abgespaced wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:12 pm
Derek27 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:49 pm
That's not evidence
I think you'll find it most certainly is evidence. Witnesses are evidence. Affidavits and testimonies are evidence. Even what he is saying is evidence if he presented it to the court. The point is, it is up to the court to decide what is admissible or not. This might help to understand:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything
presented in support of an assertion,[1] because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).
The mentioned support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.[2] The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case."
- from wikipedia
Derek27 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:49 pm
None of the witnesses spoke on camera. He claims he has more than 1000 witnesses of fraud. Let's see how many testify in court, be it in person or written statement.
Court isn't held via press conference nor are trials conducted via public opinion. Plus, with tensions being so high and threat of violence from the left so openly declared, who could blame witnesses for not wanting to speak out publicly?
It's evidence if it's presented in court. It can even be considered evidence if it's not presented in court. He can present evidence to the news channel. The fact that court isn't held via press conference doesn't mean it's not evidence. What I'm saying is that he hasn't presented evidence either to a court or the News channels, he just keeps repeating claims to have evidence. He should either present his evidence to the media or shut up about it and present it in court.
