[Zeneta]

Just curious,

These repeated statements by Comey, “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

Does this standard actually exist for cases like this?

[Don Hernando de Las Casas]

To convict, certainly you need proof beyond a reas. doubt. To criminally refer or even indict, you need NOTHING even close to that. Indeed, to “prove” anything, you need a jury or a judge—the referral or indictment stage clearly does not involve either.

[al baby]

“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

I thought that was for a jury to decide not the head of the FBI

[Cboldt]

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies to the quality of the evidence, and the counter-evidence, at trial. It is the standard for conviction, not for prosecution.

The legal standard that the FBI uses to forward a file to the DOJ is "probable cause" a crime was committed.

[martinidon]

I didn’t think it was up to the FBI to determine reasonable doubt.

[Yaelle]

statements by Comey, “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

Does this standard actually exist for cases like this?

---

I would say that such a value only applies to deliberation in a criminal case. Cummy is a COP. He sees any EVIDENCE for a crime, he recommends indictment by attorneys. It’s not his place to play jury!