No. of Recommendations: 6
And as an example of circumstantial (and rather sensationalist nonsense):
On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Ah. I think you are confusing two separate legal concepts here: circumstantial evidence and overt acts.
One of the essential requirements of a conspiracy charge is the existence of, well, a conspiracy. That is, a common plan or scheme that is mutually agreed to by one or more persons to commit a crime. As an example, if a group of people get together and plan out a robbery (think the planning scene in Ocean's 11, or any other heist movie), that agreement satisfies the "common plan" part of a conspiracy charge.
However, words alone do not constitute the crime of conspiracy. To be charged, you also have to have committed an overt act to advance the goals or aims of the conspiracy. To return to my Ocean's 11 example, simply getting together in Elliot Gould's house wasn't a crime - but when they started going out and buying vans and computers and costumes and what not, they then had started to commit overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Once they had done that, the crime of conspiracy had been committed - even if they decided to call off the heist and not have the third act of the movie.
"Circumstantial evidence," in this context, would involve not having any direct evidence of the existence of a common plan or agreement, but instead trying to prove the common plan or agreement by other means. The tweet you referred to, though, isn't being offered for that purpose - it's being offered to show that there was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
