In the Democratic kangaroo court, the burden of proof is on the accused -- when he's a Republican.
On today's MTP Daily, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) proclaimed "I believe Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez," despite the lack of corroborating witnesses. They don't have to prove these allegations, the senator said:
"It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations, rather than Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez."
Coons claimed that "if we really were interested in getting to the truth here, both parties would be recognizing that Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez have nothing to gain. In fact, by bravely coming forward with these allegations, by volunteering to be interviewed by the FBI, they're putting themselves at legal risk and they've already suffered some impacts for them for and their families."
MSNBC host Katy Tur didn't challenge Coons on the burden of proof. She moved on to liberal-agenda questions, including 1) Did Michael Avenatti reach out the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats with his alleged Kavanaugh victims? and 2) If the Democrats take the Senate, will they move to impeach Kavanaugh if he's confirmed? Coons pointed out the House would have to impeach, and the Senate would vote to remove. To which Tur replied, "Certainly, not a no, sir?" Coons said "that's right."
In the subsequent panel discussion, Tur eventally found a fraction of fairness and pointed out that putting the burden on the accused is "not the way the legal system works," Jason Johnson of The Root trotted out the Dem talking point: "There's no burden of proof because it's a job interview, not a trial."
I wonder how Johnson would feel if he went to a job interview, was confronted with these kinds of allegations, and was informed that the burden was on him to disprove them?