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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... there is no felony such as "high degree of sex assault". ....

Literal much? sexual assault comes in degrees like murder. the actions were felonious. if there was no 1st or maybe 2nd degree sex assault as there is in Maryland state law NOW that completely fits the crime to include the collective combination of groping, pushing, forcing himself on her, and the attempted rape, then also the assault with intent to rape is indeed satisfied by what happened. The details of the link I provided show both to be true. And further, Bart O'Kavanaigh's perjury is enough to make the whole thing an issue before congress. The point about attempted rape statute of limitations being up are therefore doubly moot: once for the trial would be in congress and twice because attempted rape need not be the charge but instead all of the others: perjury, 1st or 2nd degree sex assault, assault with attempt to rape. And you could have thrown attempted rape in there for good measure anyway because again, not court.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Literal much? sexual assault comes in degrees like murder. the actions were felonious. if there was no 1st or maybe 2nd degree sex assault as there is in Maryland state law NOW that completely fits the crime to include the collective combination of groping, pushing, forcing himself on her, and the attempted rape, then also the assault with intent to rape is indeed satisfied by what happened. The details of the link I provided show both to be true.

As you can see in the link I provided, the Montgomery Chief of Police and the State's Attorney seem to disagree with that assessment, as they are the ones who brought up the statute of limitations. But in any case, then assuming there is no statute of limitations, I would then say that the fact that Ford has not filed any criminal reports in practice precludes any local investigation (see https://mobile.twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1045728838704123904 ).

And further, Bart O'Kavanaigh's perjury is enough to make the whole thing an issue before congress.

That is not relevant to my point in reply to JP's post. He was asking about sexual assault, not about perjury.

The point about attempted rape statute of limitations being up are therefore doubly moot: once for the trial would be in congress and twice because attempted rape need not be the charge but instead all of the others: perjury, 1st or 2nd degree sex assault, assault with attempt to rape. And you could have thrown attempted rape in there for good measure anyway because again, not court.

First, Jolly_Penguin's question was about a scenario in which Kavanaugh is convicted of sexual assault, and asked whether that caused it to be removed from the bench. He will not be convicted, and some of the relevant people in charge of enforcing Maryland law seem to agree that the stature of limitations applies (see above), so surely the point is not moot even if they happened to be mistaken.
Second, the point about trial by Congress is moot. The question was about the effect of a trial before a Maryland court of law, not the trial by Congress. The only part that would not be moot would be to say that if he were tried and convicted in Maryland, then it would be up to Congress to try him and remove him from office. But in any event, that is not going to happen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. The last time he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Compare with similar event of assault with intent to rape leading to conviction in Maryland in the same time period.

The Evening Sun
Baltimore, Maryland
10 Nov 1983

Man, 21, guilty in third trial for attempted rape of girl, 14

In his third trial on the same charges, a 21-year-old Jessup man has been convicted by a Howard County jury of assault with attempt to rape a 14-year-old Guilford girl and assault and battery of the teenager.
In this first two trials in Howard County Circuit Court, juries acquitted the man of rape charges but failed to reach a verdict on the attempted rape and assault and battery charges.
Yesterday the jury of five women and seven men deliberated for about two hours before finding Walter Thomas Harding guilty. He is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 26.
Now free on $5,000 bond, Harding could receive a maximum sentence of 15 years for the assault-with-attempt-to-rape conviction, according to attorneys.
In closing arguments to the 2 1/2 day trial, attorneys told jurors that, because there were two conflicting versions of the same incident, it was up to them to decide who was telling the truth.
According to the prosecution, the girl, now 15, was babysitting in a townhouse Nov. 24, 1982, when a man knocked on the door and persuaded her to let him enter.
State's Attorney A. Gallatin Warfield 3rd said the girl did not know the man. Two hours after she let him into the house, she fell asleep on the sofa and awoke to find Harding attacking her, according to the prosecution.
A struggle ensued, during which the girl received a bloody lip, Warfield said.
....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That is not relevant to my point in reply to JP's post. He was asking about sexual assault, not about perjury.

The two are linked together since an investigation would show he perjured himself and is untrustworthy. Since he can still be impeached or even tried for some crimes in court, there is still an issue.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Compare with similar event of assault with intent to rape leading to conviction in Maryland in the same time period.

The Evening Sun
Baltimore, Maryland
10 Nov 1983

Man, 21, guilty in third trial for attempted rape of girl, 14

In his third trial on the same charges, a 21-year-old Jessup man has been convicted by a Howard County jury of assault with attempt to rape a 14-year-old Guilford girl and assault and battery of the teenager.
In this first two trials in Howard County Circuit Court, juries acquitted the man of rape charges but failed to reach a verdict on the attempted rape and assault and battery charges.
Yesterday the jury of five women and seven men deliberated for about two hours before finding Walter Thomas Harding guilty. He is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 26.
Now free on $5,000 bond, Harding could receive a maximum sentence of 15 years for the assault-with-attempt-to-rape conviction, according to attorneys.
In closing arguments to the 2 1/2 day trial, attorneys told jurors that, because there were two conflicting versions of the same incident, it was up to them to decide who was telling the truth.
According to the prosecution, the girl, now 15, was babysitting in a townhouse Nov. 24, 1982, when a man knocked on the door and persuaded her to let him enter.
State's Attorney A. Gallatin Warfield 3rd said the girl did not know the man. Two hours after she let him into the house, she fell asleep on the sofa and awoke to find Harding attacking her, according to the prosecution.
A struggle ensued, during which the girl received a bloody lip, Warfield said.
....

Do you have a link, so that I can assess the extent of the use of force and compare the two?
At any rate, I'm not a legal expert. I take into account what the Maryland PD and State Attorney's Office said. They probably know better.

But if they are mistaken, then if Ford were to press charges, he could be investigated. I'm pretty sure he would not be convicted, though since there is nowhere near evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, though, and no such evidence will be forthcoming.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is not relevant to my point in reply to JP's post. He was asking about sexual assault, not about perjury.

The two are linked together since an investigation would show he perjured himself and is untrustworthy. Since he can still be impeached or even tried for some crimes in court, there is still an issue.

You mean that he could realistically be convicted of assault with attempt to rape in 1982, if he's convicted of perjury?
I disagree. In fact, if he committed perjury about his drinking habits, that does not seem to provide any good evidence he is guilty of sexual assault, since one would expect him to lie about his drinking habits regardless of whether he is guilty of sexual assault, because he was trying to get a job, and it would be used against him if he had acknowledged he drank alcohol illegally.
Similarly, any lies about his time in the Bush administration makes no more likely that he is guilty of sexual assault. This goes nowhere. But in any case, Ford would have to denounce him formally in Maryland for an investigation to happen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That is not relevant to my point in reply to JP's post. He was asking about sexual assault, not about perjury.

The two are linked together since an investigation would show he perjured himself and is untrustworthy. Since he can still be impeached or even tried for some crimes in court, there is still an issue.

You mean that he could realistically be convicted of assault with attempt to rape in 1982, if he's convicted of perjury?
I disagree. In fact, if he committed perjury about his drinking habits, ...

Drinking and sex habits you mean while being investigated for a sex crime by the senate committee. If he were investigated by congress like say clinton for whitewater, then yes, it could end with a sex crime.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Compare with similar event of assault with intent to rape leading to conviction in Maryland in the same time period.

The Evening Sun
Baltimore, Maryland
10 Nov 1983

Man, 21, guilty in third trial for attempted rape of girl, 14

In his third trial on the same charges, a 21-year-old Jessup man has been convicted by a Howard County jury of assault with attempt to rape a 14-year-old Guilford girl and assault and battery of the teenager.
In this first two trials in Howard County Circuit Court, juries acquitted the man of rape charges but failed to reach a verdict on the attempted rape and assault and battery charges.
Yesterday the jury of five women and seven men deliberated for about two hours before finding Walter Thomas Harding guilty. He is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 26.
Now free on $5,000 bond, Harding could receive a maximum sentence of 15 years for the assault-with-attempt-to-rape conviction, according to attorneys.
In closing arguments to the 2 1/2 day trial, attorneys told jurors that, because there were two conflicting versions of the same incident, it was up to them to decide who was telling the truth.
According to the prosecution, the girl, now 15, was babysitting in a townhouse Nov. 24, 1982, when a man knocked on the door and persuaded her to let him enter.
State's Attorney A. Gallatin Warfield 3rd said the girl did not know the man. Two hours after she let him into the house, she fell asleep on the sofa and awoke to find Harding attacking her, according to the prosecution.
A struggle ensued, during which the girl received a bloody lip, Warfield said.
....

Do you have a link, so that I can assess the extent of the use of force and compare the two?

Newspapers.com. but you don't need it. Ford was groped and assaulted while bart o'kavanaugh was trying to rape her. That's assault with attempt to rape.

At any rate, I'm not a legal expert. I take into account what the-

Argument from authority. Those persons tend to be conservatives or could be mistaken so look at logic and evidence instead.

I will also repeat felonious sex assaults to a high degree. 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree sex assaults are felonies in maryland. 6th degree could be a misdemeanor. In my state i heard about a guy who jerked a horse. He got charged with 6th degree. If you go to maryland statutes you can see 3rd degree definitely fits bart and also 2nd degree might. If you search newspaper articles you can see 2nd degree sex assault was a crime in maryland in 1980's. Such cases may show more similarity as above. So that is your logic and data.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Do you have a link, so that I can assess the extent of the use of force and compare the two?

Newspapers.com. but you don't need it. Ford was groped and assaulted while bart o'kavanaugh was trying to rape her. That's assault with attempt to rape.

Also, Angra, I typed the relevant part of the article for you. The details of the assault are already there:

Two hours after she let him into the house, she fell asleep on the sofa and awoke to find Harding attacking her, according to the prosecution.
A struggle ensued, during which the girl received a bloody lip, Warfield said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I found this part the more interesting relative to Kavanaugh:

In closing arguments to the 2 1/2 day trial, attorneys told jurors that, because there were two conflicting versions of the same incident, it was up to them to decide who was telling the truth.

And as to this part:

State's Attorney A. Gallatin Warfield 3rd said the girl did not know the man. Two hours after she let him into the house, she fell asleep on the sofa and awoke to find Harding attacking her, according to the prosecution.

I'm presuming the man was a friend or relative of the family? Not many people I didn't know would I:

a) let them into my house
b) ... for 2 hours
c) ... while babysitting someone's kids
d) ... and fall asleep with him still there!

There could be mitigating circumstances of him knowing the family and the kids are asleep because it is night time and the babysitter feel asleep because it was late. But it certainly asks a lot of questions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As you can see in the link I provided, the Montgomery Chief of Police and the State's Attorney seem to disagree with that assessment, as they are the ones who brought up the statute of limitations. But in any case, then assuming there is no statute of limitations, I would then say that the fact that Ford has not filed any criminal reports in practice precludes any local investigation (see https://mobile.twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1045728838704123904 ).

...

First, Jolly_Penguin's question was about a scenario in which Kavanaugh is convicted of sexual assault, and asked whether that caused it to be removed from the bench. He will not be convicted, and some of the relevant people in charge of enforcing Maryland law seem to agree that the stature of limitations applies (see above), -

Full stop. Hold on. There seems to be an incorrect conclusion here. What those people wrote about was that Ford can come forward and ask that he be charged with sexual assault, such as third degree or maybe second degree...though they did not list either of those. Both of those are felonies and have no statute of limitations. They also said as an aside that both assault and attempted rape (both relevant to her claims) have statute of limitations already passed. Just because those two are beyond chargeable in Maryland does not mean his actions cannot be part of a broader thing in congress or that his actions do not apply to other charges in Maryland which have no statute of limitations. Let's look at a list:

• attempted rape - beyond statute of limitations in Maryland
• assault - beyond statute of limitations in Maryland
• assault with intent to rape - NOT beyond statute of limitations in Maryland
• 2nd degree sex assault - NOT beyond statute of limitations in Maryland
• 3rd degree sex assault - NOT beyond statute of limitations in Maryland
• Perjury about drinking - FBI, DOJ, Congress, not beyond statute of limitations, impeachment, further investigations
• Perjury about sex habits - same as above

Okay, here as before, I will type out an article for you from around the same time period with respect to a particular possible charge that I think gives insight into something similar. In this case, 3rd degree sex assault in the Maryland statutes has a lot of similarity to Ford's claims. 3rd degree is a felony. If you re-read your link from Police Chief you can see they said Ford can still come forward to ask for charges, too. Anyway, here is the article from the 80's.

The Daily Times
Salisbury, Maryland
29 Mar 1984
Page 3

6 Sentenced In Somerset Sex Charge

PRINCESS ANNE - Three Washington High School students who were tried as adults for their roles in sexual assault case were sentenced to six-month jail terms Wednesday after pleading guilty to assault and battery charges.
Three other students who were found to be delinquent two weeks ago on similar charges were also sentenced to six months in a juvenile detention center.
Circuit Court Judge Lloyd Simpkins suspended all but 60 days of the sentences for Terri Cannon, 18, Leslie Perez, 19, Russell Carter, 18, Michael Bailey, 17, and Gaskin Davis, 16. The sentence for Michael Leatherbury, 17, was suspended entirely.
The six teen-agers were facing third degree sexual assault charges after two female students reported that they were attacked during gym class on January 24 and 25. The victims said they were dragged into a school mini-gym, held down against their will and fondled by five of the students while Leatherbury used a baseball bat to prevent other students from coming inside.
"These boys aren't bad boys they are just boys, and neither are these bad girls," Simpkins said. "What they did was entirely wrong and inappropriate. These boys started playing around and taking liberties with the girls and it got a great deal out of hand."

Maryland state law:

§ 3-307. Sexual offense in the third degree.


(a) Prohibited.- A person may not:

(1) (i) engage in sexual contact with another without the consent of the other; and

(ii) 1. employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon;

2. suffocate, strangle, disfigure, or inflict serious physical injury on the victim or another in the course of committing the crime;

3. threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping; or

4. commit the crime while aided and abetted by another;

(2) engage in sexual contact with another if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual;

(3) engage in sexual contact with another if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the sexual contact is at least 4 years older than the victim;

(4) engage in a sexual act with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the sexual act is at least 21 years old; or

(5) engage in vaginal intercourse with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the act is at least 21 years old.

(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of sexual offense in the third degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-3/subtitle-3/3-307/

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You mean that he could realistically be convicted of assault with attempt to rape in 1982, if he's convicted of perjury?
I disagree. In fact, if he committed perjury about his drinking habits, ...

Drinking and sex habits you mean while being investigated for a sex crime by the senate committee. If he were investigated by congress like say clinton for whitewater, then yes, it could end with a sex crime.

You're cutting the part in which I explain why that is not at all good evidence: he would very likely lie about those habits regardless of whether he is guilty, because he wanted to get the job.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You mean that he could realistically be convicted of assault with attempt to rape in 1982, if he's convicted of perjury?
I disagree. In fact, if he committed perjury about his drinking habits, ...

Drinking and sex habits you mean while being investigated for a sex crime by the senate committee. If he were investigated by congress like say clinton for whitewater, then yes, it could end with a sex crime.

You're cutting the part in which I explain why that is not at all good evidence: he would very likely lie about those habits regardless of whether he is guilty, because he wanted to get the job.

And what about ramirez and swetnick? 3 against 1 known liar.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Full stop. Hold on. There seems to be an incorrect conclusion here. What those people wrote about was that Ford can come forward and ask that he be charged with sexual assault, such as third degree or maybe second degree...though they did not list either of those. Both of those are felonies and have no statute of limitations.

They're saying that they stand ready to investigate. But they're pointing out that the statute of limitations for attempted rape and for assault was 1 year. If they thought the description matched a felony, why would they bring that up?

It's not because they think that a felony can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular case, because it should be clear to them that neither can a misdemeanor...unless they're making a mistake about that.

Argument from authority. Those persons tend to be conservatives or could be mistaken so look at logic and evidence instead.

Actually, when people with expertise in Maryland law (i.e., relevant authorities on the matter) say that Maryland law holds A, that is evidence that it does. If, also, they are not likely to have any suspect motivations, that is good evidence. The fact that you consider this an "argument from authority" to be rejected is an epistemic error on your part.

Also, you say that "they could be conservatives". Well, John Mc. Carthy ( http://www.johnmccarthy.us/index.html, https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/sao/about/johnmccarthy.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101974.html?noredirect=on) has spent his career in Montgomery County state's attorney's office for decades, and is not a career politician. He's a professional doing his job, regardless of what his political views might be. But he does not appear to be particularly conservative (e.g., "As part of my progressive approach to addressing the gang issue in our community, the State's Attorney's Office has participated in and helped organize events aimed to provide young people with safe and fun alternative to gang involvement.").

Now, after doing some further research on my own (here is a relevant case, in which the difference is explained), it does seem likely that the description matches assault with intent to rape. Why? Because an even better authority on the matter describes the differences between attempted rape and assault with intent to rape, and according to their description, it seems Kavanaugh's behavior as described by Ford would have been assault with intent to rape.

Of course, this is also an argument from authority in the sense I'm looking at what people knowledgeable on the matter say. That is not something to hold against it.

That aside, my further research on the matter confirms that what the State's Attorney and the Chief of Police said about not proceeding without a complaint from the person claiming to be a victim is correct, so given that Ford has not said anything to the Maryland authorities, they will not attempt to investigate.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You're cutting the part in which I explain why that is not at all good evidence: he would very likely lie about those habits regardless of whether he is guilty, because he wanted to get the job.

And what about ramirez and swetnick? 3 against 1 known liar.

That is not relevant to the point about the relevancy of his lies. He probably lied, but he would have done so guilty or not, because drinking habits, etc., during his youth, while not disqualifying for the job, in practice would have reduced his chances significantly.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You're cutting the part in which I explain why that is not at all good evidence: he would very likely lie about those habits regardless of whether he is guilty, because he wanted to get the job.

And what about ramirez and swetnick? 3 against 1 known liar.

That is not relevant to the point about the relevancy of his lies. He probably lied, but he would have done so guilty or not, because drinking habits, etc., during his youth, while not disqualifying for the job, in practice would have reduced his chances significantly.

His drinking habits are not disqualifying. Lying about boofing and devil's triangle may have relevance to sexual habits which are relevant to his crimes. Let's not incompletely label it as "drinking etc." It is more the etc part that is relevant though blacking out may also be relevant to crimes. Or his aggressions against someone who was NOT a UB40 singer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Full stop. Hold on. There seems to be an incorrect conclusion here. What those people wrote about was that Ford can come forward and ask that he be charged with sexual assault, such as third degree or maybe second degree...though they did not list either of those. Both of those are felonies and have no statute of limitations.

They're saying that they stand ready to investigate. But they're pointing out that the statute of limitations for attempted rape and for assault was 1 year. If they thought the description matched a felony, why would they bring that up?

It's not because they think that a felony can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular case, because it should be clear to them that neither can a misdemeanor...unless they're making a mistake about that.

Argument from authority. Those persons tend to be conservatives or could be mistaken so look at logic and evidence instead.

Actually, when people with expertise in Maryland law (i.e., relevant authorities on the matter) say that Maryland law holds A, that is evidence that it does. If, also, they are not likely to have any suspect motivations, that is good evidence. The fact that you consider this an "argument from authority" to be rejected is an epistemic error on your part.

Also, you say that "they could be conservatives". Well, John Mc. Carthy ( http://www.johnmccarthy.us/index.html, https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/sao/about/johnmccarthy.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101974.html?noredirect=on) has spent his career in Montgomery County state's attorney's office for decades, and is not a career politician. He's a professional doing his job, regardless of what his political views might be. But he does not appear to be particularly conservative (e.g., "As part of my progressive approach to addressing the gang issue in our community, the State's Attorney's Office has participated in and helped organize events aimed to provide young people with safe and fun alternative to gang involvement.").

Now, after doing some further research on my own (here is a relevant case, in which the difference is explained), it does seem likely that the description matches assault with intent to rape. Why? Because an even better authority on the matter describes the differences between attempted rape and assault with intent to rape, and according to their description, it seems Kavanaugh's behavior as described by Ford would have been assault with intent to rape.

Of course, this is also an argument from authority in the sense I'm looking at what people knowledgeable on the matter say. That is not something to hold against it.

That aside, my further research on the matter confirms that what the State's Attorney and the Chief of Police said about not proceeding without a complaint from the person claiming to be a victim is correct, so given that Ford has not said anything to the Maryland authorities, they will not attempt to investigate.

So your "attempt to rape is beyond statute of limitations" point is moot, your claim that assault with intent to rape was incompatible was also wrong, and your claim that high degrees of felonious sex assault do not exist was also wrong. What I now expect from you is less reliance on volokh conspiracy and authority and more reading up on things. Thank you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is not relevant to the point about the relevancy of his lies. He probably lied, but he would have done so guilty or not, because drinking habits, etc., during his youth, while not disqualifying for the job, in practice would have reduced his chances significantly.

His drinking habits are not disqualifying. Lying about boofing and devil's triangle may have relevance to sexual habits which are relevant to his crimes. Let's not incompletely label it as "drinking etc." It is more the etc part that is relevant though blacking out may also be relevant to crimes. Or his aggressions against someone who was NOT a UB40 singer.

I don't know which lies you conclude he engaged it, then. In any case, one would expect him to lie if he ever passed out and did not remember what he had done. In fact, one would expect him to lie regardless of whether he was guilty. For that reason, that is very weak evidence of guilt.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

They're saying that they stand ready to investigate. But they're pointing out that the statute of limitations for attempted rape and for assault was 1 year. If they thought the description matched a felony, why would they bring that up?

It's not because they think that a felony can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular case, because it should be clear to them that neither can a misdemeanor...unless they're making a mistake about that.


Actually, when people with expertise in Maryland law (i.e., relevant authorities on the matter) say that Maryland law holds A, that is evidence that it does. If, also, they are not likely to have any suspect motivations, that is good evidence. The fact that you consider this an "argument from authority" to be rejected is an epistemic error on your part.

Also, you say that "they could be conservatives". Well, John Mc. Carthy ( http://www.johnmccarthy.us/index.html, https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/sao/about/johnmccarthy.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101974.html?noredirect=on) has spent his career in Montgomery County state's attorney's office for decades, and is not a career politician. He's a professional doing his job, regardless of what his political views might be. But he does not appear to be particularly conservative (e.g., "As part of my progressive approach to addressing the gang issue in our community, the State's Attorney's Office has participated in and helped organize events aimed to provide young people with safe and fun alternative to gang involvement.").

Now, after doing some further research on my own (here is a relevant case, in which the difference is explained), it does seem likely that the description matches assault with intent to rape. Why? Because an even better authority on the matter describes the differences between attempted rape and assault with intent to rape, and according to their description, it seems Kavanaugh's behavior as described by Ford would have been assault with intent to rape.

Of course, this is also an argument from authority in the sense I'm looking at what people knowledgeable on the matter say. That is not something to hold against it.

That aside, my further research on the matter confirms that what the State's Attorney and the Chief of Police said about not proceeding without a complaint from the person claiming to be a victim is correct, so given that Ford has not said anything to the Maryland authorities, they will not attempt to investigate.

So your "attempt to rape is beyond statute of limitations" point is moot, your claim that assault with intent to rape was incompatible was also wrong, and your claim that high degrees of felonious sex assault do not exist was also wrong. What I now expect from you is less reliance on volokh conspiracy and authority and more reading up on things. Thank you.

First, I did not claim that high degrees of felonious sex assault do not exist. I claimed a felony with the name you said was not exist.
Second, I did rely on reading up on things. Reading Voloch's argument and reading what the Chief of Police said and what the State's Attorney said is a proper way of gathering good evidence. That does not make it indefeasible. But we have a limited amount of time, and reading what people with relevant expertise (i.e., relevant authorities) say, is the proper way to do it.
Third, my further assessment was also based - obviously - on relevant authorities, even better ones. That is proper.

Fourth, I did not want to get into a debate, but just addressing JP's point. But fine, one should not accuse people of assault with intent to rape - or any other immoral behavior - without beyond a reasonable doubt evidence. People who blame Kavanaugh (or, for that matte, Ford) should keep that in mind.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How about agreeing that both situations were horrible in their own right?
But if Kavanaugh is innocent, what happened to him is far worse than Garland, even if Kav ended up on the Court. Especially since Garland had to have known that his chances of confirmation were low.

All the time ignoring the fact that the real victim was the Constitution, because the Senate refused to do its duty as mandated by our Founding Fathers. How's that for Republican coherence? Don't give me any bullshit about a "Biden Rule", either. If Republicans are so gung-ho for original intent, any "Biden Rule" would have been shitcanned.

They were in a hurry to confirm. They got 'er done: Mission Accomplished! But at what cost?