The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that.
And the prosecutor who interviewed her said that she would not have filed this case, or been able to obtain a subpoena, with what Ford has. Which is absolutely no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and a story that lacks any key details and has changed over the past few months. It's why the FBI originally turned down the chance to look into it. Dems knew this and that's why they knew they had to get Trump to order the investigation.
So, I'll believe her and the FBI over you, thank you very much.
Well you are allowed to do that. Your belief in them comes from a basic misunderstanding of the legal system as to what the prosecutor is talking about and the lens they are looking through of whether or not they would file charges. For instances, prosecutors have an ethical duty to not pursue charges if they don't think they could prove every element at trial. Thus, before bringing charges, they are making an ethical assessment of whether or not they could prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. If they don't think they can do that, then they can't ethically pursue an indictment. The standard is then taken in a different direction when it goes before a grand jury (if there is a grand jury) in there needs to be probable cause that a crime occurred. This means, would a reasonable person of reasonable caution believe that a crime more than likely occurred.
In a civil proceeding, a plaintiff needs to show that there is enough factual allegations to state a claim is plausible on its face. If a plaintiff shows this, a defendant MUST respond otherwise they risk default judgment.
You also have a pretty large misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence, what corroboration means, and how to obtain a subpoena. However, that's really not necessary for this discussion. Be happy to explain more if you want. Just send me a message :)