TAPPER, CNN: Doesn't Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?
HIRONO: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.
Well give her credit for directness. According to Senator Hirono, Brett Kavanaugh is not protected by the United States Constitution. He does not enjoy the presumption of innocence. Kavanaugh is guilty because his opponents say he is guilty. That is Senator Hirono's position. She's proud of it. She's become a folk hero on the left for saying that.
Watch her say it again on Monday.
HALLIE MARIE JACKSON, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NBC NEWS, ANCHOR,
MSNBC: Can you clarify what you meant? Do you believe Judge Kavanaugh doesdeserve a presumption of innocence or not?
HIRONO: Look, we're not in a court of law. We're actually in a Court ofCredibility at this point. And without having the -- the FBI report or some semblance of trying to get corroboration, we are left with the credibility of the two witnesses.
Oh, a Court of Credibility. Now, Senator Hirono didn't explain exactly what a Court of Credibility is, though you can be sure you wouldn't ever want to be tried in one, though at this rate, sorry, you may be.
If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Brett Kavanaugh, it probably doesn't apply to you either. It all depends on what Mazie Hirono thinks of your political views. If she agrees with you, you'll be fine. If not, you won't be fine.
Keep in mind that once you've been accused in this new Court of Credibility, you're responsible for proving yourself innocent. It's your job to un-convict yourself. If that sounds like a mirror image of our actual justice system, you're right. It is.
For more than a 1,000 years, the burden of proof in the West has fallen on the accuser. In our country, that would be the government. If they say you did it they have to prove that you did it. But, not anymore.
Here's Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Monday morning explaining how the new system works:
“We have a constitutional duty to get to the bottom of these allegations. They are serious, and credible. And now, the person with the most knowledge about them, namely, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them.”
Got that? We accuse you of a felony. Your job is to show you're innocent. You're a sex criminal, prove you're not.
Senator Blumenthal went to Yale Law School. Did he learn that concept in his classes there?
Probably not.
It's a new idea but it's also a very old idea. It was common during the medieval period where the accused also had a "responsibility" to come forward with evidence to rebut the charges against them. Heretics who survived torture sometimes got declared innocent. Hurray.
But there's a flip side to the new system. Because the accused are guilty by definition, the accuser suddenly have no responsibility to make credible claims. And we're seeing that principle in action too.
