Are they all that is required to prove guilt these days or do we need corroboration and is the burden of proof still on the accuser or the accused?

Depends Boris. In a Criminal case, proof is required and must be beyond reasonable doubt.

In an employment situation (as YOU well know) the employer/interviewer has complete latitude to set whatever standards/parameters they choose.

In the case of a SCOTUS nominee, the standards are completely reversed. The accuser has NO standard, no hurdles. Just tell what they believe to be the truth.

The standards are on the accused. The accused (He OR she) must be held to the standard the American Public requires of the position.
In the case of a S.C. nominee, I think the 1st (MOST ELEMENTAL) requirement should be truth and transparency under oath.
Kavanaugh gave us neither!

You need to go to prison bobby. I remember you attacking my neighbors 15 year old daughter.

I remembered it from my last recall therapy session.

I WANT AN FBI INVESTIGATION!

And if you don't give it to me.....I'll harass you all the way to the elevator.

I remember once the coach was in Gym.

And Jim my buddy was there. .And coach Jim got into Jim in the Gym.

It was 36 years ago.

The last time I saw an F investigating my B was in my eye.

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Are they all that is required to prove guilt these days or do we need corroboration and is the burden of proof still on the accuser or the accused?

Guilt should be proven. Lack of proof should not mean dismissal.

I don't care what they say....that's one hot ***.

Posted by tangplay on 9/29/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Are they all that is required to prove guilt these days or do we need corroboration and is the burden of proof still on the accuser or the accused?

Guilt should be proven. Lack of proof should not mean dismissal.

????

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 11:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/29/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Are they all that is required to prove guilt these days or do we need corroboration and is the burden of proof still on the accuser or the accused?

Guilt should be proven. Lack of proof should not mean dismissal.

????

I agree that guilt needs to be proven, not assumed. However, if someone does not have proof when they come forward, it is still possible for them to be a credible/valid source.

Posted by tangplay on 9/29/2018 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 11:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/29/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Are they all that is required to prove guilt these days or do we need corroboration and is the burden of proof still on the accuser or the accused?

Guilt should be proven. Lack of proof should not mean dismissal.

????

I agree that guilt needs to be proven, not assumed. However, if someone does not have proof when they come forward, it is still possible for them to be a credible/valid source.

How is that fair to the accused?

I figure a couple of folks around here have been waiting for me to be fair to Jester Trump. Well, touche! I have finally found agreement with the POTUS.

AND, (surprisingly) it's in our take/view of Judge Kavanaugh's whiny testimony Thursday Afternoon.

Trump has (repeatedly) called it "incredible". I completely AGREE with him.

The ONLY "New College Edition" of "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (1981 edition) definition of incredible (somebody should furnish him a dictionary) is "Unbelievable"

I agree with TRUMP!

polygraph tests are used by fbi and cia and other federal divisions every day......for various reasons including job interviews....if the fbi asked kavenaugh to take a polygraph test he must comply.
the fbi should administer 2 polygraph tests to ford and kavenaugh.

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/30/2018 8:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/29/2018 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 11:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/29/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/29/2018 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Are they all that is required to prove guilt these days or do we need corroboration and is the burden of proof still on the accuser or the accused?

Guilt should be proven. Lack of proof should not mean dismissal.

????

I agree that guilt needs to be proven, not assumed. However, if someone does not have proof when they come forward, it is still possible for them to be a credible/valid source.

How is that fair to the accused?

How is it not fair?

Posted by dino27 on 9/30/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
polygraph tests are used by fbi and cia and other federal divisions every day......for various reasons including job interviews....if the fbi asked kavenaugh to take a polygraph test he must comply.
the fbi should administer 2 polygraph tests to ford and kavenaugh.

I disagree. Polygraph tests are unreliable.

they are ruled inadmissible for trials.....they are considered reliable by fbi and cia - OFFICIALLY - and employees are obligated by law to take them...furthermore , kavenaugh himself has ruled in a decision that they are valid and useful tools by the federal government....you can look it up.

On this issue. Kavanaugh has agreed to "participate" in this new 7 day "limited in scope" FBI investigation. He has NOT taken a polygraph as to the allegations brought forth by Dr. Ford (or anyone else!). He will almost certainly be asked to do so.

Dr. Ford has a "current" (recently taken) polygraph examination result AND the examiner at hand, who will (almost certainly) be questioned by the FBI as a part of this investigation. She will, with reasonable cause, refuse to take another test (most likely) due to the (claimed) stress they cause. MOST folks will accept her refusal (IF she does refuse to take another test) as reasonable IMO.

Kavanaugh will then be placed in the position of:

1. Taking the test.
or
2. Looking VERY guilty and evasive.

Trump is back pedaling so hard at this very minute I am literally amazed.
HIS performance is incredible!