About the "Evidence":

From hard exhibits to opinion..

Notwithstanding our disclaimers under "about", we would prefer to present this information as exhibits rather than evidence. That's simply because so many are confusing proof with evidence. "Evidence" isn't only confined to irrefutable evidence -- but more on that below.

We attest that the shear volume of evidence, perhaps of varying quality, is a form of evidence in itself. Nonetheless, we have attempted to grade these exhibits from evidence to conjecture, and finally opinion (based on observations), and to stretch laterally to counter-evidence (included for understanding) and finally, Analysis.

How amazing that you see virtually none of this in the MSM?

What is "Evidence"?

In any event, there seems to be an increasing misinterpretation in the MSM of the word "evidence" itself. When the MSM claimed Trump's legal team was putting forward allegations without "evidence", that was an obvious falsehood albeit more likely from ignorance. What I suspect they meant was the team was putting forward allegations without "proof", which they seemed to think all evidence should be tested against before it can be even considered "evidence". As proof is as judged in the courts, and as it is common to start a court case without all the evidence neatly tied down, then the teams were within their rights.

The point is that we too are not putting things here as hard proof or even especially hard evidence. It just is what it is - exhibits of observations as repeated through the imperfect press.

One thing I would be sure of - we can and must be at least able to discuss it unless it is truly egregious or obviously a falsehood.