 |
|
Evidence vs proof. For libs, an accusation is proof of
Posted on: November 15, 2020 at 09:01:08 CT
hokie VT
Posts:
68169
Member For:
9.66 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
guilt of a crime.
Kavanaugh was guilty of gang rape because the crazy woman must be believed.
Trump was guilty of treason because his enemies accused him of talking with russians before he was sworn in.
Guilt has been determined. Proof has been established. Evidence is not needed.
For Rs investigating Ds, a mountain of evidence has been provided. But no iron clad proof. Meaning no video, no confession and no paper trail.
Note that biden bragging about getting a foreign prosecutor fired is neither proof nor evidence. No investigation is warranted since proof has not been established.
The similarity is that in both instances, investigation is unnecessary. Ds have enough proof with the accusation of wrongdoing. A perfunctory impeachment trial will suffice in the place of actual investigation.
Rs don't have iron clad proof so there is nothing on which to base an investigation. You must have proof if you're an R, to justify an investigation.
Usually, evidence instigates an investigation in which proof is either found or not.
Rs must have proof BEFORE an investigation can commence and Ds have proof based on the accusation so no investigation is necessary.
Two systems of justice....?
Kavanaugh was guilty of gang rape because the crazy woman must be believed.
Trump was guilty of treason because his enemies accused him of talking with russians before he was sworn in.
Guilt has been determined. Proof has been established. Evidence is not needed.
For Rs investigating Ds, a mountain of evidence has been provided. But no iron clad proof. Meaning no video, no confession and no paper trail.
Note that biden bragging about getting a foreign prosecutor fired is neither proof nor evidence. No investigation is warranted since proof has not been established.
The similarity is that in both instances, investigation is unnecessary. Ds have enough proof with the accusation of wrongdoing. A perfunctory impeachment trial will suffice in the place of actual investigation.
Rs don't have iron clad proof so there is nothing on which to base an investigation. You must have proof if you're an R, to justify an investigation.
Usually, evidence instigates an investigation in which proof is either found or not.
Rs must have proof BEFORE an investigation can commence and Ds have proof based on the accusation so no investigation is necessary.
Two systems of justice....?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Evidence vs proof. For libs, an accusation is proof of - hokie VT - 11/15 09:01:08