Queue the attack lap dog.

And more evidence showing he's wrong. What else you gonna reply with next?

Video evidence can be circumstantial.

Have you bothered to watch the video is this case?

Circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence used in criminal cases that
suggests a fact or event rather than directly proving it. Unlike direct evidence,
such as an eyewitness account or a video recording, circumstantial
evidence requires the jury to draw inferences about a defendant’s involvement
based on related facts.

https://budalaw.com/blog/2024/december/what-is-circumstantial-evidence/

So, once again, you just argue to argue.

Have you bothered to watch the video is this case?https://budalaw.com/blog/2024/december/what-is-circumstantial-evidence/

So, once again, you just argue to argue.

The nuance escapes you.
The video shows the conversation, that part is not circumstantial, it is hard evidence the judge had a conversation. The circumstantial aspect is that pertaining to what was said in the conversation.

If a video shows you at the scene of a store robbery the video is hard evidence but can circumstantial if it doesn't show you committed the crime and is just part of the overall case.

The video I saw didn't have any audio, if the video did have audio and it catches what was said then it isn't circumstantial.

The nuance escapes you.
The video shows the conversation, that part is not circumstantial, it is hard evidence the judge had a conversation. The circumstantial aspect is that pertaining to what was said in the conversation.

If a video shows you at the scene of a store robbery the video is hard evidence but can circumstantial if it doesn't show you committed the crime and is just part of the overall case.

The video I saw didn't have any audio, if the video did have audio and it catches what was said then it isn't circumstantial.

Flapp addressed what they were talking about already. THey were talking about her grandkids and fishing.

The nuance escapes you.
The video shows the conversation, that part is not circumstantial, it is hard evidence the judge had a conversation. The circumstantial aspect is that pertaining to what was said in the conversation.

If a video shows you at the scene of a store robbery the video is hard evidence but can circumstantial if it doesn't show you committed the crime and is just part of the overall case.

The video I saw didn't have any audio, if the video did have audio and it catches what was said then it isn't circumstantial.

Wrong!!

The video shows much, much more than a conversation.  it shows everything the judge did in sequence, and the court reporter has everything that transpired regarding the cases called.  It shows her distracting the agents by moving them to another judge's chambers while she had a conversation with the defense attorney after which the attorney and defendant tried to flee.  There was no case called for that defendant, and the prosecutor was not involved.  That's evidence that the conversation was NOT related to the domestic violence charges he went to court to address.  It's not circumstantial.  it's a fact.

So, yeah, you want everything to be according to your definitions, but a video tape is actually physical recorded evidence.  It's not circumstantial.

If you can find a case where a video tape was labeled circumstantial evidence where it showed the actions of the defendant even though there was no audio, I'd be happy to take a look.  What I found is video is NOT considered circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence for example would be you walk into a bathroom and see the defendant standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife.  Then you find a blackmail letter from the victim to the suspect demanding money for their silence in some matter.

Since you didn't see the actual killing, everything i just stated is circumstantial evidence.

If there was a video camera outside the bathroom showing nobody other than the victim and suspect entered that bathroom before you walked in, are you still going to call the video circumstantial?  It's DIRECT evidence showing only the suspect could have committed the murder.  Period.

Direct Evidence Examples
1. Video Evidence: This is one of the most clear-cut forms
of direct evidence. If a surveillance camera catches a person
entering a restricted area, the footage serves as direct
evidence of that person’s trespass. Unlike second-hand
accounts or fingerprints, video evidence typically doesn’t
require interpretation or inference—it shows what happened
in a straightforward manner.

In my example, the video showing the 2 actors enter the restroom is direct evidence directly proving only the suspect could have had the opportunity to commit the crime.  It doesn't have to be evidence of the charged crime itself -- that being the murder -- to be direct evidence.

Evidence stacks one piece upon the next to create a case proving the suspect committed the crime.  That doesn't mean if there are no direct witnesses or video of the killing that all the evidence is circumstantial.  Each element of a crime requires evidence.  Some elements like means and opportunity are where video is powerful.  Motive would be based on the blackmail letter.  Nothing in the video is needed to prove motive.

By the way, a photograph is also direct evidence.  It isn't a video tape or audio recording of the crime, but it can be used to place the parties together just prior to the crime, useful for countering an alibi.

Do some more reading and get back to me.  You don't get to argue any further unless you can show credible sources to back you up.

If you bother to read this link, you'll see the conclusion -- "Direct evidence leaves no room for doubt. It directly proves an assertion – there’s no “connecting the dots” or “reading between the lines.” Remember, direct evidence isn’t about what’s likely, it’s about what IS."

You don't have to prove verbatim what the judge said to the lawyer.  Her actions and the resulting attempt by the lawyer and defendant to flee from the agents serving a valid warrant are all that's needed.  Of course, maybe another explanation is the defendant was able to read minds (like you) and became aware that he was going to be arrested by ICE.  So, nothing the judge said to his lawyer caused what happened?   

https://helpfulprofessor.com/direct-evidence-examples/

Wrong!!

The video shows much, much more than a conversation.  it shows everything the judge did in sequence, and the court reporter has everything that transpired regarding the cases called.  It shows her distracting the agents by moving them to another judge's chambers while she had a conversation with the defense attorney after which the attorney and defendant tried to flee.  There was no case called for that defendant, and the prosecutor was not involved.  That's evidence that the conversation was NOT related to the domestic violence charges he went to court to address.  It's not circumstantial.  it's a fact.

So, yeah, you want everything to be according to your definitions, but a video tape is actually physical recorded evidence.  It's not circumstantial.

If you can find a case where a video tape was labeled circumstantial evidence where it showed the actions of the defendant even though there was no audio, I'd be happy to take a look.  What I found is video is NOT considered circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence for example would be you walk into a bathroom and see the defendant standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife.  Then you find a blackmail letter from the victim to the suspect demanding money for their silence in some matter.

Since you didn't see the actual killing, everything i just stated is circumstantial evidence.

If there was a video camera outside the bathroom showing nobody other than the victim and suspect entered that bathroom before you walked in, are you still going to call the video circumstantial?  It's DIRECT evidence showing only the suspect could have committed the murder.  Period.

In my example, the video showing the 2 actors enter the restroom is direct evidence directly proving only the suspect could have had the opportunity to commit the crime.  It doesn't have to be evidence of the charged crime itself -- that being the murder -- to be direct evidence.

Evidence stacks one piece upon the next to create a case proving the suspect committed the crime.  That doesn't mean if there are no direct witnesses or video of the killing that all the evidence is circumstantial.  Each element of a crime requires evidence.  Some elements like means and opportunity are where video is powerful.  Motive would be based on the blackmail letter.  Nothing in the video is needed to prove motive.

By the way, a photograph is also direct evidence.  It isn't a video tape or audio recording of the crime, but it can be used to place the parties together just prior to the crime, useful for countering an alibi.

Do some more reading and get back to me.  You don't get to argue any further unless you can show credible sources to back you up.

If you bother to read this link, you'll see the conclusion -- "Direct evidence leaves no room for doubt. It directly proves an assertion – there’s no “connecting the dots” or “reading between the lines.” Remember, direct evidence isn’t about what’s likely, it’s about what IS."

You don't have to prove verbatim what the judge said to the lawyer.  Her actions and the resulting attempt by the lawyer and defendant to flee from the agents serving a valid warrant are all that's needed.  Of course, maybe another explanation is the defendant was able to read minds (like you) and became aware that he was going to be arrested by ICE.  So, nothing the judge said to his lawyer caused what happened?   

https://helpfulprofessor.com/direct-evidence-examples/

You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge, it does not. The question in the end remains the same, whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge helped him escape or whether there is some plausible defense that she was doing something else. That is how a prosecutor needs to think and build a case.

What I was explaining to you was about how what is on a video can be circumstantial and the limits of what video evidence can show. A video showing you and me shaking hands and I give you something is hard evidence that we met and I gave you something. Now if you were soon after caught by police and they find drugs on you, the video is not hard evidence that I gave you the drugs. However that bit of video could be part of a circumstantial case showing me to be a drug dealer. If the video caught me saying here is your cocaine and the baggie can be seen on video then it isn't circumstantial anymore

You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge, it does not. The question in the end remains the same, whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge helped him escape or whether there is some plausible defense that she was doing something else. That is how a prosecutor needs to think and build a case.

What I was explaining to you was about how what is on a video can be circumstantial and the limits of what video evidence can show. A video showing you and me shaking hands and I give you something is hard evidence that we met and I gave you something. Now if you were soon after caught by police and they find drugs on you, the video is not hard evidence that I gave you the drugs. However that bit of video could be part of a circumstantial case showing me to be a drug dealer. If the video caught me saying here is your cocaine and the baggie can be seen on video then it isn't circumstantial anymore

"You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge"

Show me where I said (or even indicated) that was what I think.

And why do you feel the need to use a hypothetical to try and lecture me?  Use the damn facts as they are presented.  Otherwise, you're just deflecting and obfuscating to pretend you aren't wrong.

"You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge"

Show me where I said (or even indicated) that was what I think.

And why do you feel the need to use a hypothetical to try and lecture me?  Use the damn facts as they are presented.  Otherwise, you're just deflecting and obfuscating to pretend you aren't wrong.

That's one of his tactics he uses instead of admitting he was wrong.  Lets see how many more will enter today.

"You seem to be under some false notion that I think the video exonerates the judge"

Show me where I said (or even indicated) that was what I think.

And why do you feel the need to use a hypothetical to try and lecture me?  Use the damn facts as they are presented.  Otherwise, you're just deflecting and obfuscating to pretend you aren't wrong.

That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.

I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.

That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.

I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.

Admit it. You’re just mad that you’re losing illegal voters and now the Democratic Party is toast.

Admit it. You’re just mad that you’re losing illegal voters and now the Democratic Party is toast.

I would not be mad because I don't subscribe to the belief that there are large numbers of illegal voters but mostly I wouldn't be mad because I am not a democrat.
I support the decision to arrest the judge.

That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.

I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.

How are you going to "educate" me on legal concepts when you don't even understand what you're saying?

This is not one of your "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" thought experiments.  I tried more than once to guide you back to talking facts -- not hypotheticals -- pertaining to this one issue.  If you could do that, then maybe someone would be willing to listen to what you say.  but you can't stay focused.  You have to deflect, obfuscate and obscure the actual discussions with your fantasy world where whatever you post can't be wrong.

How are you going to "educate" me on legal concepts when you don't even understand what you're saying?

This is not one of your "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" thought experiments.  I tried more than once to guide you back to talking facts -- not hypotheticals -- pertaining to this one issue.  If you could do that, then maybe someone would be willing to listen to what you say.  but you can't stay focused.  You have to deflect, obfuscate and obscure the actual discussions with your fantasy world where whatever you post can't be wrong.

When one is wrong and lies to avoid admitting it, this is the result.  They cannot stay focused.

I would not be mad because I don't subscribe to the belief that there are large numbers of illegal voters but mostly I wouldn't be mad because I am not a democrat.
I support the decision to arrest the judge.

it's not just the perception of illegals voting.  But if you were honest, you wouldn't ignore the real issue.

The more illegals transplanted into various states, the more representatives the state has in the House.

Also, Electoral votes are apportioned in the same manner, so those states will have more of a say in the general elections.

Direct polling is state by state, so the number of illegal votes is immaterial at the federal level unless a state's general election results are razor thin.  Those votes can, however, effect the outcomes of races such as US Reps and Senators, governors, mayors, city council seats, and state & local ballot measures such as constitutional amendments and adoption of laws on the ballot.

Focusing in on whether there is a "large number of illegal voters" means you don't understand the very real problems illegal aliens pose to our political system.

That seemed to be the nature of your response because you kept trying to make the case for the judge's guilt using the video. If you did not have the notion that's fine.

I am trying to educate you on legal concepts, perhaps I should have known by now you aren't that interested in learning, you just want to argue.

Still waiting for you to provide actual facts that dispute my facts.

I've shown where video evidence is considered DIRECT evidence in court.

So far, you've been unable to show where video evidence constitutes CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence in court.

I won't hold my breath, since we all know you can't.

Focusing in on whether there is a "large number of illegal voters" means you don't understand the very real problems illegal aliens pose to our political system.

Maybe he thinks that since it's not large enough, it doesn't matter. Like how in the other thread about how bribing a government official is illegal. He didn't confirm my statement and instead shifted it to getting caught.

How are you going to "educate" me on legal concepts when you don't even understand what you're saying?

This is not one of your "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" thought experiments.  I tried more than once to guide you back to talking facts -- not hypotheticals -- pertaining to this one issue.  If you could do that, then maybe someone would be willing to listen to what you say.  but you can't stay focused.  You have to deflect, obfuscate and obscure the actual discussions with your fantasy world where whatever you post can't be wrong.

You are conflating two different aspects of the discussion. One aspect was the case against the judge, the other aspect was what constitutes circumstantial evidence. 

When you said video evidence is not circumstantial I corrected you and showed you how it can be circumstantial depending on the case. At that point it was necessary to talk in hypotheticals because the issue was not the judge's conversation but helping you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence.

Then to circle back I illustrated how the video is hard proof of what the judge did but since it doesn't catch audio of what was said there is still a circumstantial aspect.

it's not just the perception of illegals voting.  But if you were honest, you wouldn't ignore the real issue.

The more illegals transplanted into various states, the more representatives the state has in the House.

Also, Electoral votes are apportioned in the same manner, so those states will have more of a say in the general elections.

Direct polling is state by state, so the number of illegal votes is immaterial at the federal level unless a state's general election results are razor thin.  Those votes can, however, effect the outcomes of races such as US Reps and Senators, governors, mayors, city council seats, and state & local ballot measures such as constitutional amendments and adoption of laws on the ballot.

Focusing in on whether there is a "large number of illegal voters" means you don't understand the very real problems illegal aliens pose to our political system.

I have no interest in getting into a long discussion/argument about the position that illegals are voting or your non-sequitur insults of my understanding. 

Still waiting for you to provide actual facts that dispute my facts.

I've shown where video evidence is considered DIRECT evidence in court.

So far, you've been unable to show where video evidence constitutes CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence in court.

I won't hold my breath, since we all know you can't.

I gave you example and explanation but you ignored it. Why would I bother putting more in front of you?
I see no point in going down this path further.

You are conflating two different aspects of the discussion. One aspect was the case against the judge, the other aspect was what constitutes circumstantial evidence. 

When you said video evidence is not circumstantial I corrected you and showed you how it can be circumstantial depending on the case. At that point it was necessary to talk in hypotheticals because the issue was not the judge's conversation but helping you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence.

Then to circle back I illustrated how the video is hard proof of what the judge did but since it doesn't catch audio of what was said there is still a circumstantial aspect.

Don't pretend i didn't know what you meant to say.  The issue is not that you are a poor writer (even though you are). The problem is you have not yet offered any proof of your belief that video is anything other than direct evidence.

An example and explanation that is wrong is still not proof that video evidence can be circumstantial.

You have a problem understanding plain English.

Video evidence is considered direct evidence in trials. 

Period.  End of discussion.