eh, I'm a little mixed. I'm against all the people saying either "she's clearly guilty" or "it's ok because X"(the latter often effectively claiming she committed a felony)

but I think pointing out that there *are* valid ways the evidence we've seen can be acceptable is ok, if for no other reason to point out that what they've offered *isn't* conclusive

This is bs 1 “evidence””obtained” by a partisan hack, “released to the public” in most contrived, prejudicial fashion possible, for obviously politically motivated reasons. 2 to deride the process, but to say “there’s something about the evidence which sparkles my tassel” makes you … complicit. Yuk

1- the evidence provided so far is public records. I've personally pulled some of it directly from the relevant recorders, people I trust have pulled other parts to it 2- it's a good thing I haven't said that

It's not even evidence yet, just naked accusations. That is why process is critical. There is a way to test this, and it is not how Trump has gone about it. He is not entitled to any presumption of credibility at this point; in fact, quite the opposite.

the public records definitely do exist, I've pulled some of them directly. I don't know how that can possibly count as a presumption of credibility part of the exercise is knowing what will count as proper/sufficient evidence

If they show one page of a recorded document and I pull the full document it's precisely because I presume they are *not* credible If I review standard forms to remind myself of the language, it's because I don't think they are credible When I review fnma guidelines...