View Single Post
  #6  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:43 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,248
OK, I'll play along here, in part because the OP's numerous points in the Elections thread show that he has a non-standard, more strict view of what "reasonable doubt" means.

First, let me quote from two entries from an online legal dictionary.

First, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt":

Quote:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
And, from that same link:

Quote:
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
(Bolding mine)

Keep in mind: impeachment is NOT a criminal trial. If a President is removed from office, he does NOT go to prison, he does NOT face a firing squad, he is not even forced to pay a fine. He simply LOSES HIS JOB.

Impeachment is, fundamentally, an employment disciplinary process. The House conducting an Impeachment inquiry, and holding a vote, is fundamentally the government's HR department determining if there's sufficient evidence that the President has not been performing the duties of his job. The Senate trial is fundamentally the goverment's board of directors deciding whether or not to discharge the President from his job.

If "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't even the usual standard in a civil trial (e.g., a lawsuit), I see no reason why it should be the criterion for firing someone, even the President.