Was Cohen in Prague?
Spoiler: It doesn’t really matter.
The report that Cohen was in Prague ignited a frenzy this past week, sparking the question: Do we at last have a smoking gun?
americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/a…
thedailybeast.com/is-the-michael…
(Notice he equates prosecutors and investigators with Democrats. All of this is deliberate.)
The underlying problem is confusion about direct v. circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence directly links a person to the crime, without the need for any inference.
law.cornell.edu/wex/direct_evi…
Circumstantial evidence IMPLIES the person committed a crime.
law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstan…
Every reader of crime fiction knows what circumstantial evidence is, and that most complex crimes are proven with circumstantial evidence.
The law doesn’t distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence.Both are admissible and can be used to prove a crime.
As every defense lawyer knows, even evidence that appears direct can be still be shown as unreliable.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t direct evidence. There may well be. But it isn't necessary.
Hearsay, for example, is not admissible in court, but is often used in newspaper reporting.
Facts in the Mueller docs are highly reliable because they’re the result of an FBI investigation and have been vetted and confirmed by top prosecutors.
Ultimately jurors determine the facts, and cases are tried in court (or, for removal from office, in Congress) not the press.
But we can still play "was there a crime?"
For Conspiracy (371) start reading at tweet 5:
There is more, of course. Lots more. Just start reading the Mueller docs themselves. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
I'll add that I'm proud of my beautiful new blog. I'm ready for the 2019 avalanche of legal docs and indictments. Yes, they're coming.
Have a wonderful New Year.