I, too, found that choice of words especially galling.
My retort would be:
What evidence, specifically, do you mean? And what kind of evidence - i.e., evidence of what quality?
In a court of law (and the determination of eligibility to become President of the United States certainly warrants applying legal standards), a distinction is made between a) testimony (from witnesses), b) exhibits (i.e., physical objects), and c) documentary material (which should be authenticated).
Further, evidence of an indirect nature is termed circumstantial evidence.
In evaluating evidence, weight must be given to its credibility. Are the witnesses reliable? Are they unbiased? Is their testimony complete?Have they been suborned?
Has the documentary evidence been tampered with?
Besides the newspaper announcement (which newspapers publish without demanding proof), the only documentary evidence we have seen thus far is a digital image purporting to summarize the essential details of an actual, tangible original Certificate of Live Birth. Such specious documentary evidence is on a par with hearsay evidence in regards to testimony, and I would reject it.
Regards,
these liberal thinkers would assume that Major Hasan is still the “alleged” shooter of 13 dead soldiers at Ft Hood
but a paid newspaper birth announcement placed by parties unknown and a certificate issued based on statements by parties unknown is proof that obama was born in Hawaii