Anonymous ID: ef109e March 5, 2019, 1:29 p.m. No.5523672   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5523648

Does Todd Penley post HERE?

Do any "twitter Q followers" post here?

Are those two spheres COMPLETELY DIVIDED from each other?

Is that organic?

 

Are you here Todd Penley?

Talk to us.

Anonymous ID: ef109e March 5, 2019, 1:35 p.m. No.5523802   🗄️.is 🔗kun

The definitions offered establish two-way circularity between 'proof' and 'evidence'.

'Evidence' is in the definition of 'proof', and vice versa.

That is DICTIONARY definition, which tracks usage in the PUBLIC– but that, of course, is not the same thing as LEGAL definition, which is much more to the point.

 

So, it would seem the moral is this: Nadler manipulates the ambiguity between the words 'proof' and 'evidence' (as reflected in dictionary) in order to confuse the LEGAL question, where, in fact, he has no leg to stand on.