Originally Posted by
Ripster42
One of the very few quotes in fact, it says, "...does not establish..." but it's important to know what that actually means re burdens of proof (they didn't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that they didn't find strong evidence supporting it, and clearly leaves room for both "clear and convincing evidence" and "preponderance of the evidence"), and is different from what barr wrote in his letter, "did not find." An important thing to note: proof beyond a reasonable doubt is mainly only used in the US justice system when we're sending people to jail. That should not be the burden of proof someone requires here. I'm not sure why someone would think that if it's only "more likely than not" (preponderance of the evidence) that the president was in a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power against the US' interests, that we shouldn't do anything about it.