Beyond a reasonable doubt. Which they are not even close to producing.
How about providing some credible evidence that this might be plausible. That is not enough to derail someone’s life and career, but they haven’t even met this minimal standard.
The reasonable and rational doubt is the detailed description of the house near the airport and the football player resident that resembles Brett.
Absent any believable testimony to the contrary, the mentioned facts are not only real and true but damning
Not anymore. The standard is now: “Listen and Believe!!!”
I'll go lower than that...let's start with credible. In this instance, the alleged "victim" cannot produce a credible accusation with specifics. No names, no place in particular. She won't name names because that opens it up to refutation by the other attendee's. This is strictly a political hit job, and there is no reason to take it seriously.
This isn't a criminal hearing. I think beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard to apply in this case. I'd be fine with a preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard in this situation. Ignoring the immediate case, as a general rule, I would be uncomfortable putting someone on the Supreme Court if I felt there was a reasonably good chance that he or she was involved in inappropriate behavior.
The only "evidence" she has is her accusation. Of course, that is offset by Judge Kavanaugh's denial. So we're back at zero. Long ways from even reaching the standard of preponderance of the evidence.