,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: Let's talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence. The law treats them the same. @SenatorBurr says there's no "direct evidence of collusion" b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that @MarkWarner doesn't agree w/ this. What matters is if there's evidence of collusion.
2/ Every juror in America is told "Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge...and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. NEITHER is entitled to any greater weight than the other."
3/ What is circumstantial evidence? Suppose I’m trying to prove that my son Nelson ate some freshly baked brownies that we made together. When I turned away, all of the brownies were out. When I turned back, one was gone...
4/ I didn't see Nelson eat a brownie -- that would be direct evidence. But when I returned, he had crumbs on his shirt, and chocolate on his lips and fingers. That would be considered circumstantial evidence that Nelson ate a brownie.
5/ It's not direct, but that doesn't matter. The law says it's treated exactly the same way. So, @SenatorBurr, have you seen any circumstantial evidence of collusion? #RussiaInvestigation
