You're trying to rationalize with anons. Usually a bad idea. A lawfag knows "no evidence" intuitively means there's no direct or substantive, corroborated, or supported evidence. Anons will misinterpret this and assume that a picture of a red shoe on social media means something deeper. It must be "evidence". Something deeper is going on with this "evidence". There's "evidence" that the NJ judge killer was a patsy or setup or whatever, because "Epstein/Maxwell".
Q, sorry but you did this too. You thought a tweet by Brennan was "evidence" of an assassination order. I mean, maybe if there was something else that proved the coded tweet was… evidence. But really? It's a bold claim to insinuate that a tweet was a coded assassination order. Needs "evidence".
Word of the day for anons, it seems.
Evidence