Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

You've been asked a point blank question and perhaps you could provide a point blank answer: Should Kavs testifying under oath before the senate to answer allegations of sexual assault be extended the presumption of innocence? 

It does take a red herring and it doesn't take a smilely thingy: It takes a yes or no. 

Even though a civil case (what's that red birdy thing called) has nothing to do with the Kav situation; let me make sure I understand what you are saying on the last part counselor. Are you saying there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases? If you say No (I sincerely doubt you will provide a straight answer) then why must the plaintiff prove the preponderance?