Forgive me. I should have said there is no hard, legally binding evidence. There isn’t. There’s “why is he hiding it?” There’s why did he spend so much on attorneys, etc.
Like it or not, it is the accuser who has the burden of proof.
Nope. The Constitution requires POTUS candidates to meet certain criteria. It is his burden to demonstrate he meets that criteria.
There is that small issue of the constitution. I mean if the constitution says a president must be 35 years of age we cannot let a 15 year old run for the President. A 15 year old candidate could claim in a squeaky voice that you have no positive legal proof he isn’t in fact 35. The burden of proof is on you, and by the way all his documentation is sealed, and you cannot talk to his friends, school, or family.
Have fun proving it in court!