ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee

Updated on October 12, 2018
peoplepower73 profile image

Mike has a keen interest in the effects of politics in our culture. He has a unique way of simplifying complex concepts.

Introduction

In order to understand what really happened in the Kavanaugh/Ford hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is first necessary to understand some terms used by the Senate. They are:

  • Super Majority and Cloture
  • Nuclear Option
  • The Biden Rule.

All of these terms will be defined by the following text in the context they are used by the Senate.

The Super Majority and Cloture

For many years the senate required a super majority of 60 votes in order to nominate judges, cabinet secretaries, and supreme court justices. However, the super majority rule also had a filibuster rule attached to it that could be used by the opposing side to delay reaching the 60 votes by invoking a filibuster.

A filibuster is an obstructive tactic used in the Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. Once the 60 votes are reached, Cloture is invoked and after 30 hours, no more filibustering is allowed and the votes are passed through.

Nuclear Option

This all changed in 2013 when Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid invoked the Nuclear Option. The nuclear option rule states that only a simple majority of 51 votes is required to get the required nominations passed. Cloture can then be invoked 30 hours after the 51 votes have been achieved. Harry Reid used it to get some federal judges and cabinet secretaries confirmed. But it is important to note, Reid and Obama did not use it to get Merrick Garland nominated to the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell, the Minority leader of the Senate at the time said something to the effect, "You may have won for the short term, but the nuclear option will come back to haunt you for the long term." Boy was he right!

The Biden Rule

Fast forward to the last months of the Obama’s presidency, the GOP had control of the house and the senate and Obama wanted to nominate Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Mitch McConnel who was then the Senate Majority Leader invoked the “Biden Rule” which stated that the vacancy should not be filled until the next president is elected. It should be noted that the new rule was passed by using the nuclear option of only 51 votes.

Nine months later Trump was elected president and Neil Gorsuch replaced the vacancy left by Scalia. You guessed it, McConnell used the nuclear option of 51 votes and no filibuster. He was said to say, "This was one of the best moments in my life."

The Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing

This brings us to the present and the Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to hear from both sides of the aisle as to why Kavanaugh would or would not be qualified to be a supreme court justice and to provide advice and consent to the president based on the findings.

Sometime, prior to the hearing, Minority Leader, Diane Feinstein received a letter from Dr. Ford describing how Dr. Ford had been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh when they were both teenagers. At the hearing, Dr. Ford was sworn in under oath and made an opening statement. Also brought into the hearing was a female prosecutor who was experienced in prosecuting sexual abuse cases. She was allowed to question Dr. Ford based on her allegations of sexual abuse by judge Kavanaugh at the time.

After Ford's testimony, judge Kavanaugh was sworn in and gave his opening statement. He then gave his testimony and swore under oath, that he was innocent of all charges presented by Dr. Ford.

Senator Jeff Flake then made a motion to have the FBI investigate both parties as a result of two women approaching him in an elevator while he was on a break. At that point, the hearing was stopped as the motion was passed. Trump then agreed to an investigation that was limited in time and narrow in scope. The investigation yielded nothing new other than there was no corroborative evidence to support Dr. Ford’s allegations of sexual assault. Judge Kavanaugh was then confirmed as the Supreme Court Justice to replace Judge Kenndy's seat on the bench.

My analysis

  1. In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution, the primary purpose of the hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee was to provide advice and consent to Trump on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
  2. Mitch McConnell had already made up his mind that the judge would be confirmed barring any unforeseen circumstances.
  3. Diane Feinstein’s letter by Dr. Ford was presented at the "11th hour" to the committee. Therefore, as a matter of optics, a female prosecuting attorney was brought in to question Dr. Ford. Once Senator Graham presented his tirade about how the hearing was a sham, the attorney did very little questioning of Judge Kavanaugh.
  4. The FBI investigation was a sham because it was limited in time and scope and they never questioned any of the other outstanding witnesses who had come forward to vouch for Dr. Ford’s testimony.
  5. The nuclear option, is now part of the standing rules of the Senate. It is really a simple majority. The reason it is called the nuclear option is because like a detonation of a nuclear bomb, it can have fallout on both sides of the aisle, depending on what party is in control of the senate.
  6. When Harry Reid used it for the first time. Mitch McConnell knew it would just be a matter of time before the GOP was in control of the senate and he could use it to make the Biden Rule and the simple majority part of the standing rules of parliamentary procedure.
  7. He then used the Biden Rule to stall nine months until Trump was elected and Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to replace Scalia; thus, blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland. He then used the simple majority to have Judge Kavanaugh replace Kennedy as a Supreme Court Justice.
  8. In accordance with Article 1, section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution, congress can make and change their own rules of order. All it takes is a quorum to be present.
  9. Harry Reid used the simple majority to confirm federal judges of the lower court and some cabinet secretaries, but he never used it to confirm a supreme court justice. That still required the super majority for confirmation.
  10. Even though it was evident that one party was not telling the truth and both were under oath, the committee never charged either party of perjury. Because that was not the purpose of the Judiciary Committee; it was to provide advice and consent to the president. Some argued that in a court of law, presumption of innocence is the rule of law. However, this was not a court of law, it’s purpose was to provide advice and consent to the president.
  11. It is evident that both sides use manipulative tactics to gain an advantage, it just is matter of which side controls congress as to how that advantage plays out.

Who do you believe was telling the truth?

See results

Do you believe the FBI investigation was complete enough to come to a conclusive determination of either party?

See results

© 2018 Mike Russo

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Leland: Thanks for your comments.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 weeks ago from Midland MI

      As you know impeachment isn't the real issue, conviction is. Neither will happen either way, and if it did the country would still be in good hands with VP Pence.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Leland: Thank you for your comments. I hope Trump is not impeached, because then we get Mike Pence who is just the opposite side of the same coin.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Brad: I did not selectively answer your questions. If you look at your original comments. I answered every place where you asked a question. I told you before, I'm not on trial here.

      By the way, what does BSIT BSL JD mean?

      P.S. Here is some advice. Part of the reason your hub score is so low is because you insist on writing articles that have several parts to them. Google doesn't like that.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Leland

      MIke can't answer your comments.

      I have said many times, that Dr Ford is a player and not a victim.

      The two courses of action for her to bring her accusation against Kavanaugh.

      1. file a criminal complaint with the Maryland PD. There is no statute of limitation for sexual assault in Maryland.

      2. She should have sent her letter to senator Grassley the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. The senate has procedures to handle these, but only if they know about them. Ford's anonymity would have been secured, and the investigation by the senate of her accusation would have been done privately for her anonymity.

      The choice that she took was wrong.Her actions following her sending the letter to her CA rep was also a bad choice. Everything she did from the time of sending that letter followed an intentional plan to subvert and delay the confirmation so that the democrats could apply pressure on Kavanaugh and treat him unfairly and as if he did it. Did what, who knows from Ford's testimony. But the democrats didn't do a hearing or an investigation they did the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

      The democrats on the committee treated him as having done a sexual assault, and that is the same as saying he was guilty.

      Even, democrats like Maize Hirono, Cory Booker, Feinstein, and Kamela Harris, along with their choir on CNN sing the same song, he did it.

      And Mike still didn't tell me about these so called witnesses that the FBI didn't investigate.

      See you on the other side.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Mike

      "B1; Hillary is guilty because there was evidence, lots of evidence, and the same DOJ and FBI that cleared her for the emails was also in power then.

      Why do you think she was innocent?

      Do you believe that Benghazi was the result of a video?

      M: God, I hate doing this, but I'm a patient man. Do you really want to go there? I did the research on this a long time a go. The claim is that she could have scrambled aircraft from Italy. But the investigation showed the aircraft were not ready to be launched and would require time to configure them for attack. Even if they used them, they would have to re-fueled in flight and their pilots were not trained for that..

      The second claim was that there was a navy air station in Sigonala Italy that they could of used. It turns out that base only had only slow flying anti submarine aircraft. So they couldn't use them as well. Therefore there was no way she could have saved the four soldiers in time and the Ambassador...Please don't do this, don't get into an argument about Hillary. I don't believe Bengahzi was a result of the video. She was not found guilty. Let's just leave it at that.

      B1:

      Really, Then if Benghazi wasn't the result of the video, then why did Obama, Susan Rice and Hillary say that it was?

      Leave it like the democrats have left the Trump investigation after find zero evidence after 2 years.

      Benghazi and Hillary are still being investigated.

      ---------------------------------------------------------

      B1: You said one of them was not telling the truth. They could have both been not telling the truth, just as they both could be telling the truth. In determining which one, you look at the evidence.

      M: How could they both be telling the truth when their testimonies where entirely different? She said he did it. He said he didn't. How could they both be telling the truth?

      B2:

      One of them, Ford could have been mistaken.

      How could Kavanaugh be lying when there was no date, time, location or witnesses. That is an indication that it never happened.

      ---------------------------------------------

      B1: And once again, guilty is a criminal term. Liable is a civil term. and the corresponding terms are Not Guilty and Not Liable. Which is it for Kavanaugh and why?

      What is your argument to say that Kavanaugh didn't tell the truth, and why is he "guilty" and guilty of what?

      B2:

      It has to do with your assertion that this was not a criminal trial, so why is guilty being used, it only has context in criminal matters.

      -----------------------------------------------

      M: I never said he was guilty. I said somebody is not telling the truth.

      B2:

      Really, then what happens if someone isn't telling the truth under oath, isn't perjury a crime. And to prosecute someone for perjury that means they are guilty.

      ------------------------------------

      B: Answering these kind of questions with good arguments is how to convince me. Also, I make a point of taking all your comments verbatim, and I comment on each one. Not doing that is not a good argument. Don't get offended, but what is your understanding of my use of the word "Argument".

      M: You are using "Argument" Like in a trial. I don't have to convince you of anything. I'm presenting my side of the story as I understand it.

      B2:

      I am asking you to support your position. I am saying you didn't understand it correctly. Otherwise take out the comment section.

      -----------------------------------

      B1: Is there any reason for you, the democrats or the media to continue saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. Well just using the word guilty puts in a criminal context, and that contradicts your assertion that the hearing wasn't a trial.

      M: Again, I never said he was guilty. I didn't hear anybody in the hearing say he was guilty of any charges because it was a hearing, not a trial. If people want to think he is guilty, that is their prerogative. The constitution gives them the right to voice their opinion.

      B2:

      You don't hear the democrats saying that he is a liar, and he did it? And you haven't heard anyone say he was guilty.

      Then if you don't think he is guilty, then why isn't he a fit for the SC?

      --------------------------------------

      B1: Why didn't they allow the FBI to investigate the people who came forward and claim they did have corroborating evidence?"

      Did they exist? Who were they and how do you know who they were?

      M: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/bre...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/cha...

      B2:

      What is your answer?

      -----------------------------

      B1: I asked you before why does Feinstein want to seal the FBI report? Don't you think if you believe the investigation was a sham, or that the WH interfered wouldn't you want to make that report public?

      M: I don't know why she sealed the report. Why didn't Trump make the FBI report public? Don't you think the public would like to know the parameters of the investigation and who was interviewed?

      B:

      It was Feinstein that wants it sealed, not Trump. It is the committee that wanted the FBI to investigate.

      I would like to see it public, but Feinstein doesn't.

      ---------------------------------------------------------

      B1: BTW, on Hillary do you really believe that extreme carelessness is anything different than gross negligence on the emails. She lied to congress, and the FBI didn't really investigate her. She said there was no classified emails on her unprotected home email server, that she wiped clean, destroyed, and it is gone. And how do you explain that all the missing emails wound up on Huba Abin's Weiner computer.

      Just because they weren't prosecuted is not the same as they were innocent, and the presumption leaves when there is credible evidence to arrest, and go to trial.

      M: The investigation wasn't a trial. If they had credible evidence, why didn't they prosecute her?

      B:

      They should, and maybe they will. It wasn't a trial but people under oath could go to jail for perjury, and you don't think that they should have the same protections from the constitution.

      So the democrats in the committee can still say Kavanaugh is not fit for the SC after not being able to prove the Ford accusation, nor Ramirez or Swetnick. The democrats said before the hearing they weren't going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh, and they didn't after the hearing and the investigation. And you are proud of that?

      This was not a fair hearing because Feinstein broke the rules of the Senate, and created a circus.

      ----------------------------------------

      Brad, don't do this to me anymore. It is a lot of work for me to answer all your questions. You get on a roll and ask a ton of questions without even putting yourself in the place of the person who is going to answer those questions. And then you never stop, because you are not satisfied with the answers. I'm not on Tria

      It's a good thing I'm a patient person, because most people wouldn't put up with this."

      B:

      Now you are acting like Dr. Ford and the democrats, don't ask her any questions She is a credible witness. She had an opportunity anytime in the last 36 years to make a criminal complaint with the Maryland police. The reason she didn't do it is because she had no date, time, place, witnesses, no corroboration and that wouldn't get an arrest warrant, much less a trial. If for some unjust reason it would go to trial, then the defense attorney would have investigated her thoroughly her high school years, and her college years, and they didn't do that in the hearing. They treated her like the child she portrayed.

      All I ever have done is to argue your points, and you do your little dance. I don't have time for this, I have no more patience, and you want me to treat you like the democrats treated Dr. Ford.

      It is not that I ask you too many questions, it is that you don't have any real answers. I don't know why you write articles, and comment in forums when you just don't have the answers.

      You selectively choose to answer my questions, and I won't paste them here again because you don't have any answers. If you did, you would answer them.

      It your article, your rules.

      If you won't answer my questions, then it proves my point.

      Feel free to comment on any of mine

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 weeks ago from Midland MI

      Mike- The FBI's investigation was a sham in that they never should've been investigating in the first place. This was not a federal issue. Ford never accused Kavanaugh of kidnapping her or taking her across state lines so it was wrong to invoke the FBI in the first place. I'm just surprised that after the FBI investigation revealed nothing new (because there was nothing to reveal) that there wasn't a call for a CIA investigation- and why not? They have just about as much business investigating the case as the FBI. Who could investigate next? Homeland security could launch an investigation, then maybe TSA-who knows maybe the incident occurred near an airport? The whole thing was a sham. It is very troubling to me, as it was when the same thing happened to Clarence Thomas, that one person can accuse another person of such heinous behavior without a single piece of evidence. Mike, what stops us from doing the same thing to each other? I could accuse you, you could accuse me- without some semblance of proof it is nothing more than shaming and slandering each other. Do you think it is a coincidence that Dr. Ford is extremely left wing in her politics? Do you believe, as she said before the senate, that she turned to her husband and said she needed to speak out against Kavanaugh because "he might be a supreme court justice someday?" My analysis of this whole debacle is that the left is in absolute terror and hysteria because they believe Kavanaugh will provide the scale tilt necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade and they will stop at nothing to stop him. They're already talking about impeaching him- this before he was even sworn in! Never in the course of American history has a president or supreme court justice had impeachment proceedings started against them before they performed a single act functioning in the capacity of the office they have yet to serve. This is an example of the left attempting to use the Constitution as a bludgeon to smash those people and those decision with which they do not agree.

      Finally, here is a link from 1991 when Dem Senator Joe Biden emphatically told the world that the FBI has NOTHING to do with an investigation regarding sexual harassment, specifically during the Clarence Thomas nomination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZdaVTJ_cHg The situation was replayed with chilling similarity, the only difference being Biden was silent when it came to the FBI investigating Kavanaugh. Have the rules changed? Does the FBI now investigate supreme court justice nominees? Well, they can now. This being the first time, a precedent has been sent.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      B1; Hillary is guilty because there was evidence, lots of evidence, and the same DOJ and FBI that cleared her for the emails was also in power then.

      Why do you think she was innocent?

      Do you believe that Benghazi was the result of a video?

      M: God, I hate doing this, but I'm a patient man. Do you really want to go there? I did the research on this a long time a go. The claim is that she could have scrambled aircraft from Italy. But the investigation showed the aircraft were not ready to be launched and would require time to configure them for attack. Even if they used them, they would have to re-fueled in flight and their pilots were not trained for that..

      The second claim was that there was a navy air station in Sigonala Italy that they could of used. It turns out that base only had only slow flying anti submarine aircraft. So they couldn't use them as well. Therefore there was no way she could have saved the four soldiers in time and the Ambassador...Please don't do this, don't get into an argument about Hillary. I don't believe Bengahzi was a result of the video. She was not found guilty. Let's just leave it at that.

      B1: You said one of them was not telling the truth. They could have both been not telling the truth, just as they both could be telling the truth. In determining which one, you look at the evidence.

      M: How could they both be telling the truth when their testimonies where entirely different? She said he did it. He said he didn't. How could they both be telling the truth?

      B1: And once again, guilty is a criminal term. Liable is a civil term. and the corresponding terms are Not Guilty and Not Liable. Which is it for Kavanaugh and why?

      What is your argument to say that Kavanaugh didn't tell the truth, and why is he "guilty" and guilty of what?

      M: I never said he was guilty. I said somebody is not telling the truth.

      B: Answering these kind of questions with good arguments is how to convince me. Also, I make a point of taking all your comments verbatim, and I comment on each one. Not doing that is not a good argument. Don't get offended, but what is your understanding of my use of the word "Argument".

      M: You are using "Argument" Like in a trial. I don't have to convince you of anything. I'm presenting my side of the story as I understand it.

      B1: Is there any reason for you, the democrats or the media to continue saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. Well just using the word guilty puts in a criminal context, and that contradicts your assertion that the hearing wasn't a trial.

      M: Again, I never said he was guilty. I didn't hear anybody in the hearing say he was guilty of any charges because it was a hearing, not a trial. If people want to think he is guilty, that is their prerogative. The constitution gives them the right to voice their opinion.

      B1: Why didn't they allow the FBI to investigate the people who came forward and claim they did have corroborating evidence?"

      Did they exist? Who were they and how do you know who they were?

      M: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/bre...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/cha...

      B1: I asked you before why does Feinstein want to seal the FBI report? Don't you think if you believe the investigation was a sham, or that the WH interfered wouldn't you want to make that report public?

      M: I don't know why she sealed the report. Why didn't Trump make the FBI report public? Don't you think the public would like to know the parameters of the investigation and who was interviewed?

      B1: BTW, on Hillary do you really believe that extreme carelessness is anything different than gross negligence on the emails. She lied to congress, and the FBI didn't really investigate her. She said there was no classified emails on her unprotected home email server, that she wiped clean, destroyed, and it is gone. And how do you explain that all the missing emails wound up on Huba Abin's Weiner computer.

      Just because they weren't prosecuted is not the same as they were innocent, and the presumption leaves when there is credible evidence to arrest, and go to trial.

      M: The investigation wasn't a trial. If they had credible evidence, why didn't they prosecute her?

      Brad, don't do this to me anymore. It is a lot of work for me to answer all your questions. You get on a roll and ask a ton of questions without even putting yourself in the place of the person who is going to answer those questions. And then you never stop, because you are not satisfied with the answers. I'm not on Trial

      It's a good thing I'm a patient person, because most people wouldn't put up with this.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Mike

      "Brad: First thank you for reading my article. I'm not going to convince you of anything. I learned with you, it is an exercise in futility. I will say this about the presumption of innocence.

      Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz presumed Hillary was guilty for 3 years of intense hearings about Benghazi. And at the end they concluded, there was no wrong doing, but even with that Chaffetz wanted to continue, until she was proven guilty.

      B:

      Hillary is guilty because there was evidence, lots of evidence, and the same DOJ and FBI that cleared her for the emails was also in power then.

      Why do you think she was innocent?

      Do you believe that Benghazi was the result of a video?

      ---------------------------------------------

      In this hearing, somebody was lying. I don't think I ever said in this article that the judge was guilty. We don't know which one

      B:

      You said on of them was not telling the truth. They could have both been not telling the truth, just as they both could be telling the truth. In determining which one, you look at the evidence.

      -------------------------------------------------------

      . If they were both under oath, there has to be perjury on one side or the other. I have to agree, what Fienstien did backfired on her and the democrats in the hearing.

      B:

      It is not that it backfired, it was an intentional plan for her to sandbag the hearing to make it a gauntlet to get Kavanaugh to drop out. And what Ford did was just as intentional, and along with her testimony showed that she was not credible.

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      But just because the FBI held an investigation and Trump says that proves his innocence doesn't make it so. As I understand it, the FBI investigation was not supposed to make a determination of innocence or guilt. They were just supposed to present their findings. If what Trump says is true, then don't they have the right to call Ford guilty of perjury, which I don't believe they will do?

      B:

      Ford never provided any evidence to sustain any doubt that Kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth. And his presumption of innocence remained intact. And once again, guilty is a criminal term. Liable is a civil term. and the corresponding terms are Not Guilty and Not Liable. Which is it for Kavanaugh and why?

      What is your argument to say that Kavanaugh didn't tell the truth, and why is he "guilty" and guilty of what?

      Answering these kind of questions with good arguments is how to convince me. Also, I make a point of taking all your comments verbatim, and I comment on each one. Not doing that is not a good argument. Don't get offended, but what is your understanding of my use of the word "Argument".

      If Ford had this year made a police complaint in Maryland against Kavauagh they wouldn't have enough to even arrest him, much less win a court decision. And, Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations that would have precluded Ford from making that complaint.

      And we don't lose our constitutional rights just because it isn't in a court of law. And what the democrats were doing in the hearing is charging judge Kavanaugh with a crime. A serious crime of sexual assault, you don't want Kavanaugh to have any constitutional rights.

      Even the FBI investigation doesn't dispense with the presumption of innocence, they merely turn over their report to the DOJ.

      I submit also, that using baseless accusations against the SC nominee is discrimination. It is one thing, if the accusation was proved, but in this case their was no proof, and yet the democrats kept talking about it as if it was proof. This is not advise and consent, it is discrimination. Then after the hearing and the vote, the democrats still keep spinning the narrative that Kavanaugh shouldn't be in the SC still based only on an unproven, uncorroborated accusation.

      Ford was not and is not a victim, she is a player.

      I mention this in my numerous articles so I won't repeat them here.

      However Ford intentionally took the wrong path of making her accusation to the committee, and Feinstein took another intentional wrong path. The proper path was file a police report in Maryland, and or send her letter to the chairperson of the senate judiciary committee, They would have been obligated to keep her anonymity and the senate and the FBI could have investigated it privately and not as the circus it was made by Feinstein.

      That is the simple answer to the question of your article.

      This was not an 11th hour as you say, it was past midnight because all that was left was the vote.

      Is there any reason for you, the democrats or the media to continue saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. Well just using the word guilty puts in a criminal context, and that contradicts your assertion that the hearing wasn't a trial.

      -------------------------------------------

      Why didn't they allow the FBI to investigate the people who came forward and claim they did have corroborating evidence?"

      B:

      Did they exist? Who were they and how do you know who they were?

      The democrats also said that Ford and Kavanaugh should have been investigated by the FBI.

      They had already given their under oath testimony, they couldn't give any more than that.

      When you tell me who these late to the gate witnesses are, then tell me what they could bring to the table. And are they more credible than the three original accusers?

      They looked like the three blind mice. They didn't no anything, couldn't corroborate anything,

      I asked you before why does Feinstein want to seal the FBI report? Don't you think if you believe the investigation was a sham, or that the WH interfered wouldn't you want to make that report public?

      ---------------------------------------

      BTW, on Hillary do you really believe that extreme carelessness is anything different than gross negligence on the emails. She lied to congress, and the FBI didn't really investigate her. She said there was no classified emails on her unprotected home email server, that she wiped clean, destroyed, and it is gone. And how do you explain that all the missing emails wound up on Huba Abin's Weiner computer.

      Just because they weren't prosecuted is not the same as they were innocent, and the presumption leaves when there is credible evidence to arrest, and go to trial.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Brad: First thank you for reading my article. I'm not going to convince you of anything. I learned with you, it is an exercise in futility. I will say this about the presumption of innocence.

      Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz presumed Hillary was guilty for 3 years of intense hearings about Benghazi. And at the end they concluded, there was no wrong doing, but even with that Chaffetz wanted to continue, until she was proven guilty.

      In this hearing, somebody was lying. I don't think I ever said in this article that the judge was guilty. We don't know which one. If they were both under oath, there has to be perjury on one side or the other. I have to agree, what Fienstien did backfired on her and the democrats in the hearing.

      But just because the FBI held an investigation and Trump says that proves his innocence doesn't make it so. As I understand it, the FBI investigation was not supposed to make a determination of innocence or guilt. They were just supposed to present their findings. If what Trump says is true, then don't they have the right to call Ford guilty of perjury, which I don't believe they will do?

      Why didn't they allow the FBI to investigate the people who came forward and claim they did have corroborating evidence?

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Jack: That is my intention as well. It is to inform people of what I have learned and share it with them. I have to admit that conservatives and liberals do march to different drummers when it comes to their values and belief systems.

      But in the final analysis, we all want the same things in life. We may go about in different ways, but the end result we are looking for is the same.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Brad: First thank you for reading my article. I'm not going to convince you of anything. I learned with you, it is an exercise in futility. I will say this about the presumption of innocence.

      Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz presumed Hillary was guilty for 3 years of intense hearings about Benghazi. And at the end they concluded, there was no wrong doing, but even with that Chaffetz wanted to continue, until she was proven guilty.

      In this hearing, somebody was lying. I don't think I ever said in this article that the judge was guilty. We don't know which one. If they were both under oath, there has to be perjury on one side or the other. I have to agree, what Fienstien did backfired on her and the democrats in the hearing.

      But just because the FBI held an investigation and Trump says that proves his innocence doesn't make it so. As I understand it, the FBI investigation was not supposed to make a determination of innocence or guilt. They were just supposed to present their findings. If what Trump says is true, then don't they have the right to call Ford guilty of perjury, which I don't believe they will do?

      Why didn't they allow the FBI to investigate the people who came forward and claim they did have corroborating evidence?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Mike

      "Even though it was evident that one party was not telling the truth and both were under oath, the committee never charged either party of perjury."

      B:

      Which party did you think was not telling the truth?

      The truth about what?

      The truth is that Ford didn't give any testimony, evidence, corroboration, or even details that could be investigated, that broke Judge Kavanaugh's presumption of innocence.

      ------------------------------------

      Because that was not the purpose of the Judiciary Committee, it was to provide advice and consent to the president. Some argued that in a court of law, presumption of innocence is the rule of law. However, this was not a court of law, it’s purpose was to provide advice and consent to the president."

      B:

      If Ford had this year made a police complaint in Maryland against Kavauagh they wouldn't have enough to even arrest him, much less win a court decision. And, Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations that would have precluded Ford from making that complaint.

      And we don't lose our constitutional rights just because it isn't in a court of law. And what the democrats were doing in the hearing is charging judge Kavanaugh with a crime. A serious crime of sexual assault, you don't want Kavanaugh to have any constitutional rights.

      Even the FBI investigation doesn't dispense with the presumption of innocence, they merely turn over their report to the DOJ.

      I submit also, that using baseless accusations against the SC nominee is discrimination. It is one thing, if the accusation was proved, but in this case their was no proof, and yet the democrats kept talking about it as if it was proof. This is not advise and consent, it is discrimination. Then after the hearing and the vote, the democrats still keep spinning the narrative that Kavanaugh shouldn't be in the SC still based only on an unproven, uncorroborated accusation.

      Ford was not and is not a victim, she is a player.

      I mention this in my numerous articles so I won't repeat them here.

      However Ford intentionally took the wrong path of making her accusation to the committee, and Feinstein took another intentional wrong path. The proper path was file a police report in Maryland, and or send her letter to the chairperson of the senate judiciary committee, They would have been obligated to keep her anonymity and the senate and the FBI could have investigated it privately and not as the circus it was made by Feinstein.

      That is the simple answer to the question of your article.

      This was not an 11th hour as you say, it was past midnight because all that was left was the vote.

      Is there any reason for you, the democrats or the media to continue saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. Well just using the word guilty puts in a criminal context, and that contradicts your assertion that the hearing wasn't a trial.

      Convince me I am wrong.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Mike, I am glad to hear that we agree on something. Perhaps there is hope after all. I never criticize people for their belief. My only hope for these forums and discussions and articles and comments is to stimulate conversation and to educate. With knowledge, we can all make an informed decision.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 weeks ago from Placentia California

      Jack; Thanks for your comments. I agree totally with your last paragraph. That is not the job of the judiciary committee. It is to provide advice and consent to the president based on their findings.

      Jack now that we are on my article, I just want to say from my perspective, T adds nothing to the discussion, all he does is criticize my comments in the most insulting way. And if I don't quote something exactly like the definition of a democracy and republic, then he says I'm lying and taking that person down a rabbit hole. I just took the definition off the top of my head. He is really beginning to bug me. I may have to report him.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Mike, you did an exception job expaining the history that led up to this nomination. However, you drop the ball on what actually happened at this hearing.

      And you missed the most important thing that was different about this one. How the rule of law was changed. A person was assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. And how would a person do that about something that alleged happened 35 years ago? How can the FBI do any full investigation without knowing the place, the date and the people present?

      Most people’s memory are not that good. Can you remeber what happen in your life 35 years ago? Can you trust in that memory?

      There lies the problem. I don’t know what happened either. All I know is, it should have no bearing on this case since this is a job of the Senate to decide the qualification of Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme court. Not what he posted on his calendar when he was a high school student. Even a 5th grader can see that.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)