"In logic and science, that which can be proven is true. That which can be disproven is false. That which cannot be proven is questionable. That which cannot be disproven is a belief, which is not science. At best, that's a legal-historical test, and there must be evidence to render a fair verdict. So when you want a hearing where the proposition has no evidence, and relies upon belief or doubt of the principle expressed based on will o' the wisp sympathies and pathos, rather than facts and a preponderance of evidence, what you're doing is either an inquisition, or a witch's trial." -AesopOr, a Senate hearing, which amounts to the same thing.
And following all historical precedent, the prosecution always provides the carrot for your nose.