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
- LII
- Wex
- 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.
