Kavanaugh: Evidence needed to prove guilt

Re: “I won’t lose sleep over fairness for Kavanaugh,” (Leonard Pitts column, 9/19).

Excuse me, Leonard Pitts, but where is the phrase “credibly accused” found in our Constitution?

When you vilify people based on one accusation, and threaten to destroy their careers, you are treading on very thin ice.

Anita Hill’s lone accusation against Clarence Thomas was contradicted by at least 12 witnesses, who testified that he was a good boss who never swore, told dirty jokes or harassed his employees.

Former colleagues also testified that Hill had a friendly relationship with Thomas and even asked him to write her a recommendation.

The witness cited by Kavanaugh’s accuser has refused to corroborate her story. There are no other witnesses and no other evidence. She can’t even remember where the alleged incident took place.

It’s also suspicious when such accusations conveniently become public during a Supreme Court nomination.

Is it possible this traumatic event occurred? Sure. Is it possible that the accuser’s memory is faulty? Of course.

Should American citizens be denied the choice of an intelligent, experienced, moderate, well-vetted Supreme Court judge because of a single, unproven accusation? No.

By the way, the women in the Salem witch trials were also considered “credibly accused.”