Brett Kavanaugh and Mohammad bin Salman by Jacob G. Hornberger!!
(2018-10-19 at 14:25:16 )

Brett Kavanaugh and Mohammad bin Salman by Jacob G. Hornberger

I find it fascinating that President Trump is comparing the controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh to the controversy swirling around Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. I find it equally fascinating that the presidents supporters in the Kavanaugh controversy do not seem to be coming to the support of bin Salman as eagerly and readily as they did with Kavanaugh.

What gives with that?

After all, President Trump is right in one major respect: bin Salman is entitled to be presumed innocent of the charge that he ordered or orchestrated the murder of Jamal Khashoggi as much as Kavanaugh was entitled to be presumed innocent of the charge of sexual assault.

Everyone, regardless of nationality, is entitled to be presumed innocent of any accusation, whether it involves sexual assault, perjury, or murder. It is simply the right thing to do.

But we should all keep in mind something that President Trump might well forget: The presumption of innocence is just that - a presumption, one that can be rebutted through testimony and other evidence.

Here is what Trump said:

-Here we go again with, you know, you are guilty until proven innocent. I do not like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I am concerned. I think we have to find out what happened first.

After all, let us not forget that bin Salman has denied the accusation being leveled against him, just as Kavanaugh did. From a Trump tweet: "Just spoke to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who totally denied any knowledge of what took place in their Turkish Consulate."

But here is the critically important question: How then do we determine what really happened"?

President Trump provided the answer in a tweet: through "a full and complete investigation."

That is what Saudi officials have reportedly been doing for the past two weeks. They have been conducting a "full and complete" investigation into the matter.

Rumors are now flying that they are planning to exonerate bin Salman by blaming the crime on Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, a high-ranking adviser to the crown prince. The story will apparently be that al-Assiri ordered the hit or ordered an interrogation that went awry, all without the knowledge or consent of bin Salman.

So, that should settle things, right?

After all, let us not forget: As of right now, there is no genuine evidence that ties bin Salman to the crime. So, why should everyone not simply accept the Saudi official version of what happened and move on?

Why continue to "smear" bin Salman with what might well be unfounded and uncorroborated accusations?

Would an investigation exonerating bin Salman by the Saudi intelligence machinery satisfy people? Perhaps.

My hunch is that it might well satisfy President Trump, given the deep allegiance that he and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have to the Saudi regime.

But my hunch is that many other people (including me) would say that that is not exactly a genuine investigation. It might even be called a "sham," a term that means "bogus" or "false."

Now, suppose the Saudi congress were to take a vote on the matter. The vote ends up not even being close: 100 percent of the delegates to the assembly vote in favor of bin Salmans innocence.

Should that resolve that matter? After all, that is a lot bigger percentage of votes than Kavanaugh secured in his confirmation vote, which, according to President Trump, established Kavanaughs innocence. Why not apply the same principle to a vote by the Saudi parliament?

Unfortunately, while President Trump is willing to apply the principle of the presumption of innocence to both Kavanaugh and bin Salman, he was unwilling to extend his other principle to the Kavanaugh controversy: the need for a full and complete investigation into whether Brett Kavanaugh was guilty of what he has been accused of, to wit: sexual assault and perjury.

In fact, that was precisely the purpose of President Trumps quick, rushed, pressured vote on Judge Kavanaughs confirmation - to prevent a full investigation into the allegations against him.

Okay, I understand that some people concluded that starting "many years ago", Christine Blasey Ford made up the entire story in order to block Judge Kavanaughs appointment to the Supreme Court. Others concluded that she was experiencing false memories. Still others concluded that she was conspiring with the Central Intelligence Agency to block a rightwing jurist who could be expected to sustain the constitutionality of everything the national-security establishment does in order to get some leftwing lawyer appointed to the court instead.

I get all that. What I do not understand is why President Trump, judge Kavanaugh, and their supporters would oppose a full and complete investigation into the allegations, just as President Trump is apparently calling for with respect to the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

President Trump has gone on the campaign trail alleging that Judge Kavanaugh was "smeared" and had his reputation dragged through the mud.

If that is true, President Trump and the Republican Senators are clearly to blame for that phenomenon. After all, the so-called "smear" stems from the testimony of Christine Ford, who alleged that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. But it was President Trump and the Republicans who invited Ms Ford to testify in the first place, knowing full well what she was going to say!

Why would they do that??

Well, here is the answer: They wanted to give her the "courtesy" of having her say. But what is the point of giving a person the "courtesy" of having her say if all that she is going to do is "smear" a nominee to the Supreme Court, followed by a quick, rushed, pressured vote on the nominees confirmation?

In other words, it is clear in retrospect that the Republicans senators had absolutely no intention of conducting a full and complete investigation into what Ms Ford was alleging.

Instead, they intended to simply let her testify, have Judge Kavanaugh angrily and indignantly deny the allegation, and then quickly proceed to a political vote, a political vote that President Trump emphasizes proves his "innocence."

Thus, Ms Fords testimony was clearly irrelevant. It did not matter what she said. As soon as she and Judge Kavanaugh had finished testifying, the Republicans were going to push through to a vote.

No full and complete investigation at all.

Given such, one thing that the Republicans accomplished was a "smearing" of Kavanaugh, assuming of course that Ms Ford had made up the whole thing. Another thing they accomplished was the smearing of Ms Ford, assuming that she was telling the truth.

Given that no full and complete investigation was ever going to be conducted into what Ms Ford was alleging, the question has to be asked: Would the entire nation, including both Ms Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, have been better off if the Senate Judiciary Committee had never invited Ms Ford to testify in the first place??

Because her testimony, as far as they were concerned, was totally irrelevant. It was not going to affect anything. It was purposeless.

But once they did invite Ms Ford to testify, the fact is that they were under a solemn obligation to conduct a full and complete investigation into her allegations.

It does not matter if the Democrats were engaged in rotten political strategizing or even that the Democrat Party is as "crooked and corrupt" as the Republican Party.

Once the Senate Judiciary Committee invited a witness to testify who they knew was about to level a serious accusation at Judge Kavanaugh, it then became incumbent on them to fully and thoroughly investigate the allegation. That is where the United States Senate failed the American people, including both Ms Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

Suppose on the night before the confirmation vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee invited a witness to testify who swore under oath that Judge Kavanaugh had accepted a bribe from him to rule in his favor in a case before the D.C. federal court of appeals.

Suppose it was established that those rotten, scheming Democrats had engineered the invitation to testify as part of a nefarious effort to block Judge Kavanaughs nomination.

The Democrat political machinations would be irrelevant, just as any angry and indignant reaction by Judge Kavanaugh against such machinations would be irrelevant.

All that would matter at that point would be: Did he take the bribe and, if so, should that disqualify him from serving as an associate justice on the Supreme Court?

How would that issue be determined? There is only one way. No, not by having a sham investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and, no, not by having a quick, rushed, pressured confirmation political vote that supposedly establishes his "innocence," but instead by having a full and complete, open and transparent, genuine investigation by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, that is their job - to determine, on our behalf, whether to assent to a person who is seeking a job on the United States Supreme Court.

Now, it is true that a full and complete investigation into the Judge Kavanaugh allegations still might have left the situation unclear, in which case the Senators might have had to make a difficult decision based on the evidence that had been adduced during the investigation.That might well have meant that Judge Kavanaugh would have been confirmed anyway.

But justice is always better served with a full and complete genuine investigation and open, transparent, and honest public hearings (or trials) on critically important issues, especially issues that involve accusations of grave wrongdoing.

That principle applies not only to Mohammad bin Salman but also to Brett Kavanaugh.

Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!