Interesting Mr. Gibbs uses the legal phase, “preponderance of the evidence” - as if it were conclusive re all facts.
As we know, “preponderance” simply means - more of this - than that. It does not address the value or weight of the assumed “evidence” (allegedly) presented.
POE is widely known as the - lowest evidentiary threshold - and typically used only in licensing or administrative hearings.
It is not evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” nor “conclusive”.
So it’s not surprising that Gibbs tries the “persuade” using this tired rhetoric. That’s all they have to agrue.
The wheels are slowly coming off this fraud.
Good point on preponderance of evidence as a low threshold.