Deuteronomy 19:15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.
We claim to be a nation of laws and not of men, but you would never know this by looking at the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court.
Look at How the Foundation of the Rule of Law are cracking under the Democratic leadership.
First, the Bill of Rights recognizes Due Process rights for the Victim as well as the Accused (5th Amendment, 14th Amendment).
The victim had a duty to report ill conduct to her 36 years ago . . . but didn’t. She waited till the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings to file a complaint — not to the Chief of Police but to Diane Feinstein Minority Leader in the Senate which makes the prima-facie motive of the Christine Blasey-Ford appear to be about political destruction of this Republican nominee to the Supreme Court. Moreover, she did not send a duplicate to Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority leader, which drives a second nail of doubt into the validity of her report.
The Democrats have not acknowledge any rights of the Accused and are demanding he withdraw his name from the nomination process because he’s a man, because he’s a Republican, and because women who accuse men of sexual conduct are always to be believed.
Second, the law recognizes the principle that in any claim, the Plaintiff has the burden of proof. The Accused has no burden of proof. The Accused has a right to be silent and not even speak in his own defense (1st and 5th Amendment).
In a criminal case, the Plaintiff has the burden of proof . . . the burden to prove his claim “beyond reasonable doubt.” Blasey-Ford has not offered any burden of proof, but in this political theater, the Accuser is not required to produce proof. The complainant has no material evidence, no doctor’s report, no police report, and no witnesses that can collaborate her story. She can’t even remember the who, when, where, and the why of the party. She was, apparently, drunk. She offers no evidence and no eye-witness testimony to weigh on the scale of justice in her favor. And yet the Democrats are asking the public to believe her. And, fools are responding with, “I believe the survivor.”
Third, the 4th Amendment says that no “warrant” shall issue accept based on probable cause,” — a criminal action. While the claim about Blasey-Ford regarding alleged boyish conduct is an obnoxious misdemeanor, there is no felony crime here. There is no sworn affidavit testifying to her claim thirty-six years ago. There is none now. She never told the alleged story to any of her friends. At least four witnesses have come forward adding support to Kavanaugh’s story. Yet, the Democrats are treating the alledged teenage caper as a serious, disqualifying capital crime. Nonsense!
Fourth, the courts recognize the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” but in Washington Senate politics, you are “guilty until proven innocent.” Democrats are demanding Kavanaugh prove a negative–that he did not act improperly towards his accuser. Senator Kamala Harris said, “I believe Kavanaugh’s accuser” even before it was possible to cross examine her story or hear from Kavanaugh (Real Clear Politics).
Fifth, the accused has a right to face his accuser (5th – 6th Amendment), but the Democrats are saying the testimony of the Accuser (Blasey-Ford) is true and correct; that the woman need not appear because everyone knows she is telling the truth. In the proposal her lawyer demanded Kavanaugh speak first and Blasey-Ford second and that the Accuser be exempted from cross-examined by Kavanaugh’s lawyer. The Democrats are simply demanding Kavanaugh withdraw his name from the nomination because we all know that women tell the truth and that men lie. But, this is not the way justice works in this country.
Sixth, the accused has a right to a speedy trial (Sixth Amendment). The Accuser did not tell her parents or file a claim with the police at the time of the alleged incident happened. She waited thirty years before telling anyone. . . and that to her psychiatrist. Now she thinks Kavanaugh ought to resign based on her unproven accusation. Further, the Democrats seek to destroy the man and hold him hostage to this allegation the rest of his life.
Seventh, the accused has a right to a trial by an impartial jury (6th Amendment), but in the Kavanaugh Case half of the Jury Senate is made up of bias Democrats who decided the man was guilty before there was a hearing . . . and, before Kavanaugh had a chance to cross-examine his Accuser.
In the chaos of the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings, you are witnessing the cracking of the rule of law and the apotheosis of the rule by women in the Democratic Party.
Victor Davis Hanson offered up the most succinct summary of Blasey Ford’s testimony:
The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.” (Added, 9-30-2018 from “Life in a Gynocracy”)
Storm Brooks
9/23/2018
Recent Comments