So, Donuel,

You require him to prove his innocence, not for Ford to prove him guilty.


So if I were to accuse you of something vile, you would agree you must prove me wrong, and I do not need to prove you guilty?

Or do you set yourself above the law that you apply to Kavanaugh?


"Literally anyone can make an accusation -- especially an accusation about something that happened 36 years ago. And it's especially hard for someone accused of something from so long ago to mount a defense or provide an alibi.

Also, if she has a false memory of something that happened so long ago, or even a partially false memory, she would not be the first.

These are all reasons why corroboration is especially important in this case. And here's another: This isn't just about the "privilege," as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., put it, of sitting on the court. This is now about Kavanaugh's entire life and good name, as well as that of his family. If he isn't confirmed, it's over for him. By springing these accusations on him at the last minute, Democrats have backed him into a corner. He will be disgraced and ruined if he isn't confirmed.

Ford's story, taken in isolation, sounds like a plausible account of something that might have happened. What it needs to become accepted fact is corroboration. And no one, including the people Ford has named as witnesses, remembers a party or gathering like the one she describes. She doesn't remember the month or day of the incident. She doesn't remember how she got back to her home -- not a small issue in pre-Uber suburban Montgomery County for someone who lacks a driver's license. The original therapists' notes about the event described an attack by four men and not two.

In similar fashion, no one can confirm Deborah Ramirez's account of Kavanaugh exposing himself to her at Yale, even though several people would have had to see that happen by her own account.

And that's also worth pointing out specifically: It's not just the "in private" part of these allegations that no one corroborates -- it's also the "in public" part.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/christine-ford-is-a-sympathetic-witness-but-that-cant-overcome-the-lack-of-corroboration-t