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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

An accurate reading of the entrails, I suspect.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

That is, I think exactly Don2's point: that there's more than one way to skin a rabbit.

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.

You're probably right, due to the partisanship involved -- barring anything else that might show up, that not being limimted to 30-year-old allegations. Any perjury in his confirmation, for instance, would perhaps not only avoid statutes of limitations, they couldn't be dismissed as "youthful indiscretions." Collins et al would have to find a new fig-leaf.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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'.

When I was in the Air Force, a lowly airman, I was officially advised that avoiding impropriety was not enough. I must not only avoid impropriety, I must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Even the appearance of such could justify an Article 15 UCMJ treatment. How is it that an E-2 might be held to a higher standard than a Supreme Court Justice? Was it a job interview? No. It was a chance to examine the man. I myself think he falls short of SCOTUS-quality judgeship: overly emotional, dissimulative, would rather attack than listen or answer ... nah

If evidence surfaces of Kavanaugh lying under oath, even if not sufficient for criminal conviction, it should give pause to those who closed their eyes and voted party-line on the matter. That too is impeachable, and almost certainly the more probable of the two charges.

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.

Lying under oath is itself a crime. To my mind, it is also a disqualifier for a judgeship. "I don't remember" would be the honest answer in your hypothetical.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

The fact is that if he did break the law by lying under the same oath he would himself administer to a witness, he's probably not suitable for administering the oath.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I did not give a name but instead a category which then later I broke down into several example names. Your mistake was in thinking a category is a name. Now you know better. I have given the statute as well as an example from the time period.

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.

Assault with intent to rape is easy to understand and you waved it away without appropriate knowledge. I gave you an example from the time period. You did further reading. Now you know better on this other charge as well.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

When I was in the Air Force, a lowly airman, I was officially advised that avoiding impropriety was not enough. I must not only avoid impropriety, I must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Even the appearance of such could justify an Article 15 UCMJ treatment. How is it that an E-2 might be held to a higher standard than a Supreme Court Justice? Was it a job interview? No. It was a chance to examine the man. I myself think he falls short of SCOTUS-quality judgeship: overly emotional, dissimulative, would rather attack than listen or answer ... nah

I'm talking about a hypothetical impeachment by the House + trial by the Senate. That is not a job interview. What happened this year was a job interview.

If evidence surfaces of Kavanaugh lying under oath, even if not sufficient for criminal conviction, it should give pause to those who closed their eyes and voted party-line on the matter. That too is impeachable, and almost certainly the more probable of the two charges.

I don't agree, because removal by conviction by the Senate is a punishment. I don't think it's alright to punish without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. By the way, the same goes for publicly accusing someone, calling for their punishment, etc.

Lying under oath is itself a crime. To my mind, it is also a disqualifier for a judgeship. "I don't remember" would be the honest answer in your hypothetical.

If he does not remember, yes. If he remembers, that too would be a lie. But I was saying that if it is true that he ever drank alcohol to the point of not remembering what happened and he was asked about it, he would likely lie and say he did not because he wanted to get the job, regardless of whether he was guilty of any sexual crime he was accused of. For that reason, his lying about that - if he, indeed, lied - would not provide any good evidence in support of the sex crime(s) under consideration.


As for whether committing the crime of lying under oath is disqualifying, we need to be more precise about what one means by "disqualifying". If the question is whether we should significantly lower our credence that he will do a good job, then the answer is "no", given that his track record as a judge - for good or ill - is far weightier than any such evidence, so it pretty much swamps everything.
On the other hand, if he did lie under oath and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that, then arguably he does not deserve to be in the Supreme Court, so it's disqualifying in that sense.

The fact is that if he did break the law by lying under the same oath he would himself administer to a witness, he's probably not suitable for administering the oath.

My point was that I was not talking about that.
Still, if the only piece of evidence were that he did break the law by lying under the same oath he would himself administer to a witness, I'm not sure why that would make him less likely to be suitable in terms of effectiveness as a judge. At any rate, evidence of his performance as a judge so far - showing no particular difficulty with witnesses - trumps that.

However, if he did commit that crime, then arguably he does not deserve the job, so not giving him the job as a punishment is alright. But evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required to punish, even in the context of a job interview.

There were other reasons not to appoint him, though, like the reputation of the SCOTUS, or arguably his track record as a judge - though that part is debatable. But he's already in.

 

[angelo]

Did he or didn't he lie under oath pales into insignificance if compared to Bill Clinton's obvious lie when he stated categorically " I did not have sex with that woman!" Which was proved to be a blatant lie.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I did not give a name but instead a category which then later I broke down into several example names. Your mistake was in thinking a category is a name. Now you know better. I have given the statute as well as an example from the time period.

No. You said:

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.

That is when I said that there is no felony such as "such as "high degree of sex assault".

Even now, you have made all sorts of claims of felonies that you have not backed up. Are you actually claiming he could be charged with anything other than assault with intent to rape? If so, please provide evidence to back up your claim. If not, whatever.

Assault with intent to rape is easy to understand and you waved it away without appropriate knowledge. I gave you an example from the time period. You did further reading. Now you know better on this other charge as well.

The amount of information I gathered appeared sufficient, and the example from the time period also was not enough, as the person was injured. Some jurisdictions require injuries (Ford even according with her testimony wasn't); others have other requirements. Your example provided some but insufficient evidence, so I spent more time looking for that evidence. But it wasn't so clear, and you did not even know about assault with intent to rape until I brought it up.


I have done enough reading on whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even close.


But you insist, so:

It's not one "proven liar" vs. 3 accusers. It's several accusers vs. others. Who is a proven liar?

Let's see:
Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed an extensive remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted to have a second front door, I described the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke a bit about his background. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

Is Ford's account about her disagreement with her husband, the second front door, etc., true?

Probably not. In fact, she probably lied, and the door was not for that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

Did Ford commit perjury?
Probably, though it's not beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

Was Ford telling the truth?
Maybe. She says so, and is backed up by a friend.

On the other hand, someone else says otherwise, also under oath:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...t-prepping-someone-for-a-polygraph/ar-BBNR7bn

His name hasn't been made public, though (inconclusive) evidence indicates his name is Brian Merrick. But he is not an anonymous accuser. There is a signed letter, and if he lied, he committed a felony. Maybe he did. Or maybe he did not, in which case she did.

What else does Ford have, in addition to her testimony?

She talked about a sexual assault to a therapist in 2012. The notes were not released. And she did not name him then.

It is true he was a heavy drinker in those years, and generally a bad person, with low respect for women. But from that to conclusive evidence that he committed any sort of assault against her, there is a huge difference.

Even if Ford hadn't probably committed perjury, it would not be nearly enough.

I could address the other accusations, but it seems clear that you want a lengthy debate - which I really did not want, but you insisted and this is looking to only grow like a snowball, so I will leave the rest of the accusations for later, in order to keep this manageable - I expect other posters will take on me now too. I should have known better than to post in the first place, but it's done, so whatever.

 

[ZiprHead]

His lies about the email scandal in Orin Hatch's office over three separate hearings warrant perjury charges. His lies about knowing nothing about the skeevy pervert judge he was clerking for warrant perjury charges. There is a FOIA request for his record during his years serving in the Bush administration so much more evidence of perjury to come.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

His lies about the email scandal in Orin Hatch's office over three separate hearings warrant perjury charges. His lies about knowing nothing about the skeevy pervert judge he was clerking for warrant perjury charges. There is a FOIA request for his record during his years serving in the Bush administration so much more evidence of perjury to come.

I don't know that you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you do, alright, that would warrant perjury charges. Maybe he would be charged with that evidence. It would not warrant charges of any sex offense, though.

 

[angelo]

His lies about the email scandal in Orin Hatch's office over three separate hearings warrant perjury charges. His lies about knowing nothing about the skeevy pervert judge he was clerking for warrant perjury charges. There is a FOIA request for his record during his years serving in the Bush administration so much more evidence of perjury to come.

I don't know that you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you do, alright, that would warrant perjury charges. Maybe he would be charged with that evidence. It would not warrant charges of any sex offense, though.

That means the Dems will hound this man until death purely for political reasons.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

His lies about the email scandal in Orin Hatch's office over three separate hearings warrant perjury charges. His lies about knowing nothing about the skeevy pervert judge he was clerking for warrant perjury charges. There is a FOIA request for his record during his years serving in the Bush administration so much more evidence of perjury to come.

I don't know that you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you do, alright, that would warrant perjury charges. Maybe he would be charged with that evidence. It would not warrant charges of any sex offense, though.

That means the Dems will hound this man until death purely for political reasons.

I don't see why it would mean that. Different Democrats will do different things. And it's extremely probable that most of the people who hate, despise and otherwise attack Kavanaugh, believe he is guilty of the sexual assault Ford accused him. Maybe he is guilty. I don't know. They don't know. Very probably, at most three people know. And none of them is reliable on the matter.

 

[James Brown]

Did he or didn't he lie under oath pales into insignificance if compared to Bill Clinton's obvious lie when he stated categorically " I did not have sex with that woman!" Which was proved to be a blatant lie.

And President Clinton was impeached for that. Is it your position that Justice Kavanaugh should also be impeached for lying under oath?

 

[angelo]

That means the Dems will hound this man until death purely for political reasons.

I don't see why it would mean that. Different Democrats will do different things. And it's extremely probable that most of the people who hate, despise and otherwise attack Kavanaugh, believe he is guilty of the sexual assault Ford accused him. Maybe he is guilty. I don't know. They don't know. Very probably, at most three people know. And none of them is reliable on the matter.

Whatever happened to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

 

[angelo]

Did he or didn't he lie under oath pales into insignificance if compared to Bill Clinton's obvious lie when he stated categorically " I did not have sex with that woman!" Which was proved to be a blatant lie.

And President Clinton was impeached for that. Is it your position that Justice Kavanaugh should also be impeached for lying under oath?

Bill Clinton was proven to be a liar. Kavanaugh has not! All this shows is a witch hunt!

 

[Patooka]

Did he or didn't he lie under oath pales into insignificance if compared to Bill Clinton's obvious lie when he stated categorically " I did not have sex with that woman!" Which was proved to be a blatant lie.

And President Clinton was impeached for that. Is it your position that Justice Kavanaugh should also be impeached for lying under oath?

Bill Clinton was proven to be a liar. Kavanaugh has not! All this shows is a witch hunt!

Total cost of investigating Clintons in 1999 - $80 million in 1999 dollars. No stone was unturned, and FBI officials who could have been investigating something important (like Saudi nationals with questionable piloting skills), were instructed to follow down any Limbaugh-esque, oxy fueled wet dream against the Klintons.

Associates of Kavanaugh, however have stated his statements under oath about his habits were untrue, the FBI was instructed to not investigate these claims any further and that's the fucking witch hunt here? The level of unawareness here is staggering.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No. You said:

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.

That is when I said that there is no felony such as "such as "high degree of sex assault".

Even now, you have made all sorts of claims of felonies that you have not backed up. Are you actually claiming he could be charged with anything other than assault with intent to rape? If so, please provide evidence to back up your claim. If not, whatever.

And you were wrong. I was describing charges without giving them a name. I even used the word "at" to show placement on a scale of degrees.

In Maryland:

• 1st degree sex assault - a felony, no statute of limitations
• 2nd degree sex assault - a felony, no statute of limitations
• 3rd degree sex assault - a felony, no statute of limitations
• 4th degree sex assault - a misdemeanor, has a statute of limitations
• 5th degree sex assault - a misdemeanor, has a statute of limitations
• 6th degree sex assault - a misdemeanor, has a statute of limitations

1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree are all higher than 4th, 5th, and 6th. 4th, 5th, and 6th are lower than 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are all felonies and so in Maryland they have no statute of limitations.

I therefore stand by my quoted statement about a category of thing, not the literal naming of the thing, which by the way I already explained to you, but you should already know coming into the conversation. You are the one who said only that attempted rape was relevant and that there was a statute of limitations. That was a terrible answer to Jolly Penguin.

Here is what you wrote:

The statute of limitations precludes that scenario, unless he committed sexual assault more recently.

Since the high degree of sex assault crimes are felonies and therefore have no statute of limitations, please justify your statement.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm talking about a hypothetical impeachment by the House + trial by the Senate. That is not a job interview. What happened this year was a job interview.

No, it wasn't. It is part of the judicial nomination process. It is the part where Congresscritters get together and ask the man questions not about his qualifications, but about his views on this or that matter of law. It is also the part where they examine any peccadilloes in his background. Poor answers can cost the candidate votes. Lose enough votes, you don't get the appointment.

I can tell you this, though: as someone who has been a business manager for twenty years, if I asked an uncomfortable interview question ("Have you ever been convicted of a felony?") and got "NO! Have you?", that someone ain't getting the job, and I don't care how qualified he or she is. Even if your view were right, and I don't think it is, he still doesn't pass muster.

I don't agree, because removal by conviction by the Senate is a punishment. I don't think it's alright to punish without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. By the way, the same goes for publicly accusing someone, calling for their punishment, etc.

Impeachment is not a criminal process. I'm not sure why you think I would support impeachment on insufficient evidence, though. However, I think your standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt")is a bit unrealistic, especially considering it would shield governmental officials from criticism of their discharge of duties in many cases. Not even civil courts hold that standard for judgments to be meted out.

Lying under oath is itself a crime. To my mind, it is also a disqualifier for a judgeship. "I don't remember" would be the honest answer in your hypothetical.

If he does not remember, yes. If he remembers, that too would be a lie. But I was saying that if it is true that he ever drank alcohol to the point of not remembering what happened and he was asked about it, he would likely lie and say he did not because he wanted to get the job, regardless of whether he was guilty of any sexual crime he was accused of. For that reason, his lying about that - if he, indeed, lied - would not provide any good evidence in support of the sex crime(s) under consideration.


As for whether committing the crime of lying under oath is disqualifying, we need to be more precise about what one means by "disqualifying". If the question is whether we should significantly lower our credence that he will do a good job, then the answer is "no", given that his track record as a judge - for good or ill - is far weightier than any such evidence, so it pretty much swamps everything.
On the other hand, if he did lie under oath and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that, then arguably he does not deserve to be in the Supreme Court, so it's disqualifying in that sense.

I really don't care what he lied about. If Kavanaugh lied under oath, he committed a felony and is unfit to sit on the bench. This is not a matter of assigning value to the merits of the lie. This is a matter of principle as well as law.

The fact is that if he did break the law by lying under the same oath he would himself administer to a witness, he's probably not suitable for administering the oath.

My point was that I was not talking about that.

Well, I am. It is pertinent. I can understand how a Kavanaugh supporter might wish to avoid the point, though.

Still, if the only piece of evidence were that he did break the law by lying under the same oath he would himself administer to a witness, I'm not sure why that would make him less likely to be suitable in terms of effectiveness as a judge. At any rate, evidence of his performance as a judge so far - showing no particular difficulty with witnesses - trumps that.

Are you kidding me? You would give the man the task of administering the law of the land in a just manner, when he himself refuses to abide the laws he would administer?

However, if he did commit that crime, then arguably he does not deserve the job, so not giving him the job as a punishment is alright. But evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required to punish, even in the context of a job interview.

No, it's not, because this is not a criminal proceeding. If and when criminal charges are laid, then and only then is your standard applicable.

There were other reasons not to appoint him, though, like the reputation of the SCOTUS, or arguably his track record as a judge - though that part is debatable. But he's already in.

No shit, Sherlock?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Did he or didn't he lie under oath pales into insignificance if compared to Bill Clinton's obvious lie when he stated categorically " I did not have sex with that woman!" Which was proved to be a blatant lie.

1) What does Clinton have to do with the price of tea in China? You do realize that two wrongs don't make a right, right? Hell, my mama taught me that when I was a toddler. To put it more formally, tu quoque is a form of fallacious thinking. You should avoid it wherever possible.

2) Whether or not a sitting judge being confirmed for the highest court in the land committed a felony is not insignificant ... unless he was appointed by your party's president, am I right? And especially if that party claims to support "law and order", right?

Just as their nomination of Trump destroyed any pretense of their "family values" being heartfelt, so too does this attitude give the lie to the idea that Republicans caer about law and order. Those are vapid words to them, a sales-pitch and nothing more.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That means the Dems will hound this man until death purely for political reasons.

I don't see why it would mean that. Different Democrats will do different things. And it's extremely probable that most of the people who hate, despise and otherwise attack Kavanaugh, believe he is guilty of the sexual assault Ford accused him. Maybe he is guilty. I don't know. They don't know. Very probably, at most three people know. And none of them is reliable on the matter.

Whatever happened to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

You misunderstand my objection. You claimed that "the Dems will hound this man until death purely for political reasons." But that is not true. As I pointed out, different Democrats will do different things, but most of those who accuse him, blame him, call for an impeachment, call him a rapist, etc., are not doing so for political reasons, but because they actually believe that he is guilty, and even that that is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as doing it for "political reasons", except perhaps in a very broad meaning of "political", that would not match your usage anyway.

In other words, you are mistaken in your general assessment about the motivations and actions of Democrats.