a blue check, but the graphic made showed them having a blue check.

Tweet here: https://media-cdn.factba.se/realdonaldtr...830273.jpg

Evidence presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6377&v=6...e=youtu.be

What would be gained by intentionally adding a blue check to the retweeted account? Did it materially change the context of the tweet? It's meaning? I ask because saying something is doctored clearly implies that the change was intentional and with purpose. What was the purpose?

What evidence was manufactured by adding a blue check? It's not like the content or the tweet itself was manufactured.

(02-14-2021 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

Exactly. So what level of evidence tampering is okay, and what level is not? Where do you draw the line?

That isn't the question, though. The actual question is what is evidence tampering - see the post I just made.

I've looked at the piece of evidence in question and the original tweet. The only difference is a blue check mark being applied to the initial tweeter's account. Was that intentionally added to misrepresent something? Or was it accidentally applied?

Doctoring evidence would be an intentional act to misrepresent evidence, right?

(02-14-2021 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

Exactly. So what level of evidence tampering is okay, and what level is not? Where do you draw the line?

That isn't the question, though. The actual question is what is evidence tampering - see the post I just made.
I've looked at the piece of evidence in question and the original tweet. The only difference is a blue check mark being applied to the initial tweeter's account. Was that intentionally added to misrepresent something? Or was it accidentally applied?
Doctoring evidence would be an intentional act to misrepresent evidence, right?

No, doctoring evidence would be any change whatsoever. That's why custody chains for things like murder weapons and drugs confiscated are so important in criminal trials. Intent might go to the extent to which a jury would regard such evidence, but that's why it's a procedural matter. If it's been tampered with in any way, it cannot be admitted.

(02-14-2021 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

Exactly. So what level of evidence tampering is okay, and what level is not? Where do you draw the line?

That isn't the question, though. The actual question is what is evidence tampering - see the post I just made.
I've looked at the piece of evidence in question and the original tweet. The only difference is a blue check mark being applied to the initial tweeter's account. Was that intentionally added to misrepresent something? Or was it accidentally applied?
Doctoring evidence would be an intentional act to misrepresent evidence, right?

No, doctoring evidence would be any change whatsoever. That's why custody chains for things like murder weapons and drugs confiscated are so important in criminal trials. Intent might go to the extent to which a jury would regard such evidence, but that's why it's a procedural matter. If it's been tampered with in any way, it cannot be admitted.

Also, it provides a mindset to the party who puts forth the doctored evidence.

Additionally, all of the impeachment managers are lawyers. Changing *anything* from the original, or condoning any change from the original, whether 'in trial' or not is pretty gd grotesque.

van der Veen is absolutely on point. The issue is that a doctored thing was proffered.

The brainless twit said 'but, oh its only a blue check and a date'.

Which unfortunately seems to be the side you are on.

(02-14-2021 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

Exactly. So what level of evidence tampering is okay, and what level is not? Where do you draw the line?

That isn't the question, though. The actual question is what is evidence tampering - see the post I just made.
I've looked at the piece of evidence in question and the original tweet. The only difference is a blue check mark being applied to the initial tweeter's account. Was that intentionally added to misrepresent something? Or was it accidentally applied?
Doctoring evidence would be an intentional act to misrepresent evidence, right?

No, doctoring evidence would be any change whatsoever. That's why custody chains for things like murder weapons and drugs confiscated are so important in criminal trials. Intent might go to the extent to which a jury would regard such evidence, but that's why it's a procedural matter. If it's been tampered with in any way, it cannot be admitted.

But do chain of custody protocols apply here? It's not like we're talking about a gun, or an original printed memo.

The evidence is a tweet. In order to present it, the House managers had to make a graphic that displayed the tweet in a way that was visible. When making that graphic, the extra check was added to the account that Trump retweeted.

In normal trials, are chains of custodies initiated for all electronic forms of evidence? If lawyers want to present electronic evidence in a physical form that is blown up for others to see, what is the SOP for doing that?

It's not like the words of the tweet were changed - something that clearly could have contributed to a modification of the content/context. What does the additional blue check mean to you?

(02-14-2021 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

Exactly. So what level of evidence tampering is okay, and what level is not? Where do you draw the line?

That isn't the question, though. The actual question is what is evidence tampering - see the post I just made.
I've looked at the piece of evidence in question and the original tweet. The only difference is a blue check mark being applied to the initial tweeter's account. Was that intentionally added to misrepresent something? Or was it accidentally applied?
Doctoring evidence would be an intentional act to misrepresent evidence, right?

No, doctoring evidence would be any change whatsoever. That's why custody chains for things like murder weapons and drugs confiscated are so important in criminal trials. Intent might go to the extent to which a jury would regard such evidence, but that's why it's a procedural matter. If it's been tampered with in any way, it cannot be admitted.

Also, it provides a mindset to the party who puts forth the doctored evidence.

Additionally, all of the impeachment managers are lawyers. Changing *anything* from the original, or condoning any change from the original, whether 'in trial' or not is pretty gd grotesque.

van der Veen is absolutely on point. The issue is that a doctored thing was proffered.

The brainless twit said 'but, oh its only a blue check and a date'.

Which unfortunately seems to be the side you are on.

But the date wasn't changed! That's the amazing part - you're parroting this line without actually looking at what happened. The date issue was from a photo in the NYTimes during prep.

By the time this visual made it into the trial, the typo on the date was fixed. The blue check still made it in.

You seem to think that this was a screen shot that was printed out and passed around, it wasn't. This was basically a PPT where they made representations of the tweets and provided sources of where they came from.

Is it uncommon for graphical representations to be used in trials to build a case?

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

And that someone was fine with the evidence being tampered.

The main problem is that lad has zero idea what an absolute big no-no *any* form of tampering is. Nor does he seem willing to accept that. Not my problem. Let him be on the side arguing that 'there is small but not damaging tampering' ----

Lad, there is a fundamental reason why *any* tampering of *any* sort and of *any* magnitude is literally a disbarring offense. Flap about it all you want, there is a fundamental reason why that is so, and an equally fundamental reason why that action is abhorrent in the extreme to me. Not my problem if it is your current 'no matter' issue de jour.

I'll take my leave of your current nascent Mt Suribachi imitation before it expands any further.

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

You ignored all of the other questions I asked about electronic-based evidence and exhibits.

Also, was this tweet entered as evidence?

(02-14-2021 02:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

You ignored all of the other questions I asked about electronic-based evidence and exhibits.

Also, was this tweet entered as evidence?

It was proffered. So now the line of 'tampering' is now 'being entered as evidence'. Got it. Have fun with your flurry of trying to vindicate this.

(02-14-2021 02:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

You ignored all of the other questions I asked about electronic-based evidence and exhibits.

Also, was this tweet entered as evidence?

Because they are superfluous and fairly shallow. There are some great resources like the annotations to the Fed Rules of Evidence that are helpful. Try them.

There is a means to gather, validate, reproduce, and authenticate electronic based and web based evidence. So stop sounding so wounded that the question was ignored.

And, as to the electronic evidence, instead of doing that, they apparently decided to create it.

Always fun to watch Lad argue law with the lawyers.

This whole thing reminds me of a common tax evasion practice that was in practice back in the pre-computer era. (No longer so, I would think.)

Present something that is intentionally wrong or incorrect; if it gets through, fine, you win. If caught, treat it as an error.

Example: Do the supporting schedule, and say the total comes to $175,867.
Transfer to the main schedule as $75,867. If it isn't caught in audit, fine, you just saved taxes on $100K. If they do catch it, plead error, and pay the taxes.

Of course, the editing I thought odd was where where the House managers edited out the part where Trump said to protest peacefully.

(02-14-2021 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

You ignored all of the other questions I asked about electronic-based evidence and exhibits.

Also, was this tweet entered as evidence?

There is a means to gather, validate, reproduce, and authenticate electronic based evidence. It isnt ignoring it, it simply isnt a reason why one needs to 'create' evidence.

And, as to the electronic evidence, instead of doing that, they apparently decided to create at least part of it.

But they didn't "create" evidence. You seem to want to stretch this past it's logical extremes to try and paint the House team as evidence tamperers. So I ask, was this even technically evidence?

And what evidence was created (see bold)? Did Trump not retweet what was shown? Did the House managers even reference the added verified check?

(02-14-2021 02:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

And that someone was fine with the evidence being tampered.

The main problem is that lad has zero idea what an absolute big no-no *any* form of tampering is. Nor does he seem willing to accept that. Not my problem. Let him be on the side arguing that 'there is small but not damaging tampering' ----

I disagree with that takeaway about my position of being unwilling to accept that tampering is a no-no in any form. I'm asking whether this is evidence tampering - whether the tweet shown was technically considered evidence, and if the act of generating this figure and making a mistake is technically tampering.

Quote:Lad, there is a fundamental reason why *any* tampering of *any* sort and of *any* magnitude is literally a disbarring offense. Flap about it all you want, there is a fundamental reason why that is so, and an equally fundamental reason why that action is abhorrent in the extreme to me. Not my problem if it is your current 'no matter' issue de jour.

I'll take my leave of your current nascent Mt Suribachi imitation before it expands any further.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense why someone tampering with evidence in any way is grounds for being disbarred.

You've been unclear about what was actually presented by the House managers (you brought up the date again, which was presented correctly), so it seems like you're not fully familiar with what was presented.

(02-14-2021 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Always fun to watch Lad argue law with the lawyers.

This whole thing reminds me of a common tax evasion practice that was in practice back in the pre-computer era. (No longer so, I would think.)

Present something that is intentionally wrong or incorrect; if it gets through, fine, you win. If caught, treat it as an error.

Example: Do the supporting schedule, and say the total comes to $175,867.
Transfer to the main schedule as $75,867. If it isn't caught in audit, fine, you just saved taxes on $100K. If they do catch it, plead error, and pay the taxes.

Of course, the editing I thought odd was where where the House managers edited out the part where Trump said to protest peacefully.

Explain what was wrong and incorrect about the tweet that was presented by the House team, please.

(02-14-2021 02:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The main problem is that lad has zero idea what an absolute big no-no *any* form of tampering is. Nor does he seem willing to accept that. Not my problem. Let him be on the side arguing that 'there is small but not damaging tampering' ----

Yep. Exactly.

(02-14-2021 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does the additional blue check mean to you?

That the "evidence" was tampered with.

You ignored all of the other questions I asked about electronic-based evidence and exhibits.

Also, was this tweet entered as evidence?

There is a means to gather, validate, reproduce, and authenticate electronic based evidence. It isnt ignoring it, it simply isnt a reason why one needs to 'create' evidence.

And, as to the electronic evidence, instead of doing that, they apparently decided to create at least part of it.

But they didn't "create" evidence.

Well put this on hold and get back to it.

Quote:You seem to want to stretch this past it's logical extremes to try and paint the House team as evidence tamperers.

They created something that they wished to put into evidence. Yes, they are evidence tamperers. Next stupid question.

Quote:So I ask, was this even technically evidence?

I guess they created the side by side tweets only to longingly look at the great skill of the draftsman, sound good to you?

The simple rule is 'dont create'. The corollary is 'when an original is available, dont recreate'. The managers are attorneys lad. Thay know the deep reason why these rules exist.

Now your defense is 'it isnt technically evidence'. Sounds like a fun short circuit. I guess I should tell someone that recreating money and stashing it in your floor isnt an an offense, since it technically never enters the stream of commerce. Sound like fun you? Or like some clown car threadbare after the fact excuse?

Quote:And what evidence was created (see bold)? Did Trump not retweet what was shown? Did the House managers even reference the added verified check?

From the fact that the blue check was added after the fact, this is not the tweet that went out. From the fact that a blue check was added, the evidence was created. That is, tampered with.

Kind of black and fing white. Cha cha cha Sunday with lad I guess.

(02-14-2021 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That the "evidence" was tampered with.

You ignored all of the other questions I asked about electronic-based evidence and exhibits.

Also, was this tweet entered as evidence?

There is a means to gather, validate, reproduce, and authenticate electronic based evidence. It isnt ignoring it, it simply isnt a reason why one needs to 'create' evidence.

And, as to the electronic evidence, instead of doing that, they apparently decided to create at least part of it.

But they didn't "create" evidence.

Well put this on hold and get back to it.

Quote:You seem to want to stretch this past it's logical extremes to try and paint the House team as evidence tamperers.

They created something that they wished to put into evidence. Yes, they are evidence tamperers. Next stupid question.

That gets to my question - was the image that they showed entered into evidence? Or was the original tweet (which has been archived) entered?

Was this image they created just an exhibit of the evidence?

Quote:

Quote:So I ask, was this even technically evidence?

I guess they created the side by side tweets only to longingly look at the great skill of the draftsman, sound good to you?

The simple rule is 'dont create'. The corollary is 'when an original is available, dont recreate'. The managers are attorneys lad. Thay know the deep reason why these rules exist.

Now your defense is 'it isnt technically evidence'. Sounds like a fun short circuit. I guess I should tell someone that recreating money and stashing it in your floor isnt an an offense, since it technically never enters the stream of commerce. Sound like fun you? Or like some clown car threadbare after the fact excuse?

Quote:And what evidence was created (see bold)? Did Trump not retweet what was shown? Did the House managers even reference the added verified check?

From the fact that the blue check was added after the fact, this is not the tweet that went out. From the fact that a blue check was added, the evidence was created. That is, tampered with.

Kind of black and fing white. Cha cha cha Sunday with lad I guess.

"That this was not a tweet that went out" Do you mean the content of the tweet didn't wasn't sent out? Or that the specific retweet was slightly different, because the real one didn't have a blue check?

Yes, it is clear that they created an image (they've admitted that) and in doing so a check was added to an account that didn't have it (they've admitted that).

I'm trying to understand how that constitutes manufacturing evidence as has been claimed. And I'm also trying to understand if the image with the error is technically evidence, or if the source of the image is the evidence.

You say when an original is available, don't recreate. Was the item entered into evidence the recreation? Or was the recreation just the exhibit shown?

How are typos or errors on exhibits handled in court?

It seems odd to me that anything photoshopped would ever be considered evidence in court (so I assume the original tweet would be the evidence, not the slide that was made). And it also seems odd that a typo or mistake in something presented in court would, regardless of its context, be labeled as manufacturing evidence OR tampering with evidence.

(02-14-2021 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Always fun to watch Lad argue law with the lawyers.

This whole thing reminds me of a common tax evasion practice that was in practice back in the pre-computer era. (No longer so, I would think.)

Present something that is intentionally wrong or incorrect; if it gets through, fine, you win. If caught, treat it as an error.

Example: Do the supporting schedule, and say the total comes to $175,867.
Transfer to the main schedule as $75,867. If it isn't caught in audit, fine, you just saved taxes on $100K. If they do catch it, plead error, and pay the taxes.

Of course, the editing I thought odd was where where the House managers edited out the part where Trump said to protest peacefully.

Explain what was wrong and incorrect about the tweet that was presented by the House team, please.

It was manufactured. Jeezus fing krist this is like Groundhog Day here.