Originally Posted by
Ripster42
You don't think it's relevant that the standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" might not have been met (and again, we don't actually know this because of who barr is and his beliefs about the limits of presidential power), but the standard of "clear and convincing" (or preponderance of the evidence) could be met w/out charges being filed? You don't think your average voter would want to know that? How convincing would the evidence have to be to affect your vote?
For that matter, how convincing would the evidence have to be for you to support impeachment and conviction? It shouldn't be "beyond a reasonable doubt." The penalty for impeachment and conviction isn't imprisonment. The impeached party would still get another trial after they've been impeached before they serve time. In civil court, the standard of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "clear and convincing." It's just preponderance of the evidence. I urge you to remember that the process of impeachment is a political process. With bill clinton there was clearly proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he committed perjury. Because the perjury was about something so benign as to whether or not he had an affair, he wasn't convicted.
So I ask again, how strong does the evidence need to be that the president of the united states colluding with foreign states (or committing obstruction of justice that benefits a foreign state) for help to get elected and selling our foreign policy for you to not want that liability as president? This isn't as if it's through carelessness, but by corrupt intent. It's not something minor, like an affair, but the legitimacy of our democracy itself.