Over hundreds of years of jurisprudence the courts have developed rules governing the types and quality of evidence that parties can rely upon to prove the facts on which their case depends.

You cannot simply go into court and state your opinion as to what the facts are. You must present witnesses who are sworn to tell the truth and are subject to cross-examination and/or tangible exhibits, which also are subject to challenge; expert opinions must be based upon generally accepted science.

But anyone can publish a conspiracy theory without evidence to support it – from a claim that there is child predation ring operating out of a pizza parlor to a claim that FBI agents planted incriminating documents in the home of a former president. When it comes to conspiracy theories, we all should be from Missouri, the “show me” state.

To get a search warrant, the FBI must present evidence that satisfies a federal judge that they have probable cause to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a crime. If Donald Trump wants to claim that the FBI director (who was appointed by Trump) was politically motivated to search Mar-a-Lago, I want to see the evidence that supports that conclusion.

Spreading conspiracy theories that are unsupported by evidence is a dangerous trend. Who benefits from it? Enemies of democracy who seek to undermine it by promoting distrust of the institutions that support it.

Philip J. Moss
Cape Elizabeth

Copy the Story Link