# What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141 "2019-11-07T19:59:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/21 "2019-11-08T00:22:08Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > My opinion is that the standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt, _especially_ when the articles of impeachment are criminal in nature and expose the defendant to criminal liability should he be convicted. > > I put emphasis on the text of U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3: > _ **The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment** , shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed._ > Where it says “The Trial of all crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment” I interpret to mean that at least some cases of impeachment can be criminal in nature. At least some of the time, either the impeachment trial itself is a criminal trial without a normal jury, or conviction by the Senate deprives the accused of their right to a trial by jury in the criminal trials that follow (should they follow rather than proceed). > > Certainly, impeachment under historic laws of England was often followed by criminal if not capital punishment. The Constitution makes clear that these shall not be the consequences of impeachment, U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Or at least there must be a law on the books criminalizing the same acts, in _that_ case the consequence may very well be criminal or capital punishment. I think the purpose of that clause is to prevent the political body (Congress) from pressuring civil officers to do their bidding on pain of death, not to reduce impeachment trials to civil if not less restrictive standards. So it’s more in-line with the whole no bill of attainder thing. Just to cut through this contrived nonsense, you support likely criminals holding high office because you are not certain that they are criminals? You have a much lower standard of ethics for government than I have every encountered. People used to agree that the appearance of impropriety - not felonies, just misdeeds - was the acceptable standard for public officials to hold themselves to. Now you propose to demolish that standard for the mostly highly restrictive one that we have as a society. You’re literally putting removal from office on the same plane as sentencing someone to the death penalty. This is a horrible, horrible idea that would debase our government and give carte blanche for politicians at every level to lower themselves to the standards of literal criminals. It’s such a horrible idea that is so clearly not thought through that it’s offensive to the whole concept of integrity in public life. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/22 "2019-11-08T00:33:18Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > That is, IMO, a _much_ steeper standard than “no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.” Paraphrasing what you wrote, you are essentially saying “reasonable doubt means that you, as a juror, must be so very certain of it that you would be willing to risk your own life on your decision.” And, while that may fit your own definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” you should recognize that it really is _not_ what the legal definition of the term means. I don’t think that quote you just reposted, from Wikipedia I believe, actually provides a definition of reasonable doubt. Defining a beyond a reasonable doubt as “There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person’s belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty” is effectively replacing “doubt” with “belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty”. We already knew what “doubt” means, the operative word is “reasonable”. The Wikipedia blurb shines no light on what is “reasonable”, except to say that some things are not reasonable. Your new quote from [legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com) ([POST=21960742]post #6[/POST]) actually defines “beyond a reasonable doubt” as “that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime”. This definition is consistent with mine, and perhaps this is not true of all people, but I am comfortable putting my life behind a conviction that is the _only_ logical explanation that can be derived from the facts. I will also point you to the federal jury instructions in effect for the Eleventh Circuit, which covers my state of Florida. **B3 [Definition of “Reasonable Doubt”](https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/FormCriminalPatternJuryInstructionsCurrentComplete.pdf?revDate=20190124)** The Government’s burden of proof is heavy, but it doesn’t have to prove a Defendant’s guild beyond all possible doubt. The Government’s proof only has to exclude any “reasonable doubt” concerning the Defendant’s guilt. A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based on your reason and common sense after you’ve carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in the case. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof so convincing that you would be willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. If you are so convinced that the Defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so. I think I once said beyond a reasonable doubt was beyond all possible doubt, I admit that I was wrong and would prefer the newer definition that you quoted: > [@The Trump Impeachment Inquiry](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3464): > > My idea of beyond a reasonable doubt is that it must satisfy the juror such that, if their life depended on the correctness of their finding, there would be no hesitation. The logic being that, arguably, the most important of one’s affairs is their own life. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/23 "2019-11-08T00:35:41Z")
You want people to be willing to risk their lives on the proposition that a politician is unfit for office. Disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/24 "2019-11-08T00:39:01Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > What if you took an oath to defend the Constitution and not your job of political party, and acted accordingly? Wouldn’t that be something. Yes, well I would much rather look at things that way too. But what effect does that oath have on the standard of proof? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/25 "2019-11-08T00:40:12Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Yes, and the Constitution allows for criminal hearings against the impeached after impeachment, so I’m not at all sure why placing a _higher_ standard prior to these trials needs to be done. Not higher, the same (I think?). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/26 "2019-11-08T00:43:49Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > To extend the work example, if I’m competing with a coworker for a promotion and I sabotage her work, spread rumors, etc in an attempt to better my chances at the job, and then that all gets exposed, I’d expect to be fired for breaking various codes of conduct of my employer. Then, if anything I did broke a law, I might expect my former coworker to file charges against me. But if there’s a chance that and employee actually wasn’t breaking any codes of conduct, would you (as the employer) still have the same reaction? Because that’s the part I’m talking about here. That’s the point where you, the employer, decide whether to cut the investigation short and kick them out, or keep building a stronger case. Of course real employers can use paid/unpaid leave which isn’t an option here. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/27 "2019-11-08T00:48:20Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Let me just say that in every presidential impeachment trial so far, the question of whether he did what he was accused of never arose. There was no doubt of the truth of the accusation and that was never the question. The question was always, was this an impeachable offense. And that is inherently political. So the first answer is the correct one. I don’t want to drag this thread off topic but there are some cases where an offense hinges on motivation or intent, for example abuse of authority (in my opinion) hinges on intent. So standards of proof come into play when determining intent. If you believe that there are no impeachable offenses that hinge on intent, I am willing to agree to disagree for the purposes of this thread. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/28 "2019-11-08T00:53:15Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > After articles of impeachment are voted by the House, the Senate trial is entirely a political affair, not a criminal process. The Senate will pretend to honor rules for the trial but there will be no “standard of truth”. The de facto standard will be: The prosecution presents enough nauseating evidence to give a senator cover for voting guilty. Expect each senator to vote for their own interests, which MIGHT intersect with some public or private interests. > > This assumes no events occur that may preclude the Senate trial. But that’s not the topic here. Nightmares are over yonder. Yes, I agree in the basic principle (affirmed multiple times in the past) that the individual Senators should be able to determine for themselves the appropriate standard of proof. I’m sure at least some of them will simply vote how they think their constituents want them to vote. I’m sure some of them will vote solely based on the party affiliation of the defendant (I’m looking at _you_, Mr. Scott! argh!). I’m not interested in those Senators. This question and thread is meaningless with regards to them. I’m looking for guidance as to how a Senator with some kind of principles might vote, or alternatively one who has no overriding incentive to vote either way. Maybe they don’t exist. In that case this is just a nice thought experiment… I guess it’s a thought experiment anyways, unless one of us is a Senator. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/29 "2019-11-08T01:07:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Just to cut through this contrived nonsense, you support likely criminals holding high office because you are not certain that they are criminals? I don’t support them, but I don’t support their removal. After all, removing a President is effectively overriding the electoral college - a major pillar of our particular republican government. It’s not something I want to do without being certain. > [@Ravenman](#): > > People used to agree that the appearance of impropriety - not felonies, just misdeeds - was the acceptable standard for public officials to hold themselves to. Now you propose to demolish that standard for the mostly highly restrictive one that we have as a society. I absolutely believe public officials _should_ hold themselves above the appearance of impropriety. I don’t think it should be forced into the system. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re literally putting removal from office on the same plane as sentencing someone to the death penalty. I think overriding a presidential election is that important. It’s a form of disenfranchisement, and I take the basic position that disenfranchisement on the scale of a presidential election is at least worth the caution taken when making a judgement of life and death. I do not extend this to nonpresidential impeachments, by the way. Possibly to the Vice President but I’m leaning towards not as important for him either. > [@Ravenman](#): > > This is a horrible, horrible idea that would debase our government and give carte blanche for politicians at every level to lower themselves to the standards of literal criminals. It’s such a horrible idea that is so clearly not thought through that it’s offensive to the whole concept of integrity in public life. But I’m not arguing that potential criminals should be above the law or immune from impeachment and conviction. I don’t see why or how you reached that conclusion. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/30 "2019-11-08T01:10:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You want people to be willing to risk their lives on the proposition that a politician is unfit for office. Disgusting. We can agree to disagree, or we can talk about it. I’m trying to keep an open mind. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/31 "2019-11-08T01:19:02Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t support them, but I don’t support their removal. After all, removing a President is effectively overriding the electoral college - a major pillar of our particular republican government. It’s not something I want to do without being certain. You would rather a likely criminal keep public office than a likely criminal be removed from office. That’s literally what you’re arguing. > [@](#): > > I absolutely believe public officials _should_ hold themselves above the appearance of impropriety. I don’t think it should be forced into the system. The system includes a mechanism removal from office. > [@](#): > > I think overriding a presidential election is that important. It’s a form of disenfranchisement, and I take the basic position that disenfranchisement on the scale of a presidential election is at least worth the caution taken when making a judgement of life and death. I think that’s putting politicians above the integrity of government. > [@](#): > > I do not extend this to nonpresidential impeachments, by the way. Possibly to the Vice President but I’m leaning towards not as important for him either. Oh boy, I can’t wait to hear from the Trump voter how special rules apply only to the President at this particular moment. > [@](#): > > But I’m not arguing that potential criminals should be above the law or immune from impeachment and conviction. I don’t see why or how you reached that conclusion. I read your arguments as being transparently in defense of the President, dressed up with some garnishes of tut-tutting and maybe a light finger-wag and maybe a furrowed brow, but devoid of any sense of holding public officials accountable for misdeeds in any kind of practical sense. You might as well argue that removal from office should be a unanimous decision, because criminal juries. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/32 "2019-11-08T01:32:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You would rather a likely criminal keep public office than a likely criminal be removed from office. That’s literally what you’re arguing. Yes, if it cannot be proved to my satisfaction, such that I would bet my life on it, [DEL]beyond a reasonable doubt[/DEL] that the likely criminal is, in fact, a criminal. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The system includes a mechanism removal from office. conceded. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I think that’s putting politicians above the integrity of government. We have another mechanism for preserving the integrity of government, and besides the voters have some discretion in who they elect to office. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Oh boy, I can’t wait to hear from the Trump voter how special rules apply only to the President at this particular moment. I don’t think this comment applies to me. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I read your arguments as being transparently in defense of the President, dressed up with some garnishes of tut-tutting and maybe a light finger-wag and maybe a furrowed brow, but devoid of any sense of holding public officials accountable for misdeeds in any kind of practical sense. Are you implying that beyond a reasonable doubt is an impractical standard? Or that my definition of it is? > [@Ravenman](#): > > You might as well argue that removal from office should be a unanimous decision, because criminal juries. I don’t think that would be desirable, because surely some politicians are actually corrupt or inept, and besides the Senate is not impartial. I want the system to work when the great majority of people, myself included, recognize that the President ought to go. I want the system to work when a great majority of people recognize the President ought to go, even _if_ I do not. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/33 "2019-11-08T01:47:58Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes, if it cannot be proved to my satisfaction, such that I would bet my life on it, [DEL]beyond a reasonable doubt[/DEL] that the likely criminal is, in fact, a criminal. Why should people bet willing their lives that someone with their finger on the nuclear trigger does not deserve office? If anything, shouldn’t we not give the benefit of the doubt to someone who can kill hundreds of millions of people within 25 minutes? > [@](#): > > We have another mechanism for preserving the integrity of government, and besides the voters have some discretion in who they elect to office. Gerald Ford was President for two and a half years and never stood before the American people in a national election. We shouldn’t pretend that he had the mandate of the people, nor should it be assumed that future Presidents will always have such. > [@](#): > > Are you implying that beyond a reasonable doubt is an impractical standard? You are proposing that a jury that is inherently biased be handcuffed to the strictest legal standard in a process that is meant to protect our system of government from harm from a single, imminently replaceable person who has the capability to do irreparable harm to not only the country but the world. Yes, it’s a terrible standard, and by adopting it, it is explicit permission for all future office holders to engage in a downward spiral of deceitful and dishonest behavior, since they will know they are essential immune from harm for four years. I want Presidents to be on their fucking toes that they aren’t ordained by God and they better watch themselves or their job is at risk. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/34 "2019-11-08T02:08:45Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t want to drag this thread off topic but there are some cases where an offense hinges on motivation or intent, for example abuse of authority (in my opinion) hinges on intent. So standards of proof come into play when determining intent. > > If you believe that there are no impeachable offenses that hinge on intent, I am willing to agree to disagree for the purposes of this thread. > > ~Max I don’t agree at all that abuse of authority hinges on intent. Especially when the person in question has very questionable morals and ethics. Abuse of authority can often happen simply from anger, confusion, and a complete and total lack of understanding of what his job is. In Trumps case, I think the abuse of authority (among his many, many crimes) comes from his past. **That’s Trumps business model.** Deny Threaten Lawsuits to muddy the waters and drag things out In some cases, pay off the hooker In others, well, we know about his BFF Putin Trump IS running the Oval Office like a business man. Only, he is a very corrupt and incompetent business man with many, many phycological problems. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/35 "2019-11-08T02:16:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why should people bet willing their lives that someone with their finger on the nuclear trigger does not deserve office? If anything, shouldn’t we not give the benefit of the doubt to someone who can kill hundreds of millions of people within 25 minutes? Maybe I’m not sensitive to this on account of my youth - having never done a bomb drill - but this just isn’t a concern for me. I’m thinking, that just won’t happen. He’s not that unstable and even if he was I trust our chain of command. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Gerald Ford was President for two and a half years and never stood before the American people in a national election. We shouldn’t pretend that he had the mandate of the people, nor should it be assumed that future Presidents will always have such. But I blame Nixon and Agnew for that - they practically admitted that it was their fault when they resigned. I wasn’t around back then but voters had no scapegoats to make (despite Nixon’s insistence on being innocent). They _resigned_. I’m for the impeachment at this point - I think the standard of impeachment itself is much much lower, probable cause maybe. We have that, for sure. I think it is premature to send articles to the Senate until the House has exhausted all avenues for building their case, or faces some pressing time limit (like the election next November). If Trump resigns right before he is impeached, boo hoo for him. I’ll have no sympathy. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You are proposing that a jury that is inherently biased be handcuffed to the strictest legal standard in a process that is meant to protect our system of government from harm from a single, imminently replaceable person who has the capability to do irreparable harm to not only the country but the world. Yes, it’s a terrible standard, and by adopting it, it is explicit permission for all future office holders to engage in a downward spiral of deceitful and dishonest behavior, since they will know they are essential immune from harm for four years. I think it’s the second strictest legal standard (the strictest being beyond all doubt), and I don’t believe the President can do more harm to this nation _without_ implicating himself under that standard than the nation did to itself by electing him. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I want Presidents to be on their fucking toes that they aren’t ordained by God and they better watch themselves or their job is at risk. So do I, but I don’t want them refusing to take a stand lest some partisan Congress remove them for a policy disagreement. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/36 "2019-11-08T02:24:34Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > Is the president an idiot? Yes. Evidence? Pick any 10 tweets. There’s your standard of proof in a Senate Impeachment trial. That’s what elections are for, not impeachments. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/37 "2019-11-08T02:38:29Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Maybe I’m not sensitive to this on account of my youth - having never done a bomb drill - but this just isn’t a concern for me. I’m thinking, that just won’t happen. He’s not that unstable and even if he was I trust our chain of command. Wait, so are you debating the standard of proof for removing Trump? Or are you arguing that all future Presidents who have command over nuclear weapons won’t be that unstable and you will trust all future chains of command? > [@](#): > > But I blame Nixon and Agnew for that - they practically admitted that it was their fault when they resigned. I wasn’t around back then but voters had no scapegoats to make (despite Nixon’s insistence on being innocent). They _resigned_. This has nothing to do with what I wrote. You argued that it should be hard to reverse elections. I’m making the point that Presidents are not always elected. Further, aren’t Vice Presidents also elected? > [@](#): > > So do I, but I don’t want them refusing to take a stand lest some partisan Congress remove them for a policy disagreement. The Constitution already addresses this fear. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/38 "2019-11-08T03:17:56Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Maybe I’m not sensitive to this on account of my youth - having never done a bomb drill - but this just isn’t a concern for me. …then perhaps you should be looking some of this history up. Whats happening right now in the Ukraine, whats happening in Korea, its all kinda related. It should be a concern for you. > [@](#): > > I’m thinking, that just won’t happen. He’s not that unstable LOL. We are talking about President Donald [“Shoot-em-in-the-leg-build-an-alligator-moat”](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-border-moat-alligators-migrants-893620/) Trump, right? > [@](#): > > and even if he was I trust our chain of command. Would you care to walk us all through this? If President Trump were to order a nuclear strike right now, who in the chain of command would have the lawful authority to countermand that order? ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/39 "2019-11-08T03:53:33Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m looking for guidance as to how a Senator with some kind of principles might vote, or alternatively one who has no overriding incentive to vote either way. I’d quip that “a Senator with some kind of principles” is oxymoronic but that’s too glib. Politicians do possess principles of sorts. But I expect any semi-rational politician to do what they feel will damage them the least. If that accords with their principles, fine. If their principles include rampant discrimination, not so fine. I don’t expect to see principles driving senators to commit political suicide. I don’t know of a senator with “no overriding incentive to vote either way”. But I don’t know them all. I’ve a feeling the ultimate “standard of proof” will be overwhelming constituent pressure. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/40 "2019-11-08T04:08:27Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If President Trump were to order a nuclear strike right now, who in the chain of command would have the lawful authority to countermand that order? Lawfully, nobody. Unlawfully, we’d have a coup, IMHO a cure only slightly better than the disease. But I’ll try to stay on-topic. If a presidential aide testifies that this POTUS talked of a “diversionary” attack, would that be evidence enough for the Senate to vote guilty? Or would a “standard of proof” require truth serum? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141.md?page=3)