Newsbud Exclusive: Guilty Until Proven Guilty

“We concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standards for appointment to the court…Our rating of unanimously well-qualified reflects the consensus of his peers who have knowledge of his professional qualifications (Walsh, 2018).” That’s what Paul T. Moxley, the chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee said when he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on 07 Sept 2018 (Walsh, 2018). Kavanaugh “enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity and is a person of outstanding character. It was clear from all of our interviews and all of the other evidence that he learned the importance of integrity from a very early age.” That’s what John R. Tarpley, the lead evaluator for the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee said when he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on 07 Sept 2018 (Walsh, 2018). Tarpley further testified that during his investigation they found Kavanaugh to have: “the highest personal morality and the highest ethics…he is what he seems, very decent, humble, and honest, and that Judge Kavanaugh meets our (the American Bar Associations) highest standard and rated him unanimously well-qualified to serve as associate justice on the United States Supreme Court (Walsh, 2018).” Despite these glowing accolades from the American Bar Association, 28 years efficaciously working in a variety of very demanding, high visibility government positions requiring the highest security classification and the successful completion of multiple FBI background investigations that have not shown a single impropriety, it is ok to label Kavanaugh a sexual predator without a single shred of evidence. America has gone from a place where the mantra has always been “innocent until proven guilty”; to a banana republic where one is guilty until proven guilty. What happen to the country where the accused was guaranteed due process before being tarred and feathered? Is this the death of the Republic?

No reasonable person could watch Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and not conclude that something terrible happened to her. Obviously, something bad happened to her in the past and Ford thinks that Judge Kavanaugh was one of the perpetrators. Equally, Ford sincerely believes in her heart that Kavanaugh is guilty of this egregious attack. The attack that Ford is accusing Kavanaugh of is a criminal offense. The attack is not a violation of any federal law. It is a violation of Maryland state law. Specifically, Ford is accusing Kavanaugh of a fourth degree sexual assault under Maryland Code, Criminal Law § 3-308. An individual convicted of this offense would be guilty of a sexual offense in the fourth degree and on conviction would be subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both. Given Kavanaugh’s age, standing in the community and record of achievement it is highly unlikely that if he were found guilty he would have received anything more than a fine and community service (FindLaw, 2018).

The American criminal system is based upon the defendant being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Shealy, 2018). Despite the standard of guilt being “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” the courts have failed to define exactly what that means (Shealy, 2018). "Reasonable doubt' is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence received in a trial. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it (Wagner, 2016)." In other words, for Judge Kavanaugh to be found guilty of this criminal offense the jury would have no reasonable doubt in their mind that he committed the offense. They could not have a hunch he did it nor could they think he probably did it; a jury would have to have no reasonable doubt that he committed the crime he was accused of. Given the information presented by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, there was insufficient evidence presented against Judge Kavanaugh to show him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Individuals opposed to Kavanaugh have argued that the Senate Confirmation process is not a trial. It is more akin to a job interview. Consequently, the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply. Blacks Law dictionary defines a trial as: The examination before a competent tribunal, according to the law of the land, of the facts or law put in issue in a cause, for the purpose of determining such issue. A trial is the judicial examination of the Issues between the parties, whether they be issues of law or of fact (Black's Law Dictionary, 2018). [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. John Phillips says:

    Yep, Kavanaugh is a sweetheart. Someone I would want my daughter to date….NOT. How about you? Do you have a daughter?

    The problem with you Tim, is you rely on laws written by the most corrupt and opinion from the same.

    You may have blown the whistle once, but after that….what do you contribute to freedom anyway, other than being a gatekeeper!
    No respect for you at all

    • real jeffersonian says:


      Don’t we all rely on laws? Don’t you? Are you the arbitror of which laws we should rely on and which to ignore?
      Seems to me that if you want to object to Tim’s viewpoint as presented in this article, then it would be better to have a little more fact. At this point, his article carries more weight than your response.

    • jchesky says:


  2. >No reasonable person could watch Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and not conclude that something terrible happened to her. Obviously, something bad happened to her in the past and Ford thinks that Judge Kavanaugh was one of the perpetrators.<

    Yes they could – that's a clueless take on her "performance".
    Ford's performance could easily have been faked – a display of psychologically ginned up pseudo-emotions over a non-event, with lawyers coaching her along the way.
    This projection of feminism into an important hearing precluded a real examination of the nominee's record of real short comings.
    Ford, years ago, apparently coached a girl friend who was applying for a job with the FBI on how to beat polygraph examinations.

    The Ford woman reportedly:
    " Christine Blasey Ford, a California woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the 1980’s, co-authored an academic study that cited the use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients. The academic paper, entitled “Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial,” described the results of a study that tested the efficacy of certain treatments on 46 depressed individuals. The study was published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology in May 2008.

    While the paper by Ford and several other co-authors focused on whether various therapeutic techniques, including hypnosis, alleviate depression, it also discussed the therapeutic use of hypnosis to “assist in the retrieval of important memories” and to “create artificial situations” to assist in treatment. "


  3. Thomas Skorich says:

    Are you folks Nuts? This had absolutely nothing to do with rape. Thad everything to do with abortion laws being rescinded. New World Order…

Speak Your Mind