Democrats need to understand what evidence means

[francoHFW]

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.

an example of irrelevant and stupid fake evidence would be everything the GOP says about Biden knowing anything about Hunter's business....

 

[Godboy]

Even if it uncovers any Biden corruption, I won't even be phased. Unlike magaturds, I don't have an undying devotion to the man in the White House. That's the difference between maga and sane.

I couldnt care less what phases you. This scandal will crush the democrat party. Thats all i care about.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I couldnt care less what phases you. This scandal will crush the democrat party. Thats all i care about.

Cool. This 'scandal' will not crush the Dems. Gotta do better than that.

 

[2aguy]

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.

No.....we have actual evidence of corruption that needs to be investigated.........any other politician whose family received millions and millions of dollars from corrupt foreign governments would be under DOJ investigation in a heart beat.......and they would dig and find the absolute proof of crimes.......but the democrat controlled DOJ won't do that.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No...going forward they will definitely indict a Republican.......the democrats crossed the line with Trump and they are not going back...

 

[The Duke]

C'mon now, Joe's been on the take for longer than I've been alive. He's the most professional politician in the world

probably; Ergo the most crooked.

Impeaching him or investigating him too much is an exercise in folly as he'll be out of office in 18 mos.

Even if he was successfully impeached and removed, then The Cackler will rubber stamp everything

his handlers have been propping him up to sign, nothing will change.

Nah, best bet is just to let them suck as bad as they do, draw attention to it, and get everyone voting in 2024.

 

[Care4all]

Democrats don't give a shit about evidence. Deny, ignore, lie is their party's motto.

Let us know when you have some, is all we're asking!

 

[Care4all]

After six years of not having absolute proof against Trump, they should know this by now.

Yep...that's why Trump has 70 criminal indictments and dozens more coming......

 

[Care4all]

We have Biden bragging on video about extorting Ukraine.

Actual and absolute proof.

But the cult is a cult.

Cults deny any reality not authorized for general belief.

And they embrace fantastic falsehoods.

Cults.

it's not absolute proof silly one!

not when he's bragging about accomplishing U.S. policy!

Hint! (Other than Trump), most criminals don't go around and brag publicly about crimes they committed...

 

[rampart]

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.

whenever a "conservative" starts ranting abt "
evidence" i visualize joe mccarthy waving his blank lists of commies at his hearings.

their new complaint is that the largest and best paid legal team in history needs much more time to review the millions of pages of sworn testimony in us vs greatest security risk in america since bennie arnold.

 

[Lisa558]

Agreed. There is direct evidence--the fingerprint on the murder weapon matches that of the suspect or the dna samples place the suspect at the scene or credible eye witnesses report seeing the crime committed.

And there is circumstantial evidence--large deposits in a bank account without adequate verification of their origin. . .the robber/murderer/rapist was masked and wearing a blue shirt and witnesses observed the suspect, wearing a blue shirt, hurriedly leaving the premises. . .

That classified documents were found in Biden's garage is not direct evidence that he took them and/or put them there, but it is circumstantial evidence.

The appearance that Hunter used his father to bribe or extort a lot of money from foreign officials currently is circumstantial evidence as is the assumption that Biden knew what Hunter was doing. The purpose of a valid investigation--I'm pretty sure Weiss, with his track record, isn't going to do a valid investigation and he is illegally serving in that role anyway--is to determine if there is any direct evidence to corroborate the circumstantial evidence.

But you are quite right. It is all evidence. And there have been many convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone if there was enough of it to remove all reasonable doubt.

Congress can impeach based on circumstantial evidence, especially when there is tons of it.

But the evidence against Hunter is direct. He received tens of millions of dollars from foreign companies without registering as a foreign agent. And he did not report this income.

As far as appointing Weiss to “investigate” (ha) whether Joe Biden directly profited, can you imagine how those two whistleblowers feel? The younger one especially risked and ruined his career by blowing the whistle on how Weiss did NOT to his job, and instead acquiesced to the DOJ who kept him under control, and then the DOJ appoints the same guy again?!

Finally, we need to move away from the idea that Joe has to personally get paid for this to be corruption. To allow yourself to be part of an extortion and bribery ring by making yourself accessible and thus leaving a multi-million dollar legacy to your family IS gaining.

 

[22lcidw]

Yep...that's why Trump has 70 criminal indictments and dozens more coming......

It's what we believe isn't it? And for all of us it starts with our political views. My views are on freedoms. And there are despots on all sides. And freedoms are not linear. They are of sense.

 

[Lesh]

Coincidence
Guilt by association
Exaggeration
Mischaracterization
Unfounded allegation
Assertions
Lies

These things are NOT evidence

And that’s all you have

The OP needs to learn what evidence is

 

[Curried Goats]

Congress can impeach based on circumstantial evidence, especially when there is tons of it.

But the evidence against Hunter is direct. He received tens of millions of dollars from foreign companies without registering as a foreign agent. And he did not report this income.

So..... you want Congress to impeach Hunter?

 

[DGS49]

It is, as the OP observes, infuriating to hear Leftists talking about how there is no "evidence" of the Bidens' wrongdoing.

Way back there when I was in law school, an example of "circumstantial evidence" was given, as follows:

A man looks out his window on a cold winter's night and sees a beautiful star-filled sky and everything else is clean, dry, and normal. He wakes up the following morning, looks out the same window and sees a cloudless, sunny sky...and six inches of snow on the ground.

Did it snow during the night? Certainly. Did the man see it snowing? No. But there is no doubt in his mind that it snowed because there is no other explanation for the snow on the ground. All the man has is circumstantial evidence (no direct evidence) that it snowed. And yet the conclusion is unavoidable.

Applying this principle the the case in question, "we" know that Hunter Biden as no salable skills or knowledge, and during the times in question, he was addicted to "controlled substances." We know that he was paid literally MILLIONS of dollars by foreign oligarchs and public officials, and that he made it a point of demonstrating to these personages that he could get his VP father on the line any time he wanted.

This is circumstantial evidence that Hunter was peddling access to his father for money. And that the senior Biden was profiting from the payments, even if there is no evidence of cash transfers from son to father. There is good legal precedent that payments to a father or son directly benefit the other. Further, we have the well-known quid pro quo of Biden extorting the firing of a prosecutor who was bothering Hunter's client/employer.

There is approximately the same level of doubt about the Bidens' criminal acts that there was about the snowfall in the hypo described above. To say that there is no evidence of the crime is either stupidity or the willful manifestation of same.

 

[Bobob]

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

"Plenty of evidence" and so-on and so-forth. When do we get to read or hear what this "evidence" is?
So far, the trump ilk is manufacturing a lot of gobbledygook, and also so far no evidence, because there is none. However, keep flapping away. "Evidence" will be there for all to see at trump's trial.
The "evidence" on Joe Biden is actually only a wing and a prayer. The reality is that Hunter's friend had nothing and exonerated him, so what's next?

 

[Lisa558]

"Plenty of evidence" and so-on and so-forth. When do we get to read or hear what this "evidence" is?
So far, the trump ilk is manufacturing a lot of gobbledygook, and also so far no evidence, because there is none. However, keep flapping away. "Evidence" will be there for all to see at trump's trial.
The "evidence" on Joe Biden is actually only a wing and a prayer. The reality is that Hunter's friend had nothing and exonerated him, so what's next?

We have listed the evidence over and over.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Like for example pure crap G O P propaganda

No. Like economics, science and biology.

 

[Burgermeister]

Dems are ridiculously fluid in their need for evidence.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

an example of irrelevant and stupid fake evidence would be everything the GOP says about Biden knowing anything about Hunter's business....

What is Hunters business? What’s his title?