Why would Kavanaugh testify before his accuser? Isn't there burden of proof on Ford?

Why would Kavanaugh testify before his accuser? Isn't there burden of proof on Ford?

There = the

According to the Dems, no, the burden of proof is on the accused.

Ford isn't a prosecutor, dingbat. Get your ducks in line?

This is just stalling till the Midterms. And it will back fire.

That's like putting the cart before the wheel. The Judiciary will not agree with that, because it's illogical.

It's not a trial; it's a job interview.

None of these legal considerations apply, here.

The basic judiciary structure of this country is to protect the right's of the accused because they have the most on the line. There's supposed to be a presumption of innocence. It isn't a presumption of innocence unless it doesn't align with your political needs.

Because this isn't a trial and there's no burden of proof assigned by law. Senators could vote against him if they don't like his haircut.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. There's no need for anyone to prove *any* crime for the senate to vote to reject his appointment. As Yavan pointed out, a confirmation hearing is a job interview.

In a supreme court confirmation the burden of everything is on the nominee.