The standards required to convict someone in a court of law have nothing to do with public discussion of the weight of evidence. Even in a court of law, there are different standards for different things. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is enough for a judge to recuse himself from a particular case. Perhaps it is too much to expect, after years of dumbing down in our public schools, that people will think about specific contexts, instead of mindlessly repeating rhetoric. The context of a courtroom proceeding is entirely different from the context in which political judgments are made.
Different contexts mean different standards.
Outside the courtroom, we are talking about whether the country or the president should be given the benefit of the doubt. Since the country and its standards are far more important, it was right that Richard Nixon had to resign the highest office in the land, without a single thing having been proved against him in a court of law. Regardless of what does or does not happen to Bill Clinton, we are in big trouble if we allow the spin-masters to confuse us into thinking that no one should be punished for what someone else has done before. Everything from jay- walking to genocide has been done before. We may as well stop punishing anyone for anything if that is our standard.