Over hundreds of years of jurisprudence, courts have developed rules governing the types and quality of evidence that parties may rely on to prove the facts on which their case depends.
You can’t just go to court and give your opinion on what the facts are. You must present witnesses who have sworn to tell the truth and are subject to cross-examination and/or tangible exhibits, which are also subject to challenge; Expert opinions should be based on generally accepted science.
But anyone can post a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up, from a claim that there’s a child-predation ring operating out of a pizzeria to a claim that FBI agents planted documents incriminating in the house of a former president. When it comes to conspiracy theories, we should all be from Missouri, the “show me” state.
To obtain a search warrant, the FBI must present evidence to a federal judge that they have probable cause to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a crime. If Donald Trump wants to claim that the FBI director (who was appointed by Trump) had political motivations for searching Mar-a-Lago, I want to see the evidence that supports that conclusion.
Spreading conspiracy theories that are not supported by evidence is a dangerous trend. Who benefits from it? Enemies of democracy who seek to undermine it by encouraging distrust towards the institutions that support it.
Philip J. Moss
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Use the form below to reset your password. Once you’ve submitted your account email, we’ll send you an email with a reset code.
Letter to the Editor: Brenner’s record reassures this educator
Letter to the Editor: Bank act can prevent crime at cannabis dispensaries