Who has the burden of proof? Ford or Kavanaugh?
If this were a criminal trial the accuser would have the burden of proof…
but this is no trial…
this is a JOB INTERVIEW. Right?
In job interviews, candidates are routinely disqualified for not being able to prove their innocence.
Added (1). they are routinely disqualified by a standard of "more likely than not" like it is in CIVIL court.
Ford.
Ford.
"Routinely disqualified for not being able to prove their innocence"?
While a company is not bound to "innocent until proven guilty", I find your claim highly unlikely.
The accuser is responsible for proving his or her claim.
Ford
Kavanaugh has a history of addictive behaviors and a criminal disregard for the law
Kavanaugh has a slew of character witnesses supporting him who actually know him called references. Ford does not. In a job interview, the one with stellar references would get the job.
In American law, the accuser. In the gestapo-mentality of the left, the accusation must be disproved. That being impossible (a negative can't be proven) they simply level a false charge and condemn.
But we know this is all contrived by Democrats who learned to lie by the Russians.
Stop the Kavanaugh accusations, it's a bunch of BS!
The fact that he perjured himself during the hearings indicates that he can't be trusted with the truth, and this is just another statement on his character and one more reason, of many, that he needs to be disqualified.
- When Feinstein can't say everything Ford said was truthful proof truth and the welfare of this country doesn't matter to her? An honorable person would have started this process in July and would have spent time proving the content… Not seeing if it could delay the process when everything else failed miserably.
- What makes you think kavanaugh is guilty with no real proof? I mean everyone Ford claimed was with her denies any such event. Why would you ever believe her? Just because she's a women claiming to be victimized doesn't make her right… Or am I wrong?
- Libs, so what is the bare minimum proof we should have to ruin Kavanaugh's and Ford's lives? At this point we have a story from a politician, claiming that she heard a story from a constituent, about a possible situation from 35 years ago when everyone was a minor. Is that the kind of proof you want in order to ruin lives, or do you just not care. Whatever it takes, that is what it takes. RESIST at all costs.
- Kavanaugh has a legal background AND is being prepared by top notch lawyers for Monday's interview. Ford has no chance against? Them even if she tells the truth. Is she right to insist on an FBI investigation to support her claims? The SC can do with only 8 justices for a while.