Not sure if the standard of proof for the aspirant to office should be *preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), *criminal (beyond reasonable doubt), *clear and convincing, or * judicial notice (generally known or readily determined)

it seems everyone who believes or assumes that the people challenging DJT’s qualifications must prove their allegations have it backwards. Holding office is a privilege and those that seek that privilege bear the Constitutional burden to establish their eligibility for office.