The suggestion is sardonic of course. But it vividly points out how much sense the mere “preponderance of evidence” standard makes. If the seesaw does not swing one way then it swings the other, except in the rare case of an exact balance.
It leads to the other extreme: The seriousness of the charges themselves demands action, regardless of the evidence. Now where have we heard that before? A “high tech lynching” of a Supreme Court Justice who happens to lurk here occassionally.