More likely than not = Preponderance of the evidence.
It absolutely is a legal standard.
It’s also what was at issue regarding the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege at issue here with the e-mails.
It’s fine to disagree with the ruling, but making up nonsense like “’more likely than not’ is not a legal finding” isn’t helpful.
I appreciate your reply. I am not a lawyer.
Just what is a California federal district judge doing ruling on a supposed action by a President then resident in Washington? This is political interference by a Clinton appointed judge.
Thank you. I’m thinking this leaves Trump exposed Civil but not Criminal, yes?
Not a lawyer but this judge’s ruling seems to be shading the preponderance of evidence standard with more opinion than fact when it comes President Trump.