Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Touching someone is more than attempted rape. Also, even if she could not have him charged, he could be impeached or sued.

It seemed to me that the discussion here was about attempted rape, and if someone did today what she claims he did back then, and there were evidence, he would be charged with attempted rape, it seems to me.
But regardless, as explained in the link I provided (with legal analysis), all misdemeanors had a 1-year statute of limitations. If you think Ford described a behavior that was not a misdemeanor in Maryland (as explained in the legal analysis in question), please let me know which felony you think he committed.

ETA: as for whether he could be sued or impeached, that's beside my point, which was about a hypothetical scenario presented by Jolly Penguin in which he is convicted.

It does not matter what scope you want to confine the discussion to. Touching someone's private areas while attempting to rape them is beyond mere attempted rape. And there is no statute of limitations on impeachment or a lawsuit. The original narrow scope of ordinary charges do not even really work for a justice. The proper place for those charges are impeachment. So he CAN be charged outside the courts according to methods proscribed by the Constitution.

 

[Derec]

Trump supporter, 53, is charged after 'making threats to kill' Democrat senators and 'weak' Republicans if they vote against Brett Kavanaugh

Tit for tat?

Florida man!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Touching someone is more than attempted rape. Also, even if she could not have him charged, he could be impeached or sued.

It seemed to me that the discussion here was about attempted rape, and if someone did today what she claims he did back then, and there were evidence, he would be charged with attempted rape, it seems to me.
But regardless, as explained in the link I provided (with legal analysis), all misdemeanors had a 1-year statute of limitations. If you think Ford described a behavior that was not a misdemeanor in Maryland (as explained in the legal analysis in question), please let me know which felony you think he committed.

ETA: as for whether he could be sued or impeached, that's beside my point, which was about a hypothetical scenario presented by Jolly Penguin in which he is convicted.

It does not matter what scope you want to confine the discussion to. Touching someone's private areas while attempting to rape them is beyond mere attempted rape. And there is no statute of limitations on impeachment or a lawsuit. The original narrow scope of ordinary charges do not even really work for a justice. The proper place for those charges are impeachment. So he CAN be charged outside the courts according to methods proscribed by the Constitution.

I do not know that that is not attempted rape, as the action allegedly took place as part of the attempted rape. But regardless, if you count that separately, then it would still not seem to be a felony in 1982, but a misdemeanor. But if you think otherwise, please let me know what felony he allegedly committed.

That aside, again I was replying to a hypothetical scenario presented by Jolly Penguin in which he is convicted. I was telling him that the statute of limitations precludes that scenario. Now you say the statute of limitations would not preclude other things. I will reply that that is no objection to my point, or relevant to my point at all. I simply was not talking about that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It does not matter what scope you want to confine the discussion to. Touching someone's private areas while attempting to rape them is beyond mere attempted rape. And there is no statute of limitations on impeachment or a lawsuit. The original narrow scope of ordinary charges do not even really work for a justice. The proper place for those charges are impeachment. So he CAN be charged outside the courts according to methods proscribed by the Constitution.

I do not know that that is not attempted rape, as the action allegedly took place as part of the attempted rape. But regardless, if you count that separately, then it would still not seem to be a felony in 1982, but a misdemeanor. But if you think otherwise, please let me know what felony he allegedly committed.

That aside, again I was replying to a hypothetical scenario presented by Jolly Penguin in which he is convicted. I was telling him that the statute of limitations precludes that scenario. Now you say the statute of limitations would not preclude other things. I will reply that that is no objection to my point, or relevant to my point at all. I simply was not talking about that.

Your reply makes half sense. JP wrote "if he is charged and convicted," and that means via impeachment whether JP realized it or not. The statute of limitations you are referencing are not for impeachment, i.e. charging and conviction by houses of congress. I will add that he perjured himself recently. His removal from office would not go through normal courts either way.

 

[Toni]

Well, I’m still waiting for the impeachment of 45 so I have zero faith that Kavanaugh will be removed from the bench.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your reply makes half sense.

My answer makes full sense.

JP wrote "if he is charged and convicted," and that means via impeachment whether JP realized it or not.

No, that is not what that means. In this context, it should be obvious that the question was whether, if he is charged and convicted for sex offenses - before a court of law, rather than via impeachment -, he would then be removed.

The statute of limitations you are referencing are not for impeachment, i.e. charging and conviction by houses of congress.

No, it's the statute of limitations applicable in 1982 in Maryland to attempted rape or any other sex crime he may have been accused of doing. That is what Jolly_Penguin was talking about.

I will add that he perjured himself recently. His removal from office would not go through normal courts either way.

And I will add that Jolly_Penguin asked about the accusation of attempted rape, not about perjury. And no, he wasn't talking about impeachment, but rather, what happened if he was charged and convicted - not impeached and removed -; would he be removed as a result of that? That is what the question was about.

 

[Patooka]

Trump supporter, 53, is charged after 'making threats to kill' Democrat senators and 'weak' Republicans if they vote against Brett Kavanaugh

Tit for tat?

Any facts or even doses of reality to back that assertion up there, chief? I've bought myself a new chair that's very comfortable so take your time. I suspect you'll need it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, that is not what that means. In this context, ...

Once again, the specific narrow context [or your insistence that there can only be attempted rape] does not matter when there are errors in the framework of the question. Impeachment is the process for a sitting official like a federal judge or a SC justice. That is how the charge and conviction would happen or at a minimum it is relevant to how the second part ought to happen, the removal question if there is any question about states versus federal jurisdiction in charges. I will add that the sexual contact even if brief in combination with lack of consent, the physical force, the alcohol, and the hand over mouth all put this at a high degree of sex assault, a felony, not merely attempted rape. Therefore, in light of how the question ought to be applied to real legal processes and charges, it seems the observation of a statute of limitations for attempted rape is moot. Now, could there be also a statute of limitations on a felonious sex assault? Possibly. Suppose there is, but then there is nothing stopping the impeachment anyway, especially in light of the recent re-traumatization of Ford and the perjury. It could all be put collectively before the Legislative bodies. It is their prerogative.

Here is a link to Ford's statement transcript:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a joke, just a bad one to make on twitter.

Oh, and by the way, don't think I didn't notice Derec that you changed the subject from what Kavanaugh did.

Oh, the subject where we were talking about how a woman made an allegation against him involving details describing a place in time where an attack happened, and then the republicans claimed that the claim couldn't be verified, even though they made no attempt to ascertain if the mentioned place existed at the described time?

All her witnesses Including her best friend failed to verify her testimony. None of them remember anything about it. The most corrupt Court in the world would throw the case out .

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Remember, though, they didn't deny it, either.

We have three important things here:

1) Her telling the therapist. Where's her motive to lie then? She gains nothing, thus it's likely she was assaulted at some point.

2) Kavanaugh's reaction. Based on that alone I would be in the realm of being willing to vote to convict.

3) She gave multiple facts about the situation that would have been exceedingly hard to remember if there hadn't been some very memorable event at that party. Highly memorable events at parties are usually sexual in nature. If it was a positive experience with another partygoer (say, the loss of her virginity) why did the other person not remember? And why did she remember the identities of two people? Thus it was most likely a negative experience.

Put all of this together and I would have no problem voting guilty (of sexual assault. While he might have intended to progress to rape I wouldn't be so certain of that) if I were on a jury.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe so, but maybe not. But the night question still is why bring it up over 3 decades later?

Because she felt it was important enough to be put through the wringer of bringing it up in order to try to stop him from being on the supreme court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I’m still waiting for the impeachment of 45 so I have zero faith that Kavanaugh will be removed from the bench.

Impeachment of anyone is very very hard and needs either ridiculous majorities or bipartisan support. Kavanaugh isn't going anywhere and any half-assed impeachment would be reckless.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Once again, the specific narrow context [or your insistence that there can only be attempted rape] does not matter when there are errors in the framework of the question.

No, there is no problem in the framework of the question. And there is no insistence on my part that there can only be attempted rape. Whatever misdemeanor he is accused of committing, the statute of limitations was one year. If you think he's accused of a felony, again I will ask you to name the felony. I guess you might say 'assault with intent to rape', but that simply does not seem to be fit Ford's account of the events.

Impeachment is the process for a sitting official like a federal judge or a SC justice.

A sitting federal official can also be charged in a state for committing a state crime in the state. It makes sense to ask (as JP did) whether, if he is charged and convicted of sexual assault, that causes him to be removed as well.

That is how the charge and conviction would happen or at a minimum it is relevant to how the second part ought to happen, the removal question if there is any question about states versus federal jurisdiction in charges.

And again, what he wanted to know - so he asked - is what would happen if he were charged and convicted of sexual assault (in Maryland, clearly). I did not answer that, but pointed out that that would not happen because of the statute of limitations.

I will add that the sexual contact even if brief in combination with lack of consent, the physical force, the alcohol, and the hand over mouth all put this at a high degree of sex assault, a felony, not merely attempted rape.

Attempted rape is a serious crime, even if it was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland, but in any case, there is no felony such as "high degree of sex assault". As the link with legal analysis I posted indicated, assault was also a misdemeanor. Assault with intent to rape was a felony, but apparently that wasn't it (take a look at the information in the link https://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/29/maryland-misdemeanor-law ).

Therefore, in light of how the question ought to be applied to real legal processes and charges, it seems the observation of a statute of limitations for attempted rape is moot.

No, it is not.

Suppose there is, but then there is nothing stopping the impeachment anyway, especially in light of the recent re-traumatization of Ford and the perjury. It could all be put collectively before the Legislative bodies. It is their prerogative.

As I repeatedly pointed out, that is not what I was talking about. But of course, a statute of limitations would not stop the impeachment. If Democrats gain control of the House, they can impeach him. But that will not remove him. Rather, the Senate would have to judge him. There is no way he would be convicted on the presently available evidence, and very unlikely that he would on any evidence that might be presented in the future.

 

[Elixir]

No, there is no problem in the framework of the question. And there is no insistence on my part that there can only be attempted rape. Whatever misdemeanor he is accused of committing, the statute of limitations was one year. If you think he's accused of a felony, again I will ask you to name the felony. I guess you might say 'assault with intent to rape', but that simply does not seem to be fit Ford's account of the events.


A sitting federal official can also be charged in a state for committing a state crime in the state. It makes sense to ask (as JP did) whether, if he is charged and convicted of sexual assault, that causes him to be removed as well.

That is how the charge and conviction would happen or at a minimum it is relevant to how the second part ought to happen, the removal question if there is any question about states versus federal jurisdiction in charges.

And again, what he wanted to know - so he asked - is what would happen if he were charged and convicted of sexual assault (in Maryland, clearly). I did not answer that, but pointed out that that would not happen because of the statute of limitations.

I will add that the sexual contact even if brief in combination with lack of consent, the physical force, the alcohol, and the hand over mouth all put this at a high degree of sex assault, a felony, not merely attempted rape.

Attempted rape is a serious crime, even if it was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland, but in any case, there is no felony such as "high degree of sex assault". As the link with legal analysis I posted indicated, assault was also a misdemeanor. Assault with intent to rape was a felony, but apparently that wasn't it (take a look at the information in the link https://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/29/maryland-misdemeanor-law ).

Therefore, in light of how the question ought to be applied to real legal processes and charges, it seems the observation of a statute of limitations for attempted rape is moot.

No, it is not.

Suppose there is, but then there is nothing stopping the impeachment anyway, especially in light of the recent re-traumatization of Ford and the perjury. It could all be put collectively before the Legislative bodies. It is their prerogative.

As I repeatedly pointed out, that is not what I was talking about. But of course, a statute of limitations would not stop the impeachment. If Democrats gain control of the House, they can impeach him. But that will not remove him. Rather, the Senate would have to judge him. There is no way he would be convicted on the presently available evidence, and very unlikely that he would on any evidence that might be presented in the future.

Since when is "anything short of a felony conviction" not grounds for disqualification from SCOTUS? I know that impeachment by the current Senate would require him to be a convicted mass murderer or the equivalent, but the scumbag should never have been confirmed in the first place.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As I repeatedly pointed out, that is not what I was talking about. But of course, a statute of limitations would not stop the impeachment. If Democrats gain control of the House, they can impeach him. But that will not remove him. Rather, the Senate would have to judge him. There is no way he would be convicted on the presently available evidence, and very unlikely that he would on any evidence that might be presented in the future.

But the Senate judging him would have nothing to do with any available evidence. They're not a court, so they don't need to follow any statutes or precedents which don't support the position they decide to take. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one, so the only relevant consideration is how a yes or no vote would play for each individual Senator in their next election.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Since when is "anything short of a felony conviction" not grounds for disqualification from SCOTUS?

Since never. There are plenty of grounds for disqualification short of a felony conviction. Some grounds do not involve any conviction at all.

But you're saying that as if you were objecting to something I said. That is not so. I never said or suggested anything like that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I repeatedly pointed out, that is not what I was talking about. But of course, a statute of limitations would not stop the impeachment. If Democrats gain control of the House, they can impeach him. But that will not remove him. Rather, the Senate would have to judge him. There is no way he would be convicted on the presently available evidence, and very unlikely that he would on any evidence that might be presented in the future.

But the Senate judging him would have nothing to do with any available evidence. They're not a court, so they don't need to follow any statutes or precedents which don't support the position they decide to take. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one, so the only relevant consideration is how a yes or no vote would play for each individual Senator in their next election.

Actually, the Senate does try him (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States). It's a trial, there is a prosecution, a defense attorney, etc., though it's also true it's considered a political matter and the SCOTUS won't review it, so it's a mixture. But it does have to do with evidence. Surely, if there were conclusive evidence, with cameras, witnesses, DNA etc., that he raped and murdered a person, he would be removed by this process, whereas he won't be removed on the currently available evidence. But it is true that they can simply not review the evidence fairly if it's not politically convenient to them. The point remains that on the presently available evidence, he would not be removed, and very probably, he won't be removed on any evidence that might realistically come forward.

That said, this is a trial, not a job interview. The standard should be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

[Elixir]

That said, this is a trial, not a job interview. The standard should be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

And no chance that a rethuglican Senate would consider that the job interview he "passed" was a sham in the first place...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As I repeatedly pointed out, that is not what I was talking about. But of course, a statute of limitations would not stop the impeachment. If Democrats gain control of the House, they can impeach him. But that will not remove him. Rather, the Senate would have to judge him. There is no way he would be convicted on the presently available evidence, and very unlikely that he would on any evidence that might be presented in the future.

But the Senate judging him would have nothing to do with any available evidence. They're not a court, so they don't need to follow any statutes or precedents which don't support the position they decide to take. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one, so the only relevant consideration is how a yes or no vote would play for each individual Senator in their next election.

Actually, the Senate does try him (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States). It's a trial, there is a prosecution, a defense attorney, etc., though it's also true it's considered a political matter and the SCOTUS won't review it, so it's a mixture. But it does have to do with evidence. Surely, if there were conclusive evidence, with cameras, witnesses, DNA etc., that he raped and murdered a person, he would be removed by this process, whereas he won't be removed on the currently available evidence. But it is true that they can simply not review the evidence fairly if it's not politically convenient to them. The point remains that on the presently available evidence, he would not be removed, and very probably, he won't be removed on any evidence that might realistically come forward.

That said, this is a trial, not a job interview. The standard should be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Yes, but the reviewing of the evidence doesn't carry any imperatives on them beyond "I want / don't want to accept this evidence". If DNA evidence shows that Kavanagh raped and murdered a prostitute, a judge is bound by precedents and rules of evidence as to how he needs to take that into account and faces sanctions if he doesn't do it correctly. A Senator is bound by nothing more than "Latest polling shows that 64% of likely GOP voters in my state feel that a firm anti-abortion vote on the Supreme Court is more important to them than whether or not someone killed a whore, so I'm not going to care about the DNA evidence".

While naturally, accepting evidence of criminal behaviour so as to present the impression of a serious lawmaker is generally the path which they take, but their reasons for doing so is that it makes them look good politically, not because there's some legal process they have to follow in their decision making.

 

[Elixir]

A Senator is bound by nothing more than "Latest polling shows that 64% of likely GOP voters in my state feel that a firm anti-abortion vote on the Supreme Court is more important to them than whether or not someone killed a whore, so I'm not going to care about the DNA evidence".

EXACTLY! Kind of like his "job interview".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, but the reviewing of the evidence doesn't carry any imperatives on them beyond "I want / don't want to accept this evidence". If DNA evidence shows that Kavanagh raped and murdered a prostitute, a judge is bound by precedents and rules of evidence as to how he needs to take that into account and faces sanctions if he doesn't do it correctly. A Senator is bound by nothing more than "Latest polling shows that 64% of likely GOP voters in my state feel that a firm anti-abortion vote on the Supreme Court is more important to them than whether or not someone killed a whore, so I'm not going to care about the DNA evidence".

Maybe a judge is but is a jury so bound?
A jury is the judge of fact. If they do not find the DNA analysis presented by the prosecution persuasive, that's their mistake (or that of the prosecutor, or both), but still, I'm not sure they are bound.

Regardless, it is true that Senators are much less constrained than judges. I said it's a mixture. But my point is that they should not punish without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

While naturally, accepting evidence of criminal behaviour so as to present the impression of a serious lawmaker is generally the path which they take, but their reasons for doing so is that it makes them look good politically, not because there's some legal process they have to follow in their decision making.

That seems improbable. They are, after all, human. They would likely have more than one motivation, depending on the case. But it is improbable that they all see themselves as amoral people just trying to look good. In fact, it's almost certain that if a person has recently committed serious immoral behavior, they will want to punish him. If it happens long ago, it's less certain, but as far as I can tell, their moral assessment of whether he deserves the punishment is likely to play a significant if not decisive role, at least in the case of most Senators. Now, there is of course a big difference between convicting someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and refraining from convicting someone when there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter can much more frequently be justified on grounds like avoiding something worse, etc. (analogous to the cases of people who committed crimes but are let go unpunished in exchange for testimony, in criminal cases).