Seth Abramson explains why the "standard of proof" for DT's bad acts should be WAY BELOW that used
Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)
in criminal courts, beyond a reasonable doubt -- and why Senator Burr was flatly wrong when he said there was "no evidence of collusion."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1099041912596635649.html
26. If journalists had educated America on standards of proof, it would've been clear to all that Burr *hasn't* concluded that there's "no evidence of collusion," but rather something *entirely different*: that in *his* view, the standard of proof he wants to see met hasn't been.
27. So the conversation Burr's interview *should've* initiated is this:
What's the *appropriate* standard of proof to be met when the allegation is that a president criminally betrayed his country and is a national security threat and the remedy requested is removal from office?
28. Faced with this question—and it *is* the question before us, whether journalists pose it or not—Trump's supporters and allies suddenly shift from false cries of "no evidence" to the *other end of the spectrum*: *demanding* the standard of proof be "beyond a reasonable doubt."
SNIP
36. As you can see from my hypothetical, what we *demand* as Americans is that our *juries*—in *criminal cases*—presume innocence until someone is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As for the *rest* of us—everyone *but* the jurors—we can think *whatever the hell we want*.
37. Personally, because I *love America* and because an impeachment *isn't a criminal case*—i.e. there's no danger of an impeached president going to jail *because* he was removed from office—my standard of proof for a commander-in-chief betraying us to our enemies is *very low*.