,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
One of my key questions: What standard of evidence/burden of proof did Mueller use for establishing facts as crimes?
The Mueller Report refers to the burden "beyond a reasonable doubt" 10 times, some about whether to charge Russian contacts as crimes. That's very important...
The Mueller Report refers to the burden "beyond a reasonable doubt" 10 times, some about whether to charge Russian contacts as crimes. That's very important...
2/ Several of those references are in the charging conclusions, e.g., about whether to charge the participants in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a felony or to charge perjury... See Vol 1, p. 180s-190.
So when Mueller Report says they declined to charge X as a crime...
So when Mueller Report says they declined to charge X as a crime...
3/ ... SCO regularly used the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" for its legal conclusions.
So when SCO concluded that it could not establish conspiracy with Russian govt, it seems likely its standard was generally proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."
So when SCO concluded that it could not establish conspiracy with Russian govt, it seems likely its standard was generally proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."
4/ That's the right consideration for indicting in this high-stakes context - beyond reasonable doubt, not just probable cause.
But that's not the standard for political accountability or impeachment.
There is sufficient evidence in this report to find a criminal conspiracy.
But that's not the standard for political accountability or impeachment.
There is sufficient evidence in this report to find a criminal conspiracy.
