So I'm gone for the evening, come home and turn on the TV, and discover
that Bob Mueller has tossed a grenade into the middle of the Barr-Trump love nest.
Never a dull moment....
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)
with the usual amount of proof that the FBI requires before they prosecute a crime, which is why their conviction rate is so high -- about 97%. They don't get that conviction rate by prosecuting people based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Barr, in the hearing just now, made it clear he was using the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to "establish" guilt.
Seth Abramson, a former criminal defense attorney, is one person who has written about this.
https://threader.app/thread/1099041912596635649
So let's imagine Mueller sees himself as both an investigator and a prosecutor—which is technically correct, as DOJ regulations give him the power to prosecute instances of criminality he uncovers as part of his investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. What would that mean?
44. Well, it'd mean Mueller will *prosecute* a person—specifically, any person who's committed an offense falling under Mueller's broad DOJ authorization—if he thinks he can prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt." Any case he can prove *below* that standard he *won't* charge.
45. So let's say Mueller can prove Trump conspired with our enemies at the "clear and convincing" level of proof—will he allege, in his report, that Trump can be charged with criminal conspiracy? No. He would simply summarize his mountain of evidence and let us decide what to do.
46. In that scenario, *any* American—including *any member of Congress*—for whom the necessary "standard of proof" (in a *non-criminal hearing* where the allegation is conspiring with our enemies) is "clear and convincing" or *anything below that*, will demand Trump be impeached.
47. Anyone who thinks the Impeachment Clause's "high crimes and misdemeanors" means that allegations in an impeachment must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" is *wrong*. Any lawyer will tell you you're wrong. The Republicans who impeached Clinton would tell you you're wrong.
48. When we say impeachment is a "political" (not "criminal"
process—because there are no criminal penalties, like imprisonment—and that allegations can be brought in an impeachment (like "Abuse of Power" that aren't statutory crimes, we're saying a lot more than you may think.
49. We're saying that Senators *aren't* jurors in a criminal case—so they don't need to "presume innocence" pre-impeachment if they've seen evidence that makes them think someone *isn't* innocent. And at the impeachment, they can use *any standard of proof that they want to use*.
50. What we're *also* saying is that—as to impeachment proceedings—whether Mueller says that Trump could be charged with crimes under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard or that there's "only" enough proof to meet the "clear and convincing" standard (70% proof) doesn't matter.
51. And the reason it *doesn't matter* is *what kind of America-hating buffoon would require more than 70% certainty that a president has criminally betrayed his country to want that president removed from office for the safety of all America*? I'm serious—what sort of *buffoon*?
