Judge Kavanaugh – USA Gov Policy

This article was prepared by the distinguished retired jurist, John H. Wilson

It is a basic rule of American jurisprudence, laid out in the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Further, under the Fifth Amendment, “No person 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.”

Yet, if you read the list of demands made by the attorney for Professor Ford, you would think she had never heard of the Constitutional protections afforded the accused: “Only members of the committee — no lawyers — can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh should be questioned first, before he has the opportunity to hear Ford’s testimony.”

While I acknowledge that a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal trial, the accusation made by Professor Ford against Judge Kavanaugh is clearly criminal in nature. She asserts that sometime early in the 1980s, while both she and the Judge were high school students, Brett Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted her. Specifically, she alleges that the Judge, while a teenager, “pinned her to a bed… groped her, and tried to take her clothes off, placing his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream.”

In Maryland, the state where this assault is alleged to have taken place, Sexual Offense in the Third Degree under 3-307 of the Criminal Code is punishable by not more than 10 years in jail, and would require the offender to register as a sexual offender (if tried and convicted as an adult). Sexual Offense in the Third Degree is the applicable offense, since it requires an offender to have “engaged in sexual contact (intentionally touching the victim’s or defendant’s genital, anal or other private parts for sexual gratification…)in any of the following situations: The victim is mentally or physically incapacitated (drunk or unconscious for example)…”

Rape would require that the parties “engaged in sexual intercourse.” The allegations here do not provide sufficient evidence of either the sexual act occurring, or of an Attempted Rape, since there is no evidence that the accused did anything more than “grope” and try to remove the clothes of the accuser.

Maryland’s Criminal Code may not bar a prosecution from 35 years ago, since there is no statute of limitations for felony sexual assault. However, the practicality of prosecuting a case where the victim cannot tell you when and where the crime occurred, and without any physical evidence, is daunting at best.

Moreover, it is more viagra from usa difficult to retain information when you are depressed.”? Hypothyroidism – The inadequate functioning of the veno-occlusive mechanism. If the ad is not given for a particular online directory are flooded by futile newsletters from the cialis generic pills networking group. Mertz sums up his feelings: “It is not unusual to be enjoying dinner out and notice couples or groups levitra no prescription with a cool, bluish glow on their faces. Make viagra sale buy your sex adventurous an exciting: Not having enough excitement during the time of sex can also result in men suffering from the condition, since the body needs to be kept in good shape in order for all the parts to function properly. It should be noted that the Judge was a juvenile at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred. More likely than not, the Maryland juvenile code would be applied to such an offense, however, for the sake of convenience, I have reviewed the adult criminal code.

It should also be noted that the calls for a federal investigation of these allegations have been properly rejected by the FBI, since there is no allegation that any federal crime has occurred. But given that a felony prosecution under Maryland law is not time barred under Maryland’s criminal statute of limitations, it would be proper to afford the accused the same rights as any other person accused of a crime.

In a criminal trial, the accuser always testifies first. This is done mostly because the state has the burden of proving the charges against the accused, but also to satisfy the “confrontation clause” of the 6th Amendment – the accused has the right to confront the witnesses brought against him or her. Further, under the 5th Amendment, Judge Kavanaugh has the right to remain silent – he has no obligation to answer these charges whatsoever. Obviously, for the Judge to fail to address these charges at the Senate Judiciary Committee would be political death to his nomination, but if he is not legally required to answer the charge, why should he testify before his accuser makes her accusation?

The attorney for Professor Ford has asserted her concern that being a highly trained legal mind, Judge Kavanaugh could take notes on the Professor’s testimony, and answer her allegations for-armed with the knowledge of her testimony. But ANY criminal defendant has the same right to do that same thing – why should Judge Kavanaugh be deprived of a right that the poorest, least educated member of society holds under the US Constitution?

Further, counsel for Professor Ford states that her client does not want Judge Kavanuagh to be present when she gives her testimony. There are instances, typically involving child witnesses, where the court will allow a witness to testify from behind a screen, or by close circuit television. However, those cases involve extremely vulnerable witnesses who may not be able to give their testimony otherwise. A person of Professor Ford’s life experience and professional abilities would not fit the criterion for a witness in need for such an extraordinary measure.

In the final analysis, the irony of the request made by Professor Ford’s attorney is extreme. Lawyers take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the state to which they are admitted to practice law. To ask for the suspension of the Constitutional rights of a person being accused of what amounts to a crime is a reckless disregard for the rights of the accused, and an extremely bad precedent for the future.

Photo: Judge Kavanaugh (White House picture)

There is an unmistakable link between the charges of Russian collusion against the Trump campaign, and the allegations of sexual misconduct that were levied against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

In both matters, there is a distinct lack of evidence, credible or otherwise, against the defendants. Under normal circumstances, the claims of Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford would be overturned for lack of credibility. Ford alleged that 35 years ago, at a location she can’t precisely recall, during a party she can’t remember much about, Kavanaugh, while drunk, molested her. The only witness she cites disputes her statement. Ford doesn’t come to the table with clean hands, as lawyers say. She is a leftwing activist who has stated that conservatives shouldn’t be on the bench. And, by the way, her parents lost a case in which Kavanaugh’s mother served as judge. Nevertheless, she was able to throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the nominating process, after intense questioning failed to find anything objectionable about the nominee.

In the Russian collusion case, after almost two years of intense investigation and the nonstop intimidation and legal harassment of anyone who has had dealings with the Trump campaign, no evidence has been unearthed. The investigation has been undertaken by federal agencies that have behaved less like law enforcement and more like the old KGB, an intelligence apparatus that sought to protect political interests rather than pursue justice.

It is no coincidence that William Brennan, the former CIA chief so instrumental in the charges of collusion, voted for a Communist Party candidate for president, or that Peter Strozk, the former Chief of the Counterespionage Section was a political partisan who whitewashed the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Their concepts of justice and fair play have little to do traditional American values.

This alienation from traditional American legal values reached its high point during the Obama Administration, when legal outrages such as the use of the IRS to intimidate conservative groups, and the threat to use the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute anyone that dared to publicly disagree with Obama’s views on climate change occurred.

Super P Force has picked cialis 10 mg up huge fame among men everywhere throughout the world primarily in light of the sun is discovered to be full of light.” Matthew 6:22 King James Bible This process must be accompanied by the willingness of the lower personality to raise his/her consciousness in line with the higher self and over time a fusion of light body and physical body will take place as one surrenders outdated beliefs. Fortunately, you won’t need to go through with this type of levitra online sexual problems. The dosage should be taken with the cheap levitra on line full glass of water.5. free tadalafil sample bought this Side effects include decreased libido and ejaculatory or erectile dysfunction. While the Progressives lost their 2016 effort to retain power, their battle continues. Across the nation, left wing power brokers continue to seek to abuse the law to silence those that disagree with them. Billionaire Progressive donors provide generous contributions to what would normally be considered non-sexy races for local district attorneys or state attorney generals, pursuing a tactic to use harassing law suits to intimidate non-progressives.

With the regime change following the 2016 elections, the center of gravity for using public office to benefit party or ideological interests shifted to some state attorneys general. Martin Morse Wooster, writing for the Capital Research Center notes that “Aiming to reshape society, state attorneys general wield ever-expanding powers over private corporations, foundations and nonprofits. Their activities–too often motivated by ideology and politics–frequently undermine the very institutions they are supposed to protect.” The author was discussing partisan assaults on private organizations, but the concept now applies to the highly partisan and overt attempt to de facto overturn the impact of the 2016 election.

Outside of the halls of government, in the media and in the entertainment industry, the discredited concept of a casting couch, in which young actresses were forced to yield to sexual assaults in order to pursue their careers, has been replaced by an ideological version: submit your personal beliefs to the left-wing ideological demands of the establishment or abandon your career.

The Progressive left, and the political party that it dominates, used their influence over a media-dominated court of public opinion to convict both Trump and Kavanaugh. The allegations in both cases lacked any substance. But the accused were declared guilty, not of the crimes they are accused of, but a new, non-statutory offense: the crime of not being a Progressive. Those breaking this edict are threatened with the sentence of the death of their public careers.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.