Democrats need to understand what evidence means

[Lisa558]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

relevant

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[mamooth]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

Evidence is that thing you have zero actual examples of.

Being a conservative, you don't seem to understand that someone _saying_ they have evidence is a different thing from having evidence. You're unable to grasp that people, especially your masters, make stuff up.

 

[Curried Goats]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

relevant

www.law.cornell.edu

Is there a law against Biden family members having jobs that I'm not aware of?

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Impeach Biden and let the Senate do it trial and then present all the Evidence.

I mean if the GOP has a solid case then do it…

 

[Godboy]

Evidence is that thing you have zero actual examples of.

Being a conservative, you don't seem to understand that someone _saying_ they have evidence is a different thing from having evidence. You're unable to grasp that people, especially your masters, make stuff up.

Your denial of the mountain of evidence isnt going to help Joe. It just makes you look dishonest and stupid. Find a better debate angle for Christ sake. Your laziness and lack of imagination offends me.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your denial of the mountain of evidence isnt going to help Joe. It just makes you look dishonest and stupid. Find a better debate angle for Christ sake. Your laziness and lack of imagination offends me.

Does Joe need help? Is he in danger from your impotent threats and theories?

 

[Godboy]

Does Joe need help? Is he in danger from your impotent threats and theories?

LOL, yeah, he is in very serious trouble, both politically and criminally.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Evidence is that thing you have zero actual examples of.

Being a conservative, you don't seem to understand that someone _saying_ they have evidence is a different thing from having evidence. You're unable to grasp that people, especially your masters, make stuff up.

Projection.

 

[Curried Goats]

LOL, yeah, he is in very serious trouble, both politically and criminally.

Really? Which law enforcement agency is closing in on charging Joe Biden with anything?

 

[mamooth]

Your denial of the mountain of evidence isnt going to help Joe. It just makes you look dishonest and stupid. Find a better debate angle for Christ sake. Your laziness and lack of imagination offends me.

Here's another one who is too addled to grasp that his masters are lying to him and making everything up. He falls for the fake stories because they give him reason to hate, and hating gives him a pervy thrill.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Here's another one who is too addled to grasp that his masters are lying to him and making everything up. He falls for the fake stories because they give him reason to hate, and hating gives him a pervy thrill.

Projection

 

[Godboy]

Really? Which law enforcement agency is closing in on charging Joe Biden with anything?

The DOJ wont indict a sitting president. How could you not know that at this point?

Is the FBI investigating him? I have no fucking idea. Do you?

 

[Billiejeens]

Projection.

At it's finest.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Does Joe need help? Is he in danger from your impotent threats and theories?

Weak Fragile *Joe is in danger of breaking a hip.

 

[Curried Goats]

The DOJ wont indict a sitting president. How could you not know that at this point?

Is the FBI investigating him? I have no fucking idea. Do you?

So if you don't know then why would he be in any danger, dumb ass?

 

[JustAGuy1]

I am ALWAYS AMAZED that the Left either simply cannot fathom that their "Leaders" would lie to them or they simply don't care.

 

[Godboy]

So if you don't know then why would he be in any danger, dumb ass?

Because CONGRESS is investigating him, and they are finding an alarming amount of evidence every week.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

relevant

www.law.cornell.edu

Democrats don’t understand most things.

 

[okfine]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

relevant

www.law.cornell.edu

"Looks like" you have nothing.

 

[Care4all]

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

relevant

www.law.cornell.edu

Unfortunately you don't meet the definition of relevant evidence. You have put the cart, before the horse.

You have to have factual, provable evidence FIRST, then you can have relevant evidence to support the factually and provable evidence.

Which Republicans do not have, and are in a partisan witch hunt, on Hunter, to find.


Your link says

Cornell Law SchoolSearch Cornell
Toggle navigation

1. LII
2. Wex
3. relevant

relevant​

Primary tabs​

Relevant means, with regards to evidence, having some value or tendency to prove a matter of fact significant to the case. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 states that “evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Generally, relevant evidence is admissible, and a common objection to the admission of evidence is that it is irrelevant.

An example of relevant evidence in a murder trial could be the DNA evidence that defendant possessed the murder weapon and testimony from a witness who saw him at the scene around the time of the murder.


The Committee Notes on Rule 401 clarify that “[r]elevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in a case.” That is, it is only an item’s relationship to what a party seeks to prove in trial that makes it relevant.