Evidence v. Proof: Gather and Present Your Sources.

[Dante]

Far too many threads, let alone posts confuse and conflate the two terms "evidence" and "proof." I have to wonder -- Do members look up definitions of terms used -- ever? What I've observed (especially since a former president is an accused criminal), is that when somebody offers up some proof of something, it can and will be attacked as if it is merely evidence presented and is open to interpretation. See some evidence presented, and it can and will be argued that it is actually proof of something, merely because it is evidence presented.

Sources? I happen to like this one: Understanding the Distinction

"The key difference lies in the level of certainty or conclusiveness they provide. Proof establishes certainty and definitively confirms a claim without room for doubt. Evidence supports a claim but may not necessarily lead to a conclusive or indisputable conclusion."

Proof vs Evidence: What's the Difference?

Discover the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" in this insightful article. Gain clarity on their meanings with examples, aiding effective communication.

strategically.co

Examples are things like the offering up "We don’t have to rely on just Cohen’s word. We can believe Cohen because of the receipts, the tapes and the hard evidence.” Many of the receipts, the tapes are proof of things charged. They back up the testimony/evidence of Cohen's testimony. Some people have attacked the proof as being somehow manipulated (or parachuted onto Earth from sources unknown?).

 

[MarathonMike]

You are going to be very disappointed very soon Dante. Don't take it too hard, the Democrats are very good at manipulation.

 

[Dante]

You are going to be very disappointed very soon Dante. Don't take it too hard, the Democrats are very good at manipulation.

great observation in the NYT by a reporter writing from within the courtroom:

"The defense lawyers made clear during the conference on charging instructions how concerned they were that there would be a broad explanation for what the jurors could consider. Both the defense and the prosecution had some victories in that conference.

But state law is different than federal law, and most of the commentary on television and in op-ed pages stems from an understanding of federal law — not the state laws applicable here."


note: to the troll known as MarathonMike: Disappointed? Besides trolling here, you are wrong. Very wrong.

Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?

I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person...

www.usmessageboard.com