You’re misusing the word evidence. There is absolutely evidence that he is guilty.
No there isn’t. There is just evidence that this guy bought some hotel rooms to suck up to trump.
Suggestion: Look up what “evidence” means as a legal term. The paper trail of the guy buying hotel rooms is evidence that Trump was involved. Doesn’t make Trump guilty. Doesn’t make him innocent either. Evidence isn’t proof, and evidence exists of things we are not yet convinced are true (or that actually aren’t).
St Judes is not the same as the Clinton Foundation and you know that.
I really don’t know that. The name of the founders on it shouldn’t affect the charity. Except for Trump foundation, but only because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had it taken away.
because he very much could have not been involved.
Correct
…welcome to how evidence works. The legal definition for evidence is “Evidence an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable” It is incredibly rare that “no evidence” exists for some claim. People who assert otherwise are either confusing evidence with proof OR arguing from a position of such extreme bias they cannot see. I still haven’t figured which of the two you are, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by correcting the former.
Suggestion: Look up what “evidence” means as a legal term. The paper trail of the guy buying hotel rooms is evidence that Trump was involved. Doesn’t make Trump guilty. Doesn’t make him innocent either. Evidence isn’t proof, and evidence exists of things we are not yet convinced are true (or that actually aren’t).
I really don’t know that. The name of the founders on it shouldn’t affect the charity. Except for Trump foundation, but only because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had it taken away.
That is not evidence trump is involved, because he very much could have not been involved.
Wrong
Correct
…welcome to how evidence works. The legal definition for evidence is “Evidence an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable” It is incredibly rare that “no evidence” exists for some claim. People who assert otherwise are either confusing evidence with proof OR arguing from a position of such extreme bias they cannot see. I still haven’t figured which of the two you are, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by correcting the former.