[E. Pluribus Unum]

Sayin’ it vs provin’ it.

Exactly what would you accept as "proof?"

[KTM rider]

"Exactly what would you accept as "proof?"

When the NYT, SNOPES and FBI says it's proof [/sarcasm}

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“Exactly what would you accept as “proof?” “

I always ask that question. If, in your wildest dreams, you [generic you] were shown convincing proof, what would that evidence or demonstration consist of?

In dozens of instances, I have never gotten an answer of any coherence.

[McBuff]

"Probable Cause" is the standard for indictment from a grand jury, not "beyond a shadow of doubt." They have established probable cause OUT THE WAZOO. . .and thus, there needs to be indictments and an investigation and trial. The wrinkle in this case is the everything has to be done before January 6 and the inauguration on the 20th.

Compare this with the investigation of Trump for colluding with the Russians. . .these jokers didn't even establish a probable cause. . .oh, wait, I forgot. . .the rules don't apply for Dems.

Given this reality. . .this uneven playing field. . these "where's the proof" whiners MAKE ME SICK!

[rktman]

Sadly, the ones that decide the validity of “evidence” are the ones that determine “proof”. As Mark Twain said: “No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot(s).”