• Hadriscus@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Hah ! incriminating evidence ? I don’t know how decisive is an email conversation printout.

    edit I’m asking. Can we still ask things ?

    • DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I am just here to comment on your edit.

      Maybe something is lost in translation, but it doesn’t read as if you are asking a question. But that you’re using the question as device to make your point.

      • Hadriscus@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        ah ! thank you for chiming in. What point does it sound like I am making?

        To clarify, I was trying to express the following : I hope these emails constitute incriminating evidence, but I cannot tell due to my complete lack of knowledge wrt US law.

        • Gamma@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          It is! The modern court system probably wouldn’t be able to function without allowing emails

          • Hadriscus@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            22 hours ago

            cheers. I was in doubt because french justice famously disregarded a very incriminating recorded phone convo between Sarkozy and one of his accomplices. So I thought, maybe this is similar