"D.O.C. The Show"
#1  Cloud. Your Hometown Talk. Self-Educating Since 1815.

Happy Father's Day Dad. Dads. Happy Mother's Day Mom. Moms. Halloween Treats, Thanksgiving Turkey and Ham. Christmas Trees. New Year Eve. Love Proud American Holidays. Keep Dancin 4th July. Born Great.

AddendumTimelineAnnotate

Welcome. Rod's Homepage. This is a Homepage and 7-page Passive Private NonForProfit Website.

Clicking on the second Page: Rod's Favorite Links; takes you to a nicely arranged page with 500 or so links to Rod's favorite sites that made him so smart.)

Rod has five Investigative Journalism writings and a few other writing on this Website Blog:             Tax Day / Scumbags       Rod's Op'ed Twitter Congress      $extortion, Man Survivors                        Answer: Russian Conspiracy Theory Hoax      Rod explain why he thinks Ford Case is a Con                       The Cosby Verdict     The Resistance Page, The Real First Purge        Baptism 
       
Question 1, Michael's Judgment, falsely accused man Victims, Court, they did Jesus

             Grown Folks Presidential Library located in United States of America. Tour open today.                    

Kids have their own Web site. Now Grown-folks have theirs. Not a kid anymore. No thanks. Sorry, you not educated enough on the issues to get on this site yet. Read a little more. Get back. This Website is a destination and tailored for Grown Folk, Rod. If you are not Grown, 18+, you may ask your mom, your dad, or your grown-guardian(s) first, are you grown enough, before touring this site.                                                                

Rod did not particularly support either candidate during the Election 2016, they both gave good arguments, but he does not particularly agree with the New York Time article that seems one sided; and that is the Rod's definition of fake-news presenting one-sided stories but not the equal other side. Correlation being in a time line does not make a conspiracy. Collusion among people is not illegal. Rod will write on it for a couple days waiting for that Supreme Court hearing on Monday. He annotates it as followed, but he is not a lawyer, for legal advice seek a licensed attorney.                   

  Wasn't The Agreement was to improve relationship between Russia and the United States? It appears to Rod, you have a person, who had never thought of being President in his life, definable not understanding all the roles; much less laws surrounding those roles. Here a person may have thought his role correct; but by mistake of Fact in Law, Ignorance in Law, Ignorance or Mistake, had people exerting a better relation with Russia, jumping the gun acting out his Presidential roles, that the past administration, President Obama and Hillary Clinton, tried but failed. This conduct is no more a conspiracy, than Hillary Clinton initially not understanding how servers and emails work. This is supported by § Model Penal Code § 2.04 and Article Two of the constitution. There was no warning made against him from that Present President for jumping the gun exercising his role as President; he was sure he would win. President Obama even made this statement before 2016 Election having received daily intelligence briefings, including facts on the Russian emails, most of the time in his role as President, that he doubted that anyone could interfere with an Election enough to change the outcome. There was no conspiracy, only a bunch of overzealous people trying to exert their roles working under the President Elect Trump. Some may have not known emails hacked, not top secret, were any more illegal than Hillary Clinton destroying emails and server requested by the FBI or Justice Department. The two most important differences were the Mens Reus of the Actors, there was no “intent to cover up,” what the majority people working for Trump were doing, there was little showing of “criminal intent” in their actions, in clear open view, it was mostly open on emails, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other social media sites. Many stated that they had not met with Russian about the campaign; but many never denied trying to improve relationship with Russia. That is the overlying theme of this time line and well within Article II of the Constitution. The Agreement was to improve relationship between Russia and the United States. Some may been a bit confused about the difference between the two, and some denied one and not the other, but Rod thinks that is, what is, the theme of New York Time line if you take away the authors’’ conjectures, guesses, and speculations.

“Obama to Trump: ‘Stop Whining’ About A Rigged Election.” YouTube, YouTube, 18 Oct. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpt7-QOGKc

“OneLBriefs.” Printz v. U.S. Case Brief, www.onelbriefs.com/outlines/crim/mistake.htm. “Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law. Exceptions. Excuse Defenses. Reasonable Reliance Doctrine. D will be excused because of a mistake of law if D reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense. Valid sources for reasonable reliance… An official but erroneous interpretation of the law secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation, administration, or enforcement (AG of state or US). A person who is unaware of a duly enacted and published criminal statute may successfully assert a constitutional defense. Conduct was not illegal in itself.”

Rod thinks from the article in the New York Times, Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks, Sessions, Scavino, Sam Clovis, Rick Dearborn, Rob Goldstone, Stephen Miller, Carter Page, Dan Scavino work on the American side to improve relations with Russia. Although, they may deny it. Rod has never spoken to and has no direct connection to these individuals.

Rod thinks from the article in the New York Times, Sergey I. Kislyak, Timofeev, Clovis, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Aras Agalarov, Emin Agalarov, Oleg V. Deripaska, Sergey I. Kislyak, Vladamir V. Putin, Alexander Torshin, Ivan Timofeev work to improve relationships with America from the Russia side. Although, they may deny it. Rod has never spoken to and has no direct connection to these individuals.

“Annotation 15 - Article II.” Findlaw, constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation15.html#3 " THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS The Right of Reception: Scope of the Power ''Ambassadors and other public ministers'' embraces not only ''all possible diplomatic agents which any foreign power may accredit to the United States,'' 569 but also, as a practical construction of the Constitution, all foreign consular agents, who therefore may not exercise their functions in the United States without an exequatur from the President. 570 The power to ''receive'' ambassadors, et cetera, includes, moreover, the right to refuse to receive them, to request their recall, to dismiss them, and to determine their eligibility under our laws. 571 Furthermore, this power makes the President the sole mouthpiece of the nation in its dealing with other nations." Russia and Trump want better foreign relations when he becomes President under Article II:

Donald Trump receives email from Goldstone, British-born publicist, that Donald joined a Russian social media platform to appeal to Russian American voters. There are around 5 million Russian American, maybe a couple million may vote. Scavino, Trump Jr. and a personal assistant email about setting up a page for Trump campaign. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).
Russians in America have not been made illegal and put in concentration camps yet.

It is Rod's belief, Trump wants to better the relationship of the two Countries after he is elected by building a Hotel in Moscow. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).
Poland wants him to build Fort Trump last week, 2018. 

In Rod’s opinion, Back channel, if not in person and much like North Korea meeting there was talk of not meeting at either Headquarters but at a neutral place described in an email someone labeled Kremlin Connection. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

According to the article, Trump announces his Campaign, about a month later Trump is invited to Russia during the 60 birthday celebration of the dad of a famous pop music star and claim he may get Puttin to attend if he comes. But, Trump declines, instead tweet an appreciative “Russia and the world has already started to respect us again!” Aras Agalarov sends Trump a letter back in appreciation of his tweet and promises a better relationship with Russia than the past US administration. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

“U.S. Foreign Policy Powers: Congress and the President.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president "Powers of the President The president’s authority in foreign affairs, as in all areas, is rooted in Article II of the Constitution. The charter grants the officeholder the powers to make treaties and appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate (Treaties require approval of two-thirds of senators present. Appointments require consent of a simple majority.) Presidents also rely on other clauses to support their foreign policy actions, particularly those that bestow “executive power” and the role of “commander in chief of the army and navy” on the office. From this language springs a wide array of associated or “implied” powers. For instance, from the explicit power to appoint and receive ambassadors flows the implicit authority to recognize foreign governments and conduct diplomacy with other countries generally. From the commander-in-chief clause flow powers to use military force and collect foreign intelligence. Presidents also draw on statutory authorities. Congress has passed legislation giving the executive additional authority to act on specific foreign policy issues. For instance, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) authorizes the president to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities. Presidents also cite case law to support their claims of authority. In particular, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions—United States. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)—are touchstones."

According to the article, Trump meets Sergey l. Kislyak , Russian Ambassador, living in the United States before Trump’s major policy speech. He is setting Presidential policy. Mistake of Fact and Law maybe, but no conspiracy yet from Trump. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

Clinches Republican nomination by American citizens.

Calls Putin a “strong leader.” Again improving relationship with Russia. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

“American Government.” Making Foreign Policy, www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/foreign-policy/making-foreign-policy "Making Foreign Policy Under the Constitution, both the president and Congress have a role in foreign policy. Each has been given specific powers and has assumed additional authority either through precedent or by relying on other constitutional responsibilities. Since the Vietnam War, Congress has tried to exert more influence and control over foreign policy. The president and foreign policy The president negotiates treaties, appoints ambassadors to represent the United States overseas, and is commander in chief of the armed forces. Throughout U.S. history, presidents have used their power as head of the military to involve the nation in numerous conflicts abroad without a formal declaration of war by Congress, and they have found other ways to get around constitutionally imposed limitations on their ability to set the direction of American foreign policy. Even though they are effective only during the term of the president who made them, executive agreements negotiated with another head of state do not require Senate approval. Presidents also have access to discretionary funds that can be (and have been) used to finance both military and diplomatic initiatives. Presidents routinely rely on special envoys, who do not require Senate confirmation, to carry out negotiations with other countries."

“Obama to Trump: ‘Stop Whining’ About A Rigged Election.” YouTube, YouTube, 18 Oct. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpt7-QOGKc

“OneLBriefs.” Printz v. U.S. Case Brief, www.onelbriefs.com/outlines/crim/mistake.htm. “Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law. Exceptions. Excuse Defenses. Reasonable Reliance Doctrine. D will be excused because of a mistake of law if D reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense. Valid sources for reasonable reliance… An official but erroneous interpretation of the law secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation, administration, or enforcement (AG of state or US). A person who is unaware of a duly enacted and published criminal statute may successfully assert a constitutional defense. Conduct was not illegal in itself.”

George Papadopoulos setting Trump up for a meeting with Russia. Papadopoulos say he is told that Russia has dirt on Clinton in form of emails. He spreads the rumors to the right people to get to Trump. It appears that he is not high on the list with Trump, and has no direct contact with Trump. He like, Cohen, is emailing all the right people, Lewandowski, Miller, Manafort, trying to set up this good relationship with Russia when Trump is President. They are working with a liaise name Timovee to arrange a meeting hosting Trump when he arrives in Russia, maybe a Putin meeting. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

From the Article, Many Things the President said were opinion or belief but Not Illegal.

 "Access Hollywood" tape of Trump making lewd remarks about women surfaces." The article says he make these statements....(Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

 “The Conduct of Foreign Relations.” Justia Law, law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/32-the-conduct-of-foreign-relations.html "The Right of Reception: Scope of the Power “Ambassadors and other public ministers” embraces not only “all possible diplomatic agents which any foreign power may accredit to the United States,”655 but also, as a practical construction of the Constitution, all foreign consular agents, who therefore may not exercise their functions in the United States without an exequatur from the President.656 The power to “receive” ambassadors, et cetera, includes, moreover, the right to refuse to receive them, to request their recall, to dismiss them, and to determine their eligibility under our laws.657 Furthermore, this power makes the President the sole mouthpiece of the nation in its dealing with other nations."/’ 

Meeting at Trump Tower

Paul Manaford, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. meet Russian Lawyer Natalia VeseInitskaya, Ike Kaveladze attended the meeting as representative Ara, pop Russian star Emin and his father Aras Agalarov, Russian Developer that hosted Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, Rinat Akhmetshin, Russian American Lobbyst, Anatoli Samochornov (VeseInitskaya Translator, a former state department employee), and Rod Goldstone (Wikipedia) (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

Donald Trump Jr. makes false statement according to the article. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).
It has not been disclosed open to the public what happened and everything that was said totally in that meeting; maybe now with Manaford cooperating, but facts may still not be in agreement between all parties; so it is inferior for us to speculate that so many high level people met just a whole bunch of emails; later described as nothing much by some.

Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence. Which leads those to be suspicious of actual truth as perceived misinformation.

“These disputes over what happened and over how events should be interpreted are questions of credibility. “Credibility” judgments are decisions about who is telling the truth or whose tale merits belief. Although a witness might speak an un-truth knowingly, that is, might lie, more often witnesses are mistaken or confused.”

 (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 180)       

Illegal Acts

According to the article, that as early as January, Cohen who made twelve tapes of Trump, fabricating evidence, to bring down the President, was also fabricating evidence by email to tie Trump directly to Putin. Cohen emails an aide close to Putin to jump start things. Felix Sater, about developing a Trump property in Moscow. But, Russian émigré, Felix Sater, was Cohen longtime friend. Like Donald Trump in the tapes, being lead, Felix Sater say the things that Cohen needed if he wants to bring down Donald Trump, “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected.” Like the tape recording, Cohen was behind setting up an illegal checking account in Cohen’s name, he is also the person negotiating securing financing from a Russian bank under American sanctions. So, far it is Cohen, the lawyer, with fiduciary duties not to do illegal things, negotiating illegal things. Like Trump, Kushner is entrapped in things that Cohen created. “Kushner meets with Sergey N. Gorkov, the head of a Russian state-run bank under American sanctions, who Kislyak said has a direct line to Putin.” (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti.) Kushner will have to answer whether he knew the conditions of the bank? Consistently when Trump found misconduct in his ranks, he got rid of it, he fired it, or them, or him, or her. For example, this next incident: “OCT.27 Cohen creates a shell company to pay off Stephanie Clifford, the adult film star known as Stormy Daniels who said she had sexual relations with Trump. »Cohen meets again with Russian oligarch during the inauguration. A few days later, a company connected to the oligarch awards Cohen a $1 million consulting contract. The payment is made to the same shell company Cohen used to pay Stormy Daniels. Cohen discusses a plan to lift sanctions against Russia with Sater and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament. FEBRUARY 2017 FEB.4 Cohen delivers the plan to Flynn. FEB.13 Flynn is fired by the Trump Administration.” (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti)


Natural and Probable Consequence

Doctrine. (Under Accomplice Liability)

"In rejecting this doctrine in Sharma v. State, 56 P.3d 868 (Nevada 2002), the Nevada court stated: To be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime in Nevada, the State must show, among other things, that the accused committed an act with the intent to commit that crime."
"This court has repeatedly emphasized that, under Nevada law, "[t]here is no such criminal offense as an attempt to achieve an unintended result." We have also reasoned that "[a]n attempt, by nature, is a failure to accomplish what one intended to do.' Because the natural and probable consequence doctrine permits a defendant to be convicted of a specific intent crime where he or she did not possess the statutory intent required for the offense, with more fundamental principle of our system of criminal law,' but it also inconsistent with those Nevada statures that require proof of a specific intent to commit the crime alleged." (P. 528 Podgor, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia.)
***Note***As of 10/21/2018 There has been no one proved to have conspired with Russia to effect the 2016 American Election. There have been some charged with such acts, but only ones to answer, pleaded innocent. Another of the same people, were charged in 2018 interfering with its elections, but if you read the indictment summaries they are really not doing anymore than the average political person on Twitter does on a daily basis. The just happened to be Russian and have a larger budget. "To Inflame" passion about things is what Twitter is designed to do for most users. Twitter is a tool to spread information by design; its purpose. Rod learned that in Social Media course at UNLV in 2011. They really show no political bias and not doing much more than a Russian Newspaper would do; but they seemed to have been trying to setup different attending events and Rod guess, that may be a problem if they are not American Citizens. So after two elections, 2016 and 2018, there has been no one found guilty of interfering with any election. Maybe 2020 the investigation will still be going; maybe it needs to be closed and an over-site commission should be set up on the issue to lay out lays and move away from such of this new formed roe of allegation of a few people affecting US Election. Rod rejects that notion, just as President Obama did:

Polantz, Katelyn. “Russian National Charged with Attempting to Interfere in 2018 Midterms.” CNN, Cable News Network, 19 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/politics/elena-alekseevna-khusyaynova-russia-charged/index.html

Klein, Betsy. “Trump: Charged Russian National 'Had Nothing to Do with My Campaign'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 19 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/politics/trump-russian-national-charges/index.html

“Obama to Trump: ‘Stop Whining’ About A Rigged Election.” YouTube, YouTube, 18 Oct. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpt7-QOGKc

            WikiLeaks as Government Entrapment Tool

May present Negligence and Culpability of U.S. Government, Twitter, Facebook, and any platform that allows WikiLeaks to spread information. But, Rod is not a lawyer.

           Guccifer 2.0: “Hi! I’m on Twitter now! this is my official account!” WikiLeaks asks Guccifer 2.0 for the stolen D.N.C. emails. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

           Look how many times this New York Time's article tried to frame people in their time-line as mention Wikileaks as part of their Russian Conspiracy. 



The Scapegoats. 

    Two companies have closed because of the investigation. In Rod's opinion they were both scapegoats to assert that something happened in the 2016 election because none of the above have closed and still remain vibrant on Twitter that were originally accused. One of the business, Cambridge Analytical, activities occurred a couple years before the 2016 election, similar and nothing much different from reported 200 other companies with the same access allowed to the same material, and it was reported that they did not do work in the 2016 election. The second company was indicted but from what Rod read, they may be guilty of financial crimes or using someone's social security number improperly. But, they were doing advertising work with all the parties in the election running satire cartoon adds and in Rod's opinion had little substantial influence in the 2016 because they are no names, doing some of the above mentioned activity, and Social Media is driven by popular well know people verses a bunch of no names stuffed in a small office with a couple hundred thousand Tweet or Facebook followers, sending out satirical adds about a candidate. There are already plenty of those free on the internet. Rod believes Since Plan A accused are all still in play on Twitter and Facebook, non-have been closed or banned, it is likely this will again surface sometime here between now or in 2020 as Plan C. It does not matter whether Republicans or Democrats or Anonymous Party or a similar network next time secret whatever, fabricate another email, or whatever, feed this stolen information; all that may matter is that it is something similar with the same players to bring twice the accusation of injustice in 2020. It does not matter who wins the Election, as long as the injustice is perceived. Rod had the first three Newspapers in some of his list; but deleted the first two of them when 

there was accusation that they had spread discourse into America. He never removed Reuters because of their great reputation in the world for news. Alex Jones was banned from Twitter, but some Russian media initial accused of spreading information into the United States to spread discourse in America. Putin is a bad man but his Twitter account and the Russian Government accounts are still open. Why is wikileaks still on Twitter communicating with millions and millions through those questionable "impression numbers" maybe, on Twitter? Espionage, maybe, is not protected free speech and even though Twitter is following European Law, are they not still an American company under American Law? Rod only banned one person from his list permanently and that was Wikileaks but he never thought about putting Snowden in any list. He does not have anything personally against the two, but they may have been involved in espionage against the United States and he does not approve of people stealing top secret or classified information from the United States, and releasing it to the public; unless it has been declassified; emails are or should not be classified or top secret. He later temporarily removed people who retweeted Wikileaks on a regular basis. 

https://twitter.com/RT_com

https://twitter.com/SputnikInt

https://twitter.com/Reuters

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

https://twitter.com/Snowden


Social Media Accusation Debunk.

                    Rod debunk the statements in the New York Times article can put their “fake news,” “Fake ads” in two list:

                                        Sorry folks this is free speech in America.

                                        Sorry folks, most opinions are not “Fake News” in America.

And yes, Wikipedia has a more in depth allegation of Russian interference as there article is probable a government project with such ineptness, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections but they too, confuse Russia interfering with election and Russia and America improving their relation as in Article II. But, Rod would be one-sided if he did not at least mention this information out there. No Rod is not going to read all that stuff; it is much repetitive of the same inferences and situations discussed in this paper.

Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence. Not all Bots are malicious and anyone speaking as an expert witness on the subject should differentiate between the two. So no, Good Bots should not equally be treated as something automatic bad by mention. A comprehensive array of information is available by googling the words so Rod will not cover that subject. He will focus on Good Bots use on Twitter. They can be one of the most resourceful, ingenious, important, talented, sharp, clever, cost-effective, creative tools for people promoting research work, developing entertainment platforms, or as an automated program for learning and teaching the public different core subjects. Rod will go deeper on the subject.

Good Bots
Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence.


     A Good Bot is an aggregated or compiled group of information assimilated to be dispersed automatically over another platform. For example, a person who has done twenty years’ research, and decides to give it away free in an entertaining method using 140 characters at a time. So, he spends months putting this information together to Tweet out, over and over, at a set time, through infinity maybe. You can design these to fit whatever platform you may want to work on. At one time you could transform yourself into a Good Bot by using some tools like Tweet Deck, or today some others maybe, so your tweets came out at specific times for given times for several days or more. Rod generally had suspicion when you yourself was a Bot because your tweets came out perfect day after day at a certain time, maybe every one hour or every half hour or at a certain hour. There is no malicious act going on here just people using technology as it is supposed to be used to make their and your experience more entertaining and meaningful. Thousands, if not millions, may be doing this on Twitter. In addition, they may choose to aggregate all of Einstein's work, Shakespeare's work, a series of math or science calculation into similar Bots to fit the 140-character platform on Twitter. Or some mom wanted to aggregate all of her food recipes, or for that matter, a person is using a stage name themed to all Italian or Russian recipes into a bot to work on the Twitter platform. Or someone wanted to list, well there is tons of things to put on the automatic bots like news, history, unproven conspiracy theories that still needed research work, statistics, and many others. So, just do not use the word loosely and mess up important research and education because you don't understand entertainment, education, and how research work on Twitter. Rod used Good Bots in list making. They kept the list moving 24 hours a day and provided reliable content and entertainment to Twitter users. 

An Algorithm to Detect anger levels would be a great innovation if invented by the tech folks.

Good Virtual Communities

Virtual Communities are much the same. Rod learned how to create Virtual Communities in 2011 course at UNLV called “Journalism and Media Studies.” An MBA intern graduate student taught the law, ethics, etiquette, and the full picture of using social media; both business and personal. She taught the class to use different platforms; naming a few, Twitter, BlogSpot, and Facebook. The main professor specialty was a new concept of building Virtual World communities that interacted like-human communities but they operated on different platforms from what she taught. Rod concept during the class was to build the Virtual Communities from what he taught using other platforms that he would choose to like in the class. In the professor’s virtual communities, we were taught not to use our real names, because in the virtual world you may not want wanting everyone knowing who you were and it was somewhere between entertainment stage names, spunky names that someone may like, and theme names. So in the virtual world, imaginary world, account names and real people are often not one in the same. These communities could also be built on Facebook or Twitter. Rod explored building the communities by using his classmates building Twitter list. His Thesis for the class was to build these communities in every Country in the world connecting regional people to other people in their region. There would be one in Europe, Africa, China, Latin America, Russia, Canada, and the list could go on, but they would connect each Community or 100,00 or so to people in their own region; but the communities would be built from America because that is where he lived. After the class ended, he expanded his Twitter list for research, personal entertainment purposes, and educational purposes. He brought for sources unto his list from his college history of studding international Business, Law, and Entertainment; he knew many of the important people from reading about them from the books. He knew all the old entertainers from growing up with a passion for entertainment. He knew many of the new leaders in the fields from staying focused on current events and news. At one point, the list contained 100,000 or more world leaders, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs, world organizations, entertainers, music producers, movie producers, unions, food hobbyist, artist, military, politicians, national and local organizations, agencies, journalist, government and regular folks like him. The list had businesses, farming, government officials, researchers of all types of information, and doctors. It had world church folks, preachers, bishops, and the Vatican. Rod chose select scholars of medicine, agriculture, sports greatest, magazines, universities, colleges, trade associations, and farmers markets for the List. The show had many television shows, many cities, tourism, all, most nations, and news networks. That was a beta test of a Web Developer Rod Jackson had thought about building in the college classroom as his thesis. This community of list was costly to build in time and no economical return. At retirement, in Rodney’s opinion, the lists were maybe 50,000 shows in one with each, a person in each list, putting on their own shows with right balance in each list to serve Rods initial purpose. Rodney knowledge made the greatest listing in the cloud. Of course, virtual communities can be built using different platforms, BlogSpot, Websites, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and many others. So good communities are great and serve great purposes. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

But, just like Bots, there can be good bots and bad bots, but it does not make neither fake. This leads into the story of the New York Times. From Rod’s study in law a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues, and in this story a misjoinder is needed because persons are wrongfully joined as plaintiffs or defendants in this story to attempt to prove a conspiracy or wrong-doing; in other words, where persons are made parties who ought not to be together, they are separated and tried separate, in this case, the public, written as a different article, in court, the two not in the same court proceeding would be the cure. Inferior on a subject such as Virtual Communities and the way they are designed, and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

Rod looking at his article on see one illegal things pointed out written in the article and that is using someone else’s social security. Bad actors are not really illegal and no violent act never came from the Russian built American Community. Calling everything thing from advertising, too accounts, too opinions, do not make them legally illegal. This just inferior in understanding Virtual Communities and how they work. Calling everything that you don’t understand fake, is, but, a humorous or malicious deception, which is the definition of Hoax. A virtual community could be located in Russia and have imaginary and real people from America. It all depends on the community designer. But, that in itself, is not illegal, in the Virtual Reality world of Building communities. It would not be fake to have 2,700 accounts from Facebook, 470 Facebook pages, in a Virtual Community. When, Rod retired and closed his list, Twitter had no such things as “fake accounts” or “troll accounts”, everyday people can be dam trolls, checking your spelling, and because every account has to be opened and set up by someone. There were no requirements that a person’s name, in fact there were separate boxes, so people did not have to be their stage name, or virtual name. Rod did not use or explore Facebook much longer after he left the social media class in 2011. He assumed their accounts have to be set up by a human so none of them could be fake either. In one Virtual Community, 170 Russians accounts, reached about 20 million people. There is not anything fake or illegal about this. Maybe, there need to be laws passed dealing with the Virtual World and Internet from people who understand new technology before people call fake and illegal because they do not understand or like the results and outcomes of and election. A Virtual Community having 3,814 accounts are not really anything suspicious in building a Virtual Community reaching 1.4 million people.  50,258 automated bots tweeting about the election information drawing traffic to a Twitter community, A Russian built American Virtual World Community, attempting to drive add sales is clever, but does not seem illegal in the Virtual World. Maybe the financial aspects or using fake social security numbers in PayPal would be illegal; but not the act of having a Virtual Community in Cyber World. You have a 23-year-old kid making $1000 a month working for the Internet Research Agency spending $100,000 on advertising; so money was an issue. Many Americans and people around the world do not have the educational skills to build such Virtual Communities so this company may have thought it was providing a good service to Americans for getting election information, and other information fast. That is what Twitters want, fast information. So using Virtual Communities and bots to accomplish this, tweeting 16, 634 tweets in day or 6, 860 another day on the chart they gave is nothing spectacular. The spectacular thing is that the primary goal of this company by the evidence was to make money and not as there, “Agreement Statement” for conspiracy was not to just effect the election but be one of the best virtual communities at what they built, an American Virtual Political Community built in Russia by two points: during the month before the election their tweets were less than the past three months before the election and after the election they still maintained tweeting even though Hillary lost; so the reason for tweeting seem to support it was not targeted at just the election and spreading bad opinion’s about Hillary Clinton. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

Inferior on a subject such as Virtual Communities and the way they are designed, and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence.

These are not fake ads; these are real opinions, and the article list a dozen similar ones as worst:

“I say no to Hillary Clinton/I say no to manipulation.”

“Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Black Vote.”

“Trump is the only hope for a better future.”

But, I think they were rightfully shut down; they pleaded not guilty, so I can’t comment about the allegation of using fake social security numbers; but for the fact, like I wrote in the other article prior to this one, that I will copy and paste next, they were promoting acts of violence and trying to form flash mobs, Virtual or physical location. (Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti).

Rod believes Twitter and Facebook failed to act in the anger at Charlottesville, Virginia which left one dead and many injured. Rod believe that Twitter and Facebook failed to act in Colin Kaepernick kneeling angry protest in the first two weeks which he believes was a subsequent cause to the Las Vegas shooting. Differently Rod responsible shut his list down for two weeks so no one could communicate during the peak of the anger from the kneeling and media sensationalism of it. At least Facebook should be able to foresee the causation of angry "flash-mobs" that show up in cyberspace especially when their sister "flash-mob" has shown up in person physically on ground locations; examples are the overthrow of Egypt, Libya, and Syria. One, the Arab Spring, which Zuckenberg Facebook was alleged to be involved in. He downplayed it. 2012, Chen, Adrian. “Mark Zuckerberg Takes Credit for Populist Revolutions Now That Facebook's Gone Public.” 02/02/2012 Gawker, gawker.com/5881657/facebook-takes-credit-for-populist-revolutions-now-that-its-gone-public When Rod saw the people attempt to gather in an angry manner, he pulled the plug on their activity, for America not to be overthrown by this anger, coordinated with live physical on ground "flash-mobs" they, Congress, Justice Department, or Supreme Court by suit, will have to require social media to pull the plug when these angry "flash-mobs" form; even if it is at the highest level, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Labron James, or even the President of the United States, or Middle East, or European Union, Russia, or China may be involved. This is not interfering with free speech coupled with violent "flash-mobs" whether virtual or on the ground; they are not guaranteed speech, no more than falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. It really is not about spreading descent and discourse from other countries that is the major threat for America Politics and Elections. It is not Russia, maybe Iran, in Congress and America saying that they hate America, pledge, and flag. It is not Russian boycotting and picketing American Holidays like Christmas. It is not Russia desecrating the American Flag, they showed it respect at the Olympics. More on this issue coming. Rod was taught about forming "flash mobs" in Journalism, but it was taught as people gathering to do dance duo(s), I don't think that is really why media studies people are taught how to form "flash-mobs" what the heck is a "flash mob." Dancing is great, but when Bill Clinton was in office, a "flash mob" gathered in Rwanda full of anger and murdered one million people before it was stopped over a 3-month period. 

Hains, Tim. “Cory Booker: ‘I Am Frankly Seething With Anger’ Over Trump Comments, ‘Had Tears Of Rage.’” Video | RealClearPolitics, RealClearPolitics, www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-cory-booker-seething-with-anger-as-he-yells-at-dhs-chief-kirstjen-nielsen

Giaritelli, Anna, and Jose Luis Magana. “Watch: Cory Booker 'Seething with Anger' as He Yells at DHS Chief Kirstjen Nielsen.” Washington Examiner, 16 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-cory-booker-seething-with-anger-as-he-yells-at-dhs-chief-kirstjen-nielsen

Harper, Jennifer. “Judicial Watch Files House Ethics Complaint against Maxine Waters for 'Inciting Violence'.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 25 June 2018, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/25/judicial-watch-files-house-ethics-complaint-agains/

“Hillary Clinton's Other Dream Job? To Run Facebook.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 May 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/05/25/hillary-clinton-as-ceo-facebook-would-be-her-first-choice/?utm_term=.1decec7dbbfc

    “1 Million Killed by Machete, Club and Gun: Rwanda Remembers Its Genocide 20 Years Later.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 7 Apr. 2014, www.cbsnews.com/news/one-million-killed-by-machete-club-and-gun-rwanda-remembers-its-genocide-20-years-later/

    “Is It Illegal to Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theatre?” Law Stack Exchange, law.stackexchange.com/questions/28853/is-it-illegal-to-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre "Law The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment): The original ruling is this: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. As pointed out by @phoog, this does not say anything about the lawfulness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

    Twitter CEO spoke that he believes that Twitter is the proper place to have all types of dialogue. Rod and he are in agreement. Some subjects are rude, not nice, insulting, sensitive, but need to be able to be talked about in such places like Rod's research and educational sites. If no one talks, the problems still do not go away, but are left misunderstood as inferior. And we cannot walk through life blind and inferior. So Rod's policy is that as long as you are not angry, you are welcome to his blog, or have been welcomed to his past works, to explore different thoughts of different people. But, this privilege to explore does not give you right to try to change a person with different thoughts from you. He will write more on this issue. 

           Rod made one more appearance after his retirement, Addendum Timeline Annotated, when he saw the Time Line, somebody leaked it to New York Times September 20, 2018, Conspiracy Hoax, and full of fake news, yes it is a Hoax, they call people's differences of opinions fake, folks, an opinion is not fake news because you disagree, even the front page, the one eye, stands for Globalism, Trump and Putin are not Globalist, they both are anti-globalist, and it better supports Rod's theory over the last two years. Why is You Tube framing a lot of American musicians with one eye, is it not to frame them in New York Times conspiracy theory, why was not Wikileaks removed from Twitter before the 2016 Election, removed Alex Jones in a couple hours for violating policies, is it not left up to Frame Americans, who connect to a  tweet, or hashtag, or direct message someone, very shaky precedents being set by owners of social media working with the government, to create conspiracies.  He'll wait after the hearing next Monday with the Supreme Court to give final remarks on both. Yes, Rod's opinion is that Trump would be a fool to have an interview. Tape-recordings, witness corroborating stories, fabricating false testimony, planting evidence, manufacturing  or fabricating evidence, fake news and spreading discourse, where people call "suggestive review answers and opinions," a term used by business leaders as an investigative tool on an issue used in The Scientific World Journal called lies and fake news by not so business journalist each night on television, the two, term fake news, probably not admissible into a court of competence as a definable legal term, entrapment, framing, lies, secret bugs maybe, wires tapes maybe, rewarded (pay-to-play) admitted felons, phone tapes maybe, hidden secret tape recordings on people, threats of arrest, he may want to wait until after he is charged to disprove the charges. The opinion is not fake. I mean what thousand things could any person get wrong; or contradictory evidence possible fabricated after one testifies where there has been any signs of bias, hostility, and corruption by investigators (leaking, conspiracy, lying, hiding exculpatory evidence, that will come out in criminal discover). But, Rod is not a lawyer, and not connected to Trump Campaign, MANGA, and not part of any Russian conspiracies. He never talked to any Russians. 

Alternate Proximate Cause of Hillary Clinton losing 2016 Election.

Hillary Clinton cheating DNC question was no substantial new information that changed very little opinion over her past habits. The email theft was very irrelevant to the outcome. Did many people even know Podesta and even less would care about what he said in a personal email. There is no way to prove that in court except speculation, rumor, gossip, hearsay, conjecture which are all hearsay and may not be admissible in any competent court of law.

Many thought President Obama was Muslim at some point in his life other than birthers. His dad was Muslim. America does not have many Americans Christians change their name from Barry to Barrack or Hussein. Hussein sounds very Muslim. President Obama attacked some Christians, mostly White Southern Christians, guns and Bible stuff, on occasions but overcompensated to appease celebrating around Christian Holidays. Many Americans have short memories, little grudges, in politics. Hillary attacked many conservative Christians, not just White Southern Christians. Trump supported conservative Black Christians and White Christians. Many questioned his sincerity in doing so, but he put on a good show. Trump seemed sincere. He changed his mind a lot.

Like others, Rodney thought Trump won because he said he was Christian, did not back down from Christian issues, and guaranteed to proceed to support Christian values. Rodney thought another reason Clinton lost maybe because of her history. Whether Comey, Russia, Minister Farrakhan, Alex Jones, the 50% of Americans that Hillary called Deplorable Americans, the NRA, the Bernie disappointed that they cheated him, Benghazi lies losing Military vote, the anti-establishment Americans against both Democrats and Republicans, the many offended American Christians under attack, or the folks holding those signs about Bill Clinton may have lost her the #metoo(s) helped is speculation of the alternative to the Russian Conspiracy Theory having little substantial effect on 2016 Elections.

Rod believes, this thing called Habit, is the basis for entrapment and framing a person by those understanding and knowing the law. Evidence can be fabricated based on your habits to fit a certain crime or elements of the crime and you may not even know it is happening, or happened to you, unless you read and new the law. Such as this statement written by Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 251:

 “Specific acts can also be used to prove someone’s habit. “Habit” is defined in two different ways, depending upon the jurisdiction. Under the frequency or probability theory of habit is a very frequently-repeated response to a very specific stimulus, a response so frequent as to make it a good predictor of behavior. Under the alternative psychological theory, frequency is still required, but in addition the behavior must be semi-automatic so that it is not under the actor’s fully conscious control. “

      1. 2012 Benghazi attack
      2. Hillary Clinton cattle futures controversy
      3. Clinton Cash
      4. Clinton Russia Uranium Deal
      5. Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
      6. Commerce Department trade mission controversy
      7. 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
      8. Hillary Clinton email controversy
      9. White House FBI files controversy

10.  White House travel office controversy and the 1990s Whitewater Scandal

Rod looks at the next four pieces of law and gives an alternate theory about the Russian Conspiracy Theory:

                                       (1)

Impeachment involves: Reputation, Opinion of a close friend, Specific, Unconvicted Acts of Untruthfulness, Prior Convictions, Felonies, Chimen-Falsi when a person has lied or made intentional false statements before a court or judge, and Perjury.

 (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 231, 232, 233, 234)

"Federal courts have also specifically recognized the importance of the defendant's right to produce evidence that a third party (or "aaltperp," i.e., "allege alternative perpetrator." This term was coined by Professor David McCord in h- article, But Perry Mason Made It Look So Easy! ": The Admissibility of Evidence Offered by a Criminal Defendant to Suggest That Someone Else Is Guilty. 6 TENN. L. REV. 917, 920 (1996). * * *), actually committed the crime. * “

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 538)

                                       (2)

Trials Determine Facts, Not Law 

“What act will suffice to show than an attempt itself has reached the stage of a complexed crime has persistently troubled the courts. They have an applied a number of approaches:”

Proximity Approach

The Probable Desistance Approach

The Equivocality Approach

                                       (3)

“The Model Penal Code Approach” looks to section 5.01 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft 1962) to solve the problem. Under subsection (1) (c) a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he “purposely does or omits to do anything which, under circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 429, 430)

                                       (4)

"Criminal cases, the law is not in dispute. Rather, controversy centers around what the facts are and how the law should apply to them. Fact-finding is therefore central to the criminal trial indeed it is central to civil trials as well and too much other lawyering activity. The facts that must be proven or disproven those that help to establish or undermine the existence of any of the basic elements of a crime — the act, attendant circumstances, mental state, and results or to support or-attack an affirmative defense. — - Facts relevant to any or all elements of a crime or defense might be in controversy."

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 229)

Rod only have a couple more days of writing and no more post on this blog. Rod relationship is with God. He has no connection in any conspiracies and has no relationship with President Trump other than a United States citizen that wish the President well. But, he does have a problem with allowing a scumbag, as he believes tried to frame the President testify to anything. And, a prosecutor that would allow that scumbag to testify and give him rewards, I would probable not trust anyone he brought before a courtroom. Prosecutors have discretion when allowing witnesses to testify.

"Section 2.013. Entrapment.

A public law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:

(1)    (a) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited."

(2)    "A person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the Court in the absence of the jury."

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 133)

Rod saw John Carry with his new book stating that Watergate allowed criminals to testify in Congress and he even showed a clip of one of their opening statements. If Rod recalls correctly, he said that he knew he would serve forty or fifty years in jail for what he was about to say; but still would testify about his involvement. Now. Did he later get a deal? Rod does not know the answer. But, he was willing to testify assumable before he got a deal. He did not sound like he was getting a deal. Or, he was not sincere omitting the fact; lying.

So now we have the Muller deal cutters that would only testify if they got deals which require a certain amount of saying what the Muller team wants to hear or the deals want be so sweet. I won’t lose any sleep if they say Putin and Trump are ancestral cousins with the same Grandpa. But, I would not equate their duty for the country as I would a man willing to tell his story with a forty-year sentence having not cut a sweep deal. In Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 159, they discuss, comparable, defendant being the Government Hub, “A defendant charged with a specific intent crime can be testified; strongly tempted to testify falsely or wish to present witnesses who will testify falsely in the hope of securing an acquittal. There is no dispute that defense counsel may not call witnesses who intend to commit perjury. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.2, 3.3, 3.4. Counsel for the defense is presented with some competing ethical concerns when it is his or her client that has testified falsely on the witness stand. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.4. See also Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).” Of course, in Rod’s opinion, a guilty verdict of any kind of something to do with Russia may be an acquittal for what the spokes, Hub, the Wheel have been up to for the last two years.

“Successful negotiations thus require an exchange of information about what evidence each side has to offer, what arguments it will make about credibility, and what legal issues it will rely upon. “

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 272)

A Kangaroo court would let such action take place without considering Impeachment of such witnesses by Reputation, Opinion of a close friend, Specific, Unconvicted Acts of Untruthfulness, Prior Convictions, Felonies, Chimen-Falsi when a person has lied or made intentional false statements before a court or judge, and Perjury. He does not think a Judge, in a competent court of law would allow scumbag to testify if the defendant had a good attorney challenged to the Supreme Court, or appealable at the minimum of any conviction coming from this framing scumbag. (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 188)

 “Ethically, lawyers are generally prohibited from any direct contact with a party or witness who is represented by counsel. Instead all communications must be between the two lawyers, who may then negotiate whether any direct witness contact is permitted (if it is, usually it will be only in counsel’s presence).”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 271)

 “The Government now asks us to expand this narrow exception to the hearsay rule and hold admissible a declaration, not made in furtherance of the alleged criminal transportation conspiracy charged, but made in furtherance of an alleged implied but uncharged conspiracy aimed at preventing detection and punishment. No federal court case cited by the Government suggests so hospitable a reception to the use of hearsay evidence to convict in conspiracy cases. * * * The rule contended for by the Government could have far-reaching results. For under this rule plausible arguments could generally be made in conspiracy cases that most out-of-court statements offered in evidence tended to shield co-conspirators. We are not persuaded to adopt the Government's implicit conspiracy theory which in all criminal conspiracy cases would create automatically a further breach of the general rule against the admission of hearsay evidence.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 499)


“Legal Dictionary - Law.com.” Law.com Legal Dictionary, dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=859. "hearsay (redirected from Inadmissible as Hearsay) Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Encyclopedia. Hearsay A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify. In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy. Hearsay comes in many forms. It may be a written or oral statement; it also includes gestures. Essentially anything intended to assert a fact is considered a statement for the purposes of the Hearsay Rule. A nodding of the head may be a silent assertion of the word yes. A witness pointing to a gun may be asserting, "That is the murder weapon." Even silence has been accepted as a statement, as when a passengers' failure to complain was offered to prove that a train car was not too cold (Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 329 Mass. 14, 105 N.E.2d 923 [1952]). Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay. The Federal Rules of Evidence outline the various types of statements that are excluded by the Hearsay Rule, and are thus admissible in court. These exceptions apply to circumstances believed to produce trustworthy assertions. Some hearsay exceptions are based on whether the declarant of the statement is available to testify. For example, a witness who has died is unavailable. A witness who claims some sort of testimonial privilege, such as the Attorney-Client Privilege, is also unavailable to testify, as is the witness who testifies to lack of memory regarding the subject matter, or is too physically or mentally ill to testify. These definitions fall under Rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. There are also situations where hearsay is allowed even though the declarant is available as a witness. These situations are outlined under Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial Present Sense Impression. "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)). An example is the statement "That green pickup truck is going to run that red light."

Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY ›  

Rule 

803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:

(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and

(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:

(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;

(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and

(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:

(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;

(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and

(C) neither the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information nor or  other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:

(A) it sets out:

(i) the office’s activities;

(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or

(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and

(B) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:

(A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that

(i) the record or statement does not exist; or

(ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and

(B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice — unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.

(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:

(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;

(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and

(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.

(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.

(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:

(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;

(B) the record is kept in a public office; and

(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.

(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.

(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.

(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.

(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:

(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;

(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;

(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and

(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.

The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:

(A) was essential to the judgment; and

(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.

(24) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.]


                               References:

Shane, Scott, and Mark Mazzetti. “The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far.” Rod does not cover all the article, the one in the Newspaper and online are slight different. So, you should read both to form your own opinions. The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html

Criminal Law, Concepts and Practice, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press, Authored by Ellen S. Podger, Peter J. Henning, Andrew E. Taslitz, and Alfredoo Garcia. (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia).

“Timeline of Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Elections.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections