I feel like I can be of help on this notion. For those that don't have a legal background, there is actually no explicit guarantee of "innocent until proven guilty" established in the US Constitution. Instead case law and precedent from the Supreme Court have established the notion as a combined part of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment. There is no dispute in American legal precedent that there is presumption of innocence.

However, this doesn't mean the idea isn't misinterpreted. Presumption of innocence is ONLY a guarantee for criminal defendants. To better place that in the wording of the Constitution, such manners of due process are only guaranteed when life, liberty, or property are at stake. Finally, it must be a government actor that seeks to seize life, liberty, or property.

In Judge Kavanaugh's case, he is not a criminal defendant nor is a government actor seeking to seize his life, liberty, or property. Judge Kavanaugh is not owed this presumption. Frankly, as a Judge, he knows in this setting he isn't owed much of anything. However, Senate committee rules due try to provide some forms of due process to have a fair hearing when questioning nominees. 

For a lot of good reasons which I wont' get into here, presumption of innocence has little worth outside of the criminal context. Civil cases do not have this presumption for instance. Really it is meant to be a check on the executive branch to prevent unfair trials and proceedings where the government already enjoys more power. 

Didn’t mean to say they were, but they are investigating a serious crime (as opening statement indicates), so apart from needing to rephrase my closing statement, everything before it still stands.

Federal Bureau of _____________ (full in the blank)

Go on. Fill it. I believe in you. I’ll give you a hint: it’s the “I” in “FBI”.

The bitch is clearly lying. I think this will be the point where this metoo crap finally dies. It may have started with good intentions but as with everything third wave feminists just ruin it. Too many innocent men have been dragged into this and have had their reputations ruined.

You might be right about that, but it is still wrong and morally bankrupt to condemn someone when there is no evidence that they did something wrong, especially this serious.

I'm surprised that this thread has been (so far) so civil and even more surprised at the support shown for Kavanagh. I live in Europe so the idea of a new supreme court justice who will support the power of the president and overturn a woman's right to choose is not exactly appetising to me. That said, the guy seems qualified for the role and there aren't many people on earth who can do the job. If he were (still) a sexual predator we'd know by now and they wouldn't need to go back to his high school behavior to turn up something against him.

If I were guessing I'd say Kavanagh doesn't seem like he was a very nice young man. If the FBI can turn something up that merits prosecution then all bets will be off, but with the standard of proof needed for charges to be brought, I doubt anything will come of it. He should certainly be allowed to go ahead to a vote on the floor of the Senate absent a lot more evidence. I think the extra week's vetting was a sensible compromise.

Congratulations!  I knew you could do it.

Thanks for not Banning me over my opinion. Resetera did so and called it trolling a sensitive topic. Everyone in there was defending Ford so I defended Kavanaugh. I hope that site implodes if he's elected. 

I honestly believe (can't prove 100%) that Ford is lying. However, the biggest losers are the Democrats. Using this as a way to postpone the vote for their own benefit is really screwed up.