Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
The evidence does not exist.
It's all he said/she said.
Does the burden of proof apply to the accusers?
Are they assumed to be telling the truth until proven to be lying?
It is not possible for Judge Kavanaugh to prove a negative.
Yes, it is he said/she said, however everyone of those Dr. Ford named as witnesses to her travail have refuted her. Every one.
Yes, in a system founded upon the principle, innocent until proven guilty, the accuser is tasked with proving their allegations.
The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth when the preponderance of evidence backs up their charges.
Just a coincidence, I'm sure . . .
The Moral-Panic Phase
In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that they were harmed... the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty...
The whole reason the Democrats kept pushing that this was not a court of law is so they could claim presumption of guilt... When I heard Sen. Coons say that it was up to Kavanaugh to provide EVIDENCE that he did not do it - I about fell out of my chair... How the Hell does one provide evidence that you did not do something - you can not prove a negative.... The only person who can provide evidence that something happened to them, is the accuser.. Theoretical case in point: A bank is robbed.. There are cameras to prove it was robbed.. You can't just go up to any 'ole Tom, Dick, or Harry on the street and demand that they provide evidence that they did not rob the bank... We have laws that are suppose to protect people from being randomly accused of crimes...
Oh, and just in case you hadn't heard, hypnosis to uncover "memories" is not allowed in a Court of Law anymore than a polygraph test as both are unreliable... It's too easy to implant a false memory under hypnosis and too easy to fake polygraph results...
We were not allowed to see the psychologist's notes from 2012 when Ford suddenly and mysteriously "remembered" her attacker was Kavanaugh... Somehow, this "memory" was uncovered... Since Ford's lawyer's jumped in and wouldn't let her testify how this memory was uncovered and wouldn't let the psychologist's notes be revealed... hmmmmm.... they kept this knowledge hidden for a reason...
I saw his testimony very differently.
I saw a belligerent, spoiled child blaming everybody and crying "poor me".
Most women just don't come forward - whether it's sexual assault or just a regular assault.
This is something men just cannot wrap their heads around. And not in a sexist way. I just think men tackle a situation where they have been wronged differently to women.
But perhaps you could relate if the accuser was a straight man.
Did you know that if a man is anally raped he will get an erection for the simple reason that the prostate will be stimulated? That would seriously mess with the victim's head, and they would likely not come forward.
It is easier to just push the pain down and move on with your life.
But then to see that man being given serious power? I think that would make your blood boil.