Presumption of Innocence vs Presumption of Lying

[fredonly]

Republican supporters of Brett Kavanaugh have argued that he deserves a presumption of innocence. An accusation should not be treated as proof of guilt. I agree with this sentiment.

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy]

It would appear that yes, their position is consistent. When there are credible accusations they call for an investigation and for the person in question to resign.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics ... index.html

What do you think they should do AgnosticBoy? Do you think they should dig in like Republicans did on Kavanaugh?

My position or philosophy is that making an accusation does not automatically mean that you're telling the truth. For an accusation to proven truthful, it must involve more than just hearsay. That's what I saw lacking in the Kavanaugh case - something more than just hearsay. Otherwise, any woman can accuse any man at an opportune time of sexual assault just to ruin him.

With that laid out, I do like the fact that some Democrats are being consistent, but there's still a problem with the standard if all we have is hearsay. The accuser's "words" alone should not be the source of all evidence. Ideally, there should be witnesses corroborating the attack, physical evidence, police reports, etc.

AS to your questions, I believe this should be investigated for any available evidence. If there's not enough to make a case, then the Lt. Governor should not have to face any consequences. The reason Republicans stuck with Justice Kavanaugh is because there was not enough to make a case against him.