"Evidence?.... I Don't Need No Damned Evidence!"
"Evidence?.... I Don't Need No Damned Evidence!"
The 2nd accuser of Judge Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez, says she won't testify before Congress, because she's already told her story to the press. Here’s why: if she testifies she'll be put under oath, opening the door to perjury charges and legal retaliation. Ms. Ramirez wants a trial by media. So do the Democrats. Unfortunately for her, but fortunately for us, that’s not how our legal system works, nor should it.
Ms. Ramirez, like Judge Kavanaugh's 1st accuser, Christine Ford, has no corroborating evidence to support her story. In both cases, those said to be present, deny both woman’s account of events, including 4 of the 5 people said to be present at Ms. Ford’s alleged sexual assault. Likewise, in both cases, recovered memories appear to be the basis for the accusations.
Meanwhile, sexual assault charges are levied at Chuck Schumer. In response, NBC and CNN offer headlines framing the accusations as fake. The presumption of innocence in Schumer’s case is their lead.
So much for believing women because they’re women.
This double standard applies to Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison, a former head of The DNC, as well. Ellison was accused of battering two different women. These allegations predate the latest round of politically motivated rape hysteria. If you read the media’s approach to the Ellison accusations, the press carefully sifts them for proof, well beyond just the accusation. This leads to the obvious question: where, in the Ellison charges, are the dozens of Harvard women demanding that the accuser should be believed, regardless of any corroborating evidence, as is the case with Judge Kavanaugh?
The fact that 65 Harvard women would take the position that a person’s sexuality should be the determining factor in the guilt or innocence of the accused, is beyond ignorant, it is profoundly dangerous. And, in fact, is a complete denial of due process, the rule of law, and the nature of evidence as the basis for proving criminality. A person’s sex, gender, race, etc., constitutes evidence of nothing. They’re a set of physical traits. That’s all.
The latest headline offered by the media in the Kavanaugh case is “Christine Ford Offers Four Witnesses To Support Her Claim.”
Who are these witnesses? Her husband and three friends, none of whom were present at the alleged incident. Previously, another close friend of Ms. Ford said she knew Ms. Ford was telling the truth, only to recant once it became clear she’d have to testify under oath. Then, she admitted she didn’t exactly “Know,” she “Believed.” She also said she felt empowered by claiming she knew. Apparently, because words no longer have any real meaning. Evidence should be replaced by group affiliation.
What is Brett Kavanaugh’s real sin? “He’s a Republican.” That alone is enough to convict him. The evidence just gets in the way.
I can only hope that if I’m ever accused of a serious crime that the testimony of my closest friends will be enough to set aside evidence of my guilt. But I doubt it. Which is exactly how it should be.
Mark Magula
The 2nd accuser of Judge Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez, says she won't testify before Congress, because she's already told her story to the press. Here’s why: if she testifies she'll be put under oath, opening the door to perjury charges and legal retaliation. Ms. Ramirez wants a trial by media. So do the Democrats. Unfortunately for her, but fortunately for us, that’s not how our legal system works, nor should it.
Ms. Ramirez, like Judge Kavanaugh's 1st accuser, Christine Ford, has no corroborating evidence to support her story. In both cases, those said to be present, deny both woman’s account of events, including 4 of the 5 people said to be present at Ms. Ford’s alleged sexual assault. Likewise, in both cases, recovered memories appear to be the basis for the accusations.
Meanwhile, sexual assault charges are levied at Chuck Schumer. In response, NBC and CNN offer headlines framing the accusations as fake. The presumption of innocence in Schumer’s case is their lead.
So much for believing women because they’re women.
This double standard applies to Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison, a former head of The DNC, as well. Ellison was accused of battering two different women. These allegations predate the latest round of politically motivated rape hysteria. If you read the media’s approach to the Ellison accusations, the press carefully sifts them for proof, well beyond just the accusation. This leads to the obvious question: where, in the Ellison charges, are the dozens of Harvard women demanding that the accuser should be believed, regardless of any corroborating evidence, as is the case with Judge Kavanaugh?
The fact that 65 Harvard women would take the position that a person’s sexuality should be the determining factor in the guilt or innocence of the accused, is beyond ignorant, it is profoundly dangerous. And, in fact, is a complete denial of due process, the rule of law, and the nature of evidence as the basis for proving criminality. A person’s sex, gender, race, etc., constitutes evidence of nothing. They’re a set of physical traits. That’s all.
The latest headline offered by the media in the Kavanaugh case is “Christine Ford Offers Four Witnesses To Support Her Claim.”
Who are these witnesses? Her husband and three friends, none of whom were present at the alleged incident. Previously, another close friend of Ms. Ford said she knew Ms. Ford was telling the truth, only to recant once it became clear she’d have to testify under oath. Then, she admitted she didn’t exactly “Know,” she “Believed.” She also said she felt empowered by claiming she knew. Apparently, because words no longer have any real meaning. Evidence should be replaced by group affiliation.
What is Brett Kavanaugh’s real sin? “He’s a Republican.” That alone is enough to convict him. The evidence just gets in the way.
I can only hope that if I’m ever accused of a serious crime that the testimony of my closest friends will be enough to set aside evidence of my guilt. But I doubt it. Which is exactly how it should be.
Mark Magula