“People are convicted and sent to jail every day of the week based on circumstantial evidence,” says Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Circumstantial evidence, Cruz says, is “damn good evidence.” Cruz even concisely defines circumstantial evidence, saying “it’s when you draw inferences from the circumstances.”
Cornell Law defines circumstantial evidence as “indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim.”
when you don't actually have any evidence pic.twitter.com/RzHiicfrSH
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 13, 2023
Cruz’s defense of circumstantial evidence is triggered by what appears to be the best case scenario for Republicans hoping to put together an effective case against President Joe Biden, after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave the go-ahead for an impeachment inquiry this week.
After months of Biden investigations by GOP lawmakers — most notably the House Oversight Committee chaired by James Comer — produced zero evidence of wrongdoing by the President, Cruz is trying to lower the bar for what Biden’s antagonists will need to prove, with direct evidence seemingly out of reach.
Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer, knows the law. He also knows that circumstantial evidence is a major factor in convictions in RICO cases, the kind of case that Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis has brought against former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants. Circumstantial evidence — which Cruz characterizes as “damn good evidence” — is often essential in establishing links between conspirators in a criminal enterprise. Willis will rely on it to some extent; she now has Cruz’s support when she does.
The prototypical circumstantial evidence is so well understood that it has become an everyday metaphor: the smoking gun. One need not have seen it fired to presume it was.
[An example of illegitimate circumstantial evidence might be: “Joe Biden loves his son, therefore they must have committed multiple treasonous crimes together.”]
Attorneyatlaw.com bullet-points the salient points about circumstantial evidence, concurring with Cruz:
- Circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, is a type of evidence that requires logical inference in order to imply something happened
- Circumstantial evidence can be contrasted with direct evidence, which can establish that something did or did not happen on its own
- Circumstantial and direct evidence are treated equally in a court of law
- Circumstantial evidence can sometimes be even more reliable than direct evidence, and many criminal convictions are made on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone
Cruz has a different take when it comes to circumstantial evidence against Trump, Despite at one time calling Trump an “utterly amoral” “pathological liar” who acted like a “mobster,” had a “pattern of inciting violence,” and was “surrounded by sycophants,” Cruz now believes Trump is being unfairly prosecuted.
US Senator Ted Cruz once called Trump an “utterly amoral” “pathological liar” who acted like a “mobster,” had a “pattern of inciting violence,” and was “surrounded by sycophants.”
— Miles Taylor (@MilesTaylorUSA) August 15, 2023
Ted Cruz is one of those sycophants. https://t.co/Go8XIsH2Qi
As the New York Times reported in 2022, “If the Justice Department could not establish direct evidence of what Mr. Trump knew, prosecutors would need to turn to circumstantial evidence.” That is fine with Sen. Cruz in the Biden case. He has not said whether circumstantial evidence is equally “damn good” in the ongoing four cases against Trump.
An article at AboveTheLaw asks and answers a pertinent question: “So how do you prove undue influence? Almost always by circumstantial evidence. You show motive, opportunity, and disposition.”
.jpg){kind=link}