[Trumpisourlastchance]

As a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, she seems focused on creating reasonable doubt. To change an election, you need more than a reasonable doubt, you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was fraud or illegality that changed the reported outcome.

[Eccl 10:2]

“To change an election, you need more than a reasonable doubt, you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was fraud or illegality that changed the reported outcome.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Other way around. The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case (preponderance of evidence) than in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Think OJ trials.

[erkelly]

“Beyond a reasonable doubt’” is the standard criminal cases and is a significantly higher standard than preponderance of the evidence which is the standard for civil cases.

[KevinB]

To change an election, you need more than a reasonable doubt, you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was fraud or illegality that changed the reported outcome.

Preponderance of the evidence means greater than 50% certainty. Nobody knows for sure what beyond a reasonable doubt is, but it's certainly above 90% certainty. So preponderance of the evidence is a much lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.

[shanover]

NOTHING burgers since 2016.