The AP article in post #248 milks Barr's statement (or tiny portion thereof) to support their point of view. If I understand the situation correctly, Barr's frame of reference is criminal prosecution. The standard of evidence for criminal prosecution is considerably higher than in a civil case...."beyond the shadow of a doubt" versus "the preponderance of the evidence".
I wonder as state legislatures consider whether or not to certify the results of their elections if perhaps their reasonable standard of proof will be somewhat lower than even a civil case.
of course it's lower for the politicians, that is why trump is going this route instead of pushing the courts harder. The people listening to the so-called evidence want to believe it.
And, if the bar is lower for a civil case, why has trump not won any really?