What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial?

[Ravenman]

@Max_S

This goes with what we were discussing a couple weeks ago, in that removing an elected President is disenfranchising the states.

States have no absolute claim to a President when a lawful process is carried out. The states ought to be ashamed for electing a criminal.

Consider this: a conviction for treason requires a very, very high bar. The framers could have written in an exception, to say that treason has a lower bar for impeachment. They didn’t do that. You need two witnesses to an overt act of treason, there can’t be any doubt as to the treasonous nature of the act. Something like assembling a force of men with the intention of overthrowing the government, or actually joining the ranks of an enemy on an actual battlefield, or knowingly providing material aid such as a car and travel documents to an known spy. If a President does all of that, but you don’t find two witnesses, you can’t impeach him for treason.

That’s ridiculous. The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. You need two witnesses to criminally convict someone of treason. The idea of keeping a threat to the nation and its people in office because of a technicality of only having one witness to the President’s misdeeds is literally insane. I mean this respectfully, but I think you’ve lost touch with the real world here.