It speaks to what degree of certainty the fact finder that is evaluating formally admitted evidence should have before deciding that a fact relevant to the case is true. Preponderance of the evidence. which is the standard of proof used in civil cases like what we're seeing in these election contest suits, should be thought of as slightly more likely than not, or a slight tipping of the scales one way. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof and is used in criminal cases. The fact finder in a criminal trial (either a jury or a judge) must be convinced that all the elements of the prosecution's case have been proven beyond whatever reasonable doubts they might hold that they are not true.
IANAL but as I understand it the burden of proof is lesser in civil cases than in criminal. Basically, in a civil case, if we're talking about voter fraud the plaintiff just has to provide evidence that voter fraud is more probable than not. In a criminal case, you'd have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, in other words the prosecution would actually have to provide the fraudulent ballots and the evidence suggesting that this was malicious and intentional voter fraud.
Preponderance of evidence is just enough evidence to make it slightly more plausible than the opposite
It was an accurate assessment of the situation since 11 p.m. November 3rd when the counting stopped. It is a little unsettling to hear reality setting in from a massive shit talker like Trump, though. I think it's obvious from Trump's lack of public appearances lately that the stress of the steal has affected him in a characteristically un-Trumpian way.
Soon enough they'll be inventing entirely new languages to talk without getting merked by the bots
So the new internet language will be Esperanto?
Uhh no if the US government decides to censor you, you won't do anything because you aren't wealthy enough to fight it in court.
To some degree, but criminal offenses vary in gravity as do civil lawsuits, despite the standards staying nominally the same. The reasonable doubt standard is used in jaywalking trials and preponderance is used in multimillion dollar breach of contract suits. People are usually going to make decisions based upon how serious they perceive the issue to be, regardless of what they are told to do. I imagine that a judge evaluating whether to overturn election results and thereby impact the presidency of the country is going to need to be very thoroughly convinced by the evidence and not just rest on "well, the evidence slightly tilted one way!"
They have virtually zero chance of this. The rules say she can't knowingly lie in a lawsuit, and anyone who accuses her of doing so is going to need to back up that assertion with evidence of their own to the Texas Bar. Lawyers submit absolute horseshit to courts all the time in the form of motions they know for a fact have zero legal grounding or lawsuits they know they have very little chance of proving. They can (and do) always hide behind either "I was zealously advocating for my client," or "I believed after diligently looking into it, that my client was telling me the truth."
They're not disbarring her. They're not even going to try to disbar her. It's just some twatter troll talking shit as usual. Shit-talking on twatter is not 'in the course of representing a client' by any stretch
He's making fewer public appearances because the situation calls for him to make fewer public appearances. 1) He needs to stay in and man the battle stations and 2) he needs to not run his mouth in public (at least, not more than usual, anyway) and potentially give away key legal strategy.
What Cuomo said was the SCOTUS ruling was moot because he'd downgraded the Wu Flu tiers for places of worship before the case hit SCOTUS, for which SCOTUS rebuked him and made a ruling anyway saying, perhaps correctly, that POS Cuomo would decide to upgrade the tiers just as soon as SCOTUS decided not to hear the case. Similar thing happened in the gun case mentioned by Alito in his speech to the Federalist society. I think that was Cuomo as well. He's a real piece of shit and in a just world he'd be strung up.
I expect Biden to call himself the President no matter what. Stacey Abrams calls herself governor and she seems to have the real governor by the balls, so why not?
