Liberals Trample US Law in Kavanaugh Frenzy

Many anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh activists, media skunks and even Democrat US senators are declaring Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh guilty of sexual assault even before any evidence has been presented.

It is important to remember that the allegations against judge Kavanaugh are not a court case. His confirmation is more like a job interview. But under American law a hearsay accusation like the one against Kavanaugh is not even allowed in court without “evidence” to back it up. Therefore it should not be allowed in a Supreme Court confirmation unless the accuser presents compelling evidence.

In the case of judge Roy Moore in Alabama a female accused Moore of indecent touching in 1977 when she was only 14 but never presented any evidence. That case never would have held up in even a local court case. But the accusation did its work – Moore lost the election.

Here is Democrat US senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who is a former state attorney general from Rhode Island and a former US attorney, talking about the charge against Kavanaugh:

… There has been exactly zero investigation of this incident. The claims were only brought forward recently when this very courageous woman decided to identify herself and make her claims public and specific. And the FBI have never looked at them. There have never been statements taken of the victim, of the alleged participants, of anybody else who was in the house. Nothing yet has been said about it that is even under oath. This has been a charade, an absolutely disgraceful failure of process.

This statement is absurd since there was no public knowledge about this incident until September 14, 2018. Thus FBI should cannot be rushed into investigating something that had never seen the light of day until just seven days ago in a case that would not even be under the jurisdiction of the FBI anyway (it would be under the jurisdiction of the local police where the alleged assault took place).

It is plain to see that Democrats are seeking to blow this case up to smear judge Kavanaugh as much as possible.

Nikitas3.com predicts that a clear majority of the American public – and 51 US senators – will reject these accusations as false. This already appears to be coming true. Nikitas3.com believes that judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

Meanwhile the accuser is demanding that Kavanaugh be forced to testify before she presents her side of the story. Yet going back to the New Testament of the Holy Bible, and through almost 2,000 years thereafter the law in advanced Western societies has said in one way or another that the accused gets to hear and even to face the accuser before testifying. After all the accused cannot very well respond to accusations that are not known.

Nikitas3.com believes that accuser Christine Ford should testify and then the Senate should vote to confirm judge Kavanaugh unless Ford offers direct, compelling and irrefutable evidence that this assault happened.

After all Ford’s charge appears to be a last minute effort to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation and is very suspicious. She should not be given the benefit of the doubt. Judge Kavanaugh should. His life has been a public record. Ford’s life has not. Look at what else senator Whitehouse said:

It just makes absolutely no sense at all. Anybody who has done cases before, particularly cases involving sexual assault, understands that you don’t just interview the victim. You look for corroborating statements. You interview other witnesses who were present. You look for whether there’s any lingering physical or other evidence. You look for corroborating statements by the witness. You look for a whole array of evidence that puts the case together.

There was one corroborating statement so far by a classmate of the Kavanaugh accuser who said that she had heard about the assault 36 years ago when it allegedly happened… yet she withdrew her statement after public scrutiny.

Meanwhile an analysis of the yearbook from the elite prep school that the accuser attended, shown here, shows girls involved in heavy binge drinking, promiscuous sex and racism. So Nikitas3.com will compare that behavior to the decorous life of judge Kavanaugh any day.

Then Whitehouse says, “You interview others who were present”.

Well, the accuser already has said that a young man named Mark Judge was in the room at the time of the assault but in a public statement Judge says that he was not there and that he does not recall any such party or assault.

Whitehouse says: “You look for whether there’s any lingering physical or other evidence.”

Senator, there is not going to be ‘lingering’ evidence from something that happened 36 years ago. And this is a case where the accuser does not even remember where it happened or even the year that it happened.

Meanwhile Juanita Broaddrick remembers every detail of Bill Clinton’s alleged rape (not an assault like judge Kavanaugh is being accused of but a rape) including the date, the place and even what Clinton said to her. But Democrats have ignored her story for more than 20 years. Look at what else Whitehouse says:

You have to think that in the ordinary course, you know, the defendant, the suspected assailant, gets the benefit of the doubt in a criminal proceeding – has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in this case, this is a person who wants to be on the United States Supreme Court and is in a position to say, because I want to be on the Supreme Court, I want to make sure that I live a life that shows the importance of real, proper process.

So in other words, under left-wing American law the ‘suspected assailant’ always seems to get the benefit of the doubt if, say, he is a terrorist or murderer or illegal alien drug dealer but not if he is a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court with an impeccable life who already has passed six FBI investigations.

This is all vile and shocking. Democrats have totally thrown our American justice system overboard. And this, friends, is part of the Democrat party’s incremental attack on Western law, decency, truth, justice and honesty.

The Washington Free Beacon reports about another Democrat US senator who graduated from UCLA school of law:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) on Thursday said that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is not behaving like an “innocent person” because he has not asked the FBI to investigate a sexual assault charge made against him as a high-schooler.

Again, this charge against judge Kavanaugh only came up on September 14 and Kavanaugh denies that it happened. So why should he ask for an investigation? And within one week? And from an agency that does not probe local issues like sexual assault?

More importantly the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note where it says:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

In other words you do not have to participate in a criminal investigation of yourself like asking the FBI to investigate you, i.e., you are allowed to demand that others prove your guilt. This is a form of self-defense that the Constitution guarantees in a nation of fair Western laws. Gillibrand should know this but obviously does not since she is just a political hack and not a lawyer or legal scholar.

Look at this from the Free Beacon:

Gillibrand and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) appeared at a press conference along with fellow alumni of Holton-Arms, the elite prep school that (Kavanaugh accuser) Christine Blasey Ford attended.

… The first woman who spoke graduated (from Holton-Arms) in 2005; Ford has said she believes the assault occurred in 1982.

After some of the alumni spoke, Gillibrand took the microphone and delivered a fiery speech in which she said she believes Ford because “she’s telling the truth.”

“You know it by her story,” she said, pointing to therapist notes from when Ford first spoke of the alleged attack in 2012. “She is concerned that he does not have the character, the integrity, the honesty to be a Supreme Court justice. I believe her, because she’s telling the truth.”

This is appalling: A woman who graduated more than 20 years after the accuser is supporting the accuser. On what grounds? Nikitas3.com has never met a single person from my college who graduated 20 years after me, never mind someone who would vouch for me without even knowing me.

Meanwhile not a single one of these US senators has ever met or knows anything about the life of the accuser. Yet judge Kavanaugh has lived in the public eye for decades. So how can these Democrat senators purport to pass judgement based on testimony from someone whom they don’t even know? And to doubt someone who has been known for decades to many, many people in Washington?

Good question. Then lawyer Gillibrand says that the accuser “is telling the truth”.

Who says? Where is the evidence?

Meanwhile Democrat US senator Tom Carper of Delaware has admitted slugging his wife in 1998. And not a peep from the Democrats.

There also are written reports from 2017 about sexual abuse by the deputy chairman of the Democrat party Keith Ellison and they are being ignored by Gillibrand and Whitehouse and the rest of the Democrats. This will catch up with Ellison eventually.

Meanwhile The Daily Caller reports about this blatant dishonesty from CNN:

CNN anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto sent an inaccurate tweet about Senate Judiciary offers to (Kavanaugh accuser) Dr. Christine Ford on Tuesday.

Sciutto incorrectly claimed that Ford was only offered a public testimony, writing, “The offer to #ChristinaBlaseyFord is blunt: testify in public six days from now while under death threats or your allegation will be ignored in the confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee. That is quite the choice.”

Grassley told The Hill on Tuesday night that the committee had already offered Ford the opportunity to testify publicly or privately and had given her multiple dates to choose from.

… Prior to joining CNN, Sciutto worked in the Obama administration.

Oh, so there you go. The Obama administration.

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!). Bookmark the permalink.