Skip to main content

Comment Critical of Susan Collins Kavanaugh Speech Deleted from Boothbay Register Comments

The latest comment by this author to be removed from the comment section of the Boothbay Register takes censorship of free speech beyond the realm of local politics.

You can read the whole discussion- minus my response to JFxm  HERE

Proud of Susan Collins

Mackenziella




Detected as spam Thanks, we'll work on getting this corrected.

I think you are missing the point. There is something called "Separation of Powers" which is in the United States Constitution. The Powers which are separated are the Legislature, the Justice Branch, and the Administration. "Innocent until proven guilty applies in the Justice branch of government because it is ONLY the Justice branch of government which has the power to prove innocence or guilt. Without that power, "innocent until proven guilty becomes "anyone accused of a crime is innocent. PERIOD"

Collins did not honor the due process of Congress, which, while not having the power to conduct a trial proving innocence or guilt, does have the power to use sworn testimony under oath. Since the anyone swearing under oath can be charged with a felony if what they say can be established to be false, Congress must grant the sworn testimony the assumption of truth spoken under the rubric of "innocent ( speaking truthfully) until proven guilty( of not speaking truthfully- a felony). There was no criminal case being conducted because that can only be conducted by the Justice Department- NOT by Congress. If it were conducted by the Justice Department both sides would have been permitted to call witnesses, to see discovery, to cross-examine witnesses and so forth. None of that is permitted in a congressional hearing. The only "innocent until proven guilty" which comes to bear in a Congressional hearing pertains to the sworn testimony pursuant to the threat of losing one's liberty if not true. The innocence of guilt pertaining to whether Kavanaugh is guilty not within the powers of Congress to address,

Kavanaugh was NOT accused of sexual assault within a context in which he can lose his liberty. He can only lose his liberty in the context of a congressional hearing if it can be established that he lied under oath- exactly the same as Ford- and even then, it may require a separate process conducted by the Justice branch of government.

Collins acted as judge and jury, accusing Ford of Not being in her right mind because she asserted that Kavanaugh was innocent of any crime which anyone might accuse him of- being that in that contest there is no way to prove innocence or guilt.

Before the FBI Investigation, the pro-Kavanaugh sect was saying it was useless because the FBI cannot draw conclusions. There were four affidavits submitted to the hearing corroborating Fords story. Mark Judge supposedly entered an affidavit- or some kind of statement. but he would be an accessory to the crime and Congress cannot grant immunity. Congress did not allow corroborating witnesses to testify and certainly not to be cross-examined. That may be because Congress knows it does not have the power to conduct a trial which may establish innocence or guilt. Ford asked to be interviewed by the FBI but was not allowed. The entire process was a sham.

And yet our President announced that Kavanaugh had been proven innocent by Congress! No secret that our president lacks the attention span to understand the Constitution.

End of blocked comment.

I have already seen frequent demands on social media that Ford be prosecuted. If that were to occur it would not be in a congressional hearing, it would be in the justice system and Kavanaugh could not escape being part of the investigation in which Ford is the accused and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How The MPERS Contract Came To Be Embedded in the Maine Constitution

Is The Maine Public Retirement System Unconstitutional? According to the Maine Public Employees ComprehensiveFinancial Report of 2010 , the Maine Public Employees Retirement System was established in 1942 to provide services for retiring public employees. No information is given about how the Public Employees Retirement System was legally structured in 1942. In the report MPERS is described as “an independent public agency of the State of Maine that traces its history to 1942”. Wikipedia  uses the same term but when the link is clicked it reveals that Wikipedia has no idea what " independent public agency " means.  An online search for history of MPERS between 1942 and 1985 comes up empty.  In 1985 during the administration of Governor Joseph E Brennan, the Maine Legislature passed a statute announcing its intentions of using general taxpayer monies to provide for retirement funds and death benefits for public employees, a faction which, incidentally, includes th...

High Brow Art VS the Marketplace and the Maine Juice Conference

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/xdwZDk Continuing with my story from HERE ...(and incorporating a few paragraphs from this earlier but incomplete telling ) Finally, after a year of receiving stimulus fund notices for non-profits only, in the fall of 2009, I received an email from the Maine Arts Commission about a competition for small businesses for what I took to be, a modest grant for the sum of 30000.00 from an "anonymous source". In a moment of hopeful delusions, I imagined that the Maine Arts Commission had come to its senses and realized that they needed to support the private sector. The competition was called an "elevator pitch competition" which means a pitch delivered in five minutes. Even the written answers to questions on the application were required to be answered in a minimal number of words, brevity being stressed as being so important that if your couldn't explain a business idea in five minutes, then one's business idea is simply not ...

Statutory Bond Question Requirements Amplify -NOT Negate Maine Constituion

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/VcBj8O UPDATE NOV 11 2014:  Since I wrote This post- I cam across the statute governing Bond Ratification- as amended by the 2013 legislature It looks to be that the sentence "To meet the requirement that the signed statement of the Treasurer of State accompany any ballot question for ratification of a bond issue, the statement may be printed on the ballot" was amended by adding this "or it may be printed as a separate document that is made available to voters as provided in Title 21-A, sections 605-A and 651" Section 605-A no longer exists and I am tracking it down. Section 651 says it can be posted outside the guardrail which separates voters from the rest of the world. I am writing a new post to cover this new information Update Nov 12, 2014!   The link I originally referenced is here ,  THIS IS HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN  2011 - showing the process of incrementalism at play In this link  part of the sentence below is s...