10-05-2018, 05:42 PM
(10-05-2018, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your notion that someone testifying under oath should not be extended the presumption of innocence when they are accused of a crime has been noted. I suppose this also means you feel that the burden of proof does not lie with the accuser.
Actually I have said about 5 times that a person in a criminal trial is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Don't know what that has to do with a senate confirmation hearing. The only reason the presumption of innocence applies in criminal trials is because the defendants liberty and maybe even life is in jeopardy.
Funny how we have had civil trials all of these years with neither side entitled to an assumption of innocence without destroying the fabric of this country.
Also have no idea what that has to do with burden of proof. Seems you are just saying all kinds of crazy shit out of total desperation.
