BigSteve wrote:Considering the fact that everyone seems to know who the fuck the guy is, I'll simply accept that there is evidence. The fact that I, personally, don't have said evidence is meaningless...
A lack of evidence is meaningful in that it then makes no sense to believe the claim.
At a certain point in history, everyone seemed to know the Earth was flat. Just because “everyone knows” something is supposedly true does not mean that it actually is.
If what he said to start this whole train rolling was false then, yeah, he should be...
Then you are accusing him of being guilty of a crime without any evidence that he is even the person you are looking for.
Also, everything that the whistleblower claimed has already been corroborated by other witnesses who are already testifying. So, what the whistleblower said was almost certainly not false.
The "evidence" which is provided by the prosecution must be compelling, even in the absence of evidence from the defense...
Not necessarily, no.
The Senate can basically decide for itself what burden of proof it wants. Which is good for those of you who uncritically support Trump no matter how much he threatens democracy.
They can simply decide on some unreasonable standard of evidence.