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

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Were those felonies in Maryland in 1982?
I will ask for links.

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.

And again, before you claimed that, I had asked you to name the felony, and that's what you came up with. You have yet to produce your evidence about 1982 Maryland law.

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

First, where is your evidence?

Second, as you should know after the exchange, after further looking into the evidence, it appears that Ford's description would probably match assault with intent to rape (not "high degree of sex assault", even if they were felonies, which you still have not shown; it may be true, but you haven't produced the evidence).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Were those felonies in Maryland in 1982?
I will ask for links.


And again, before you claimed that, I had asked you to name the felony, and that's what you came up with. You have yet to produce your evidence about 1982 Maryland law.

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

First, where is your evidence?

Second, as you should know after the exchange, after further looking into the evidence, it appears that Ford's description would probably match assault with intent to rape (not "high degree of sex assault", even if they were felonies, which you still have not shown; it may be true, but you haven't produced the evidence).

Only a moron would think that high degree of sex assault is a crime. Therefore, you are thinking I am a moron. That is completely ridiculous. Degrees of sexual assault exist across the board in states across the US. I've written about 6th degree sex assault before in the forum as well as others. So, NO, I don't think that "high degree of sex assault" is the name of a crime but instead a description. AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT. So you think I am a moron and a liar even though you have evidence to the contrary?

And furthermore, I already linked the statute's text. See previous post. I also showed that it was a crime in 1983 or thereabouts. Anyone can search digitized newspaper records of Maryland to see that degrees of sex assault were crimes decades before 1982 as well.

And, no, 2nd and third degree sex assault do not exclude the possibility of assault with intentt to rape. They are all viable options of charges.

So, obviously, the burden is not mine, it's yours. You claimed that the sex assault (not a crime but a category of crimes) do not have a statute of limitations. You are wrong.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Sure, and that is a job interview.

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 think you're getting my view. But what answer of his are you questioning, in particular?

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.

Impeachment is not a criminal process, but it is a punitive process nonetheless. And as long as the person is being convicted and punished for an alleged wrongdoing, it is not acceptable to convict without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for why I think you would support impeachment on insufficient evidence, it's based on your statement:

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.

The evidence that is not sufficient for criminal conviction is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and without that, I don't think it's right to punish (in the moral sense; i.e., intending to inflict punishment for a wrongdoing, which is clearly what the people calling for an impeachment are asking for, at least in all cases I've seen).
In short, I disagree on what amount of evidence is sufficient.

By the way, that would not shield anyone from criticism. It's just that I don't think Senators should tell any official (implicitly or explicitly) that they're removed for wrongful behavior without conclusive evidence of wrongful behavior. Maybe there is conclusive evidence in the case of Kavanaugh, though. I haven't looked at the matter in sufficient detail to be sure.

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.

That answer does not seem to address the points I make in the part of my post you quote. I never tried to assign value to the merits of the lie.

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

No, it was not pertinent. You were objecting to my points in reply to Don in a non-pertinent manner. It is pertinent to the whole discussion in the thread, though, but you were not just making a point in the thread, in a separate post, but bringing up the matter in a specific context. I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter (or a Ford supporter, or anyone's supporter here), and I don't want to avoid the point other than my not wanting to debate matters with people committed to their ideology, since it's tiring and they persist, but since I'm already debating Don, by all means make your case against Kavanaugh if you like. I actually do not know beforehand whether I will agree, as I haven't taken a look at all of the details of the accusations of perjury yet.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Only a moron would think that high degree of sex assault is a crime. Therefore, you are thinking I am a moron.

No, I was trying to get you to name the actual felony, telling you that you were not adequately addressing my point (and no, not only a moron would think that, but also someone not familiar with the law. But in any case, I did not say you believed that).

Degrees of sexual assault exist across the board in states across the US. I've written about 6th degree sex assault before in the forum as well as others. So, NO, I don't think that "high degree of sex assault" is the name of a crime but instead a description. AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT. So you think I am a moron and a liar even though you have evidence to the contrary?

Not remotely. You already told me that, but I'm objecting to your persisting objecting to my objection before you had told me that.

And again, you have yet to produce evidence that there was in 1982 a felony in Maryland other than "assault with intent to rape" that fits the description.

And furthermore, I already linked the statute's text.

Yes, a statute that didn't exist in 1982.

See previous post. I also showed that it was a crime in 1983 or thereabouts. Anyone can search digitized newspaper records of Maryland to see that degrees of sex assault were crimes decades before 1982 as well.

I don't have so many hours for this, I'm afraid. If they were crimes decades before 1982, it does not follow that they matched the description. In fact, if it is the case that the description given by Ford matched "assault with intent to rape", then there is no good reason to think it matched something else. It happens sometimes, but not always or that often.

And, no, 2nd and third degree sex assault do not exclude the possibility of assault with intentt to rape. They are all viable options of charges.

That's bad legislative policy. But sure, provide the links to the relevant statute if you so choose (not that it matters at this point, but keep raising charges against me, and I keep defending myself).

So, obviously, the burden is not mine, it's yours. You claimed that the sex assault (not a crime but a category of crimes) do not have a statute of limitations. You are wrong.

No, I did not claim that, of course. But since I already revised what I actually claimed in light of further research, all of this is just you accusing me of a number of faults, and I fighting back. It's not about the matter of the thread.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, a statute that didn't exist in 1982.

The statute existed in 1982. I have given ample evidence that a crime by that name existed. It goes by both third degree sex assault and offense. They point to the same statute and are both in the newspaper records in 1982. I have already cited this.

I also gave text of the statute and an example from 1982 showing that the CURRENT TEXT of the statute matches ~1982 CRIMINAL ACTIONS. Those same criminal actions are also compatible with the charge of that crime in Ford's case. That is pretty compelling and if you insist that it is not the statute from 1982, then give some evidence yourself for a change.

In fact, if it is the case that the description given by Ford matched "assault with intent to rape", then there is no good reason to think it matched something else. It happens sometimes, but not always or that often.

I gave the text of the statute and it matches. Therefore, it matches both.

Here is an example of police charging someone in Maryland with both of those in the 80's.

The Star-Democrat (Easton, Maryland) 08 Aug 1989, Page 8

Bond raised on accused rapist
...

     Police charged Stanford with
two counts of first-degree rape,
one count of second-degree rape,
two counts of first-degree sex of-
fense, one count each of second-
degree sex offense, third-degree
sex offense, sexual contact,
assault with intent to murder,
assault with intent to rape, and
two counts of breaking and enter-
ing to commit a felony, court
records state.

As you can see a series of acts within a time period where a perpetrator is offending all in a row can be classified into multiple crimes. So, for example, Bart O'Kavanaugh could be charged with assault with intent to rape and also second degree sex assault (offense) and third degree sex assault (offense).

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

 

[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 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



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/

For the reader who took the time to look at the statute and Ford's statement...

(1)
(i) criterion is met because Bart "groped" her according to Ford.
(ii) is broken down into 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. Now, out of those 3 is met because Ford claimed she believed she would be accidentally suffocated. 4 is also met because Kavanaugh is alleged to be aided and abetted by Judge.

So you have TRUE AND (FALSE OR FALSE OR TRUE OR TRUE) which is TRUE AND TRUE = TRUE.

Since the statute is expressed as (1) or (2) or (3) ... and (1) is met, it means there is enough right there for a charge if there is probable cause.

Also, (2) by itself may be enough as well since "physically helpless" could conceivably describe a person held down and restrained by someone's legs and hands as Bart held her down.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The statute existed in 1982.

I followed your link. That statute seems to be from 2010.

I have given ample evidence that a crime by that name existed.

That's not the issue, actually. I'm asking for evidence that there was a felony by that name that matched the description given by Ford in her accusation.

I also gave text of the statute and an example from 1982 showing that the CURRENT TEXT of the statute matches ~1982 CRIMINAL ACTIONS. Those same criminal actions are also compatible with the charge of that crime in Ford's case. That is pretty compelling and if you insist that it is not the statute from 1982, then give some evidence yourself for a change.

No, you haven't even provided evidence that those offenses were in a statute in 1982. You did claim that

Anyone can search digitized newspaper records of Maryland to see that degrees of sex assault were crimes decades before 1982 as well.

But you did not provide a any good evidence of that. I a lot of time trying to figure out whether your claims in this thread (on the legal issue as well as on the matter of whether Kavanaugh did it, etc.) were true. You keep making claims you do not support adequately. Regarding the legal issue, there are claims and counterclaims about what was applicable to Kavanaugh, from people who have (apparently, by their credentials) legal expertise. And you keep implying it's simple. It is not.

It turns out that yes, there were degrees of rape in 1982 in Maryland, and of other sexual assaults. It turns out that no, that was not the case decades before 1982. It was so since 1977. I eventually found a ruling!

https://casetext.com/case/funkhouser-v-state-4

About five years ago the General Assembly enacted comprehensive legislation with respect to sexual offenses in which it recognized that there were gradations of severity in the perpetration of the common law crime of rape. Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol., 1981 Cum. Supp.) Art. 27, § 462 and 27, § 463. It classified rape and other sexual offenses by degrees with penalties of varying harshness and spelled out what constituted the crimes it created. §§ 462-464C.

Why do they make it so hard to find?

Anyway, now it's a matter of finding the 1977 (or 1976; I'm not sure yet) statute, or the relevant parts at least. I'm on it - the burden is actually on you, but even if it takes hours to figure that out, it's less stressing than reading the posts here. But you're just not doing this right. For example, you believed that "anyone can search digitized newspaper records of Maryland to see that degrees of sex assault were crimes decades before 1982 as well.", but that was false. How did you come to that conclusion? Bad evidence that was nonetheless sufficient to a rational observer in your situation? Maybe. What convinced you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are inconsistent. You wrote degrees of rape. Rape is not sexual assault.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are inconsistent. You wrote degrees of rape. Rape is not sexual assault.

I said "It turns out that yes, there were degrees of rape in 1982 in Maryland, and of other sexual assaults". That is not an inconsistency on my part. At most, if I had said only "rape", I wouldn't have addressed your point direcly, though you should have realized by my citation of the case that it applied to other sexual assaults as well. The "other sexual assaults" part does apply, though.

But if you want, I will exclude the word "rape", and made the point again, adding even more evidence this time:

Anyone can search digitized newspaper records of Maryland to see that degrees of sex assault were crimes decades before 1982 as well.

But you did not provide a any good evidence of that. I a lot of time trying to figure out whether your claims in this thread (on the legal issue as well as on the matter of whether Kavanaugh did it, etc.) were true. You keep making claims you do not support adequately. Regarding the legal issue, there are claims and counterclaims about what was applicable to Kavanaugh, from people who have (apparently, by their credentials) legal expertise. And you keep implying it's simple. It is not.

It turns out that there were degrees of sexual assaults in 1982 in Maryland. It turns out that no, that was not the case decades before 1982. It was so since 1976 (though there were substantive changes in 1977). I eventually found a ruling, and now a paper as well:

https://casetext.com/case/funkhouser-v-state-4

About five years ago the General Assembly enacted comprehensive legislation with respect to sexual offenses in which it recognized that there were gradations of severity in the perpetration of the common law crime of rape. Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol., 1981 Cum. Supp.) Art. 27, § 462 and 27, § 463. It classified rape and other sexual offenses by degrees with penalties of varying harshness and spelled out what constituted the crimes it created. §§ 462-464C.

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=ublr

Briefly stated, the 1976 laws present six possible sexual offenses: first and second degree rape, first and second degree sexual offenses (involving "sexual acts"), and third and fourth degree sexual offenses (involving "sexual contact").

You can read the whole paper for information on the situation before 1976. And you're not doing this right, as explained before.

Now, I haven't been able to find the 1977 version yet (which would be applicable). It turns out there have been substantive changes over time. For example, in 1996, attempted rape was made a felony. It was a misdemeanor before that, with a statute of limitations of 1 year, but after that, there no statute of limitations. And in 2017, sexual offense in the first and the second degree have been repealed, and some of the elements recategorized as first degree rape, and others as second degree attempted rape ( https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2017/criminal-law/title-3/subtitle-3/sections-3-305-3-306/ , http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/sb/sb0812f.pdf).

I've not yet been able to ascertain for sure whether third degree sexual offense changed in any way, and whether it was a felony or misdemeanor in 1982 (now apparently it is a felony, and fourth degree apparently is "generally" not; https://criminallawyermaryland.net/maryland-sex-crimes-lawyer/common-charges/). Still, since I've said that given Ford's description, assault with intent of rape is probably a fit, all of this is not relevant to the issue of whether he could be prosecuted if there were evidence for that (by the way, I've also spent now a really big amount of time studying the evidence against Kavanaugh on the basis of Ford's testimony, witnesses, etc.; I already thought her case was too weak to bring any charges, on the basis of the evidence I had seen. Now it seems it is even weaker than I thought).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Baltimore Sun 30 Nov 1983 Page 65
Md. trooper indicted

...The felony charge, a third-degree sexual offense involves sexual contact with another person who...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Baltimore Sun 30 Nov 1983 Page 65
Md. trooper indicted

...The felony charge, a third-degree sexual offense involves sexual contact with another person who...

Okay, so that one is also a felony, but then again, the description seems to be more likely assault with intent of rape. As near as I can tell, if he were to be charged and convicted in Maryland, then that would not cause him to be removed from the SCOTUS automatically (which is what Jolly_Penguin was asking), but rather, there would be a need for an impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.

Then again, authorities in Maryland will not proceed if Ford does not file a complaint, and if she does, they probably won't charge him with anything, either. The case is extremely weak.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Baltimore Sun 30 Nov 1983 Page 65
Md. trooper indicted

...The felony charge, a third-degree sexual offense involves sexual contact with another person who...

Okay, so that one is also a felony, but then again, the description seems to be more likely assault with intent of rape.

Then you'd have to prove not only that assault happened but also the intent which might be difficult. I frankly am not sure he was premeditating rape but maybe was being sexually aggressive and rowdy in the moment without intending rape. I cannot say for sure. Rape has a specific legal meaning and he may have been seeking some other gratification to be distinguished from that. Maybe further testimony from Ford would illuminate this a bit depending on exactly how he was touching her etc. I'd rather not describe that further but still it seems a hard burden to meet to get a jury to all believe it.

The additional charge of third degree sexual offense/assault is more easily met [at least in some ways] because you just have to show that two things happened without exploring a person's mind: (1) does the jury believe he groped her and (2) was Judge also present. That's all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Did Brett Kavanaugh perjure himself? The debate, explained.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As near as I can tell, if he were to be charged and convicted in Maryland, then that would not cause him to be removed from the SCOTUS automatically (which is what Jolly_Penguin was asking), but rather, there would be a need for an impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.

Conservatives who support Donald Trump say that he is beyond charges except through impeachment process. I don't see why their claim would not also apply to other civil officers the highest levels like a SC justice or VP. Since they control all three branches of govt how can they be wrong in practice? If Maryland tried to charge Kavanaugh, don't you think the behavior of this runaway regime would be to call it a witch hunt and say it is up to Congress? Even if that claim were false, it's the purview of the SC to decide the constitutional interpretation of scope of impeachment. I doubt Bart would recuse himself or that President Twitler McCrazyPants would make him. So how would this work?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Then you'd have to prove not only that assault happened but also the intent which might be difficult.

That is true (I would say a lot more than "might"). But I was talking about Ford's description. I think it's very improbable anyone can establish before a court that the assault ever happened, let alone intent.

I frankly am not sure he was premeditating rape but maybe was being sexually aggressive and rowdy in the moment without intending rape. I cannot say for sure. Rape has a specific legal meaning and he may have been seeking some other gratification to be distinguished from that. Maybe further testimony from Ford would illuminate this a bit depending on exactly how he was touching her etc. I'd rather not describe that further but still it seems a hard burden to meet to get a jury to all believe it.

I doubt Ford's testimony would illuminate any further, because (among other reasons):

1. The therapist's notes - the part she allowed to be released - contradict the letter to Feinstein, and in her testimony a few days later to the Senate she says the therapist was wrong, but she also contradicts again the letter to Feinstein in re: number of people allegedly at the party. There are other contradictions between different statements she made (see Mitchell's assessment for more details and more problems). Whether her memory is really bad or she's making stuff up, with more iterations the chances of further contradictions increase.

2. In an actual trial, it's almost certain that her very probable lies or else confusion about the door and the reasons for seeking a marriage therapist be more thoroughly investigated by Kavanaugh's defense. Also in this case, if she tries to get out of it, she risks incurring contradiction.

The additional charge of third degree sexual offense/assault is more easily met [at least in some ways] because you just have to show that two things happened without exploring a person's mind: (1) does the jury believe he groped her and (2) was Judge also present. That's all.

Sure, but I think it's so difficult to meet in this case (i.e., it will not almost certainly not happen) that no prosecutor will even attempt it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As near as I can tell, if he were to be charged and convicted in Maryland, then that would not cause him to be removed from the SCOTUS automatically (which is what Jolly_Penguin was asking), but rather, there would be a need for an impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.

Conservatives who support Donald Trump say that he is beyond charges except through impeachment process. I don't see why their claim would not also apply to other civil officers the highest levels like a SC justice or VP. Since they control all three branches of govt how can they be wrong in practice? If Maryland tried to charge Kavanaugh, don't you think the behavior of this runaway regime would be to call it a witch hunt and say it is up to Congress? Even if that claim were false, it's the purview of the SC to decide the constitutional interpretation of scope of impeachment. I doubt Bart would recuse himself or that President Twitler McCrazyPants would make him. So how would this work?

The case of the POTUS seems to be very different in the arguments of those conservatives. Maybe you're familiar with an argument that would extend to SCOTUS Justices?
By the way, there are precedents in which federal judges were charged before state courts (and sometimes, federal ones), and sometimes convicted too. For example:


https://abovethelaw.com/2018/05/big...mself-sending-a-second-circuit-judge-to-jail/
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13...eedings-federal-judge-convicted-sex-case.html
http://www.kplctv.com/story/24729006/update/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...8b-b43d-4fb0-be91-076490730a49/?noredirect=on
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...02-d1e2-45e7-a019-1306b18e7ba1/?noredirect=on
https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-co...ged-with-beating-wife/jDcHukwVHrhAioRuuTridN/
https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2014/08/alabama-federal-judge-who-was-charged.html
https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...ederal-judge-sexual-assault-livonia/98960208/
https://www.lawcrossing.com/article/4452/Federal-Judge-Charged-with-Federal-Sex-Crimes/
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/01/us/conviction-upheld-against-us-judge.html

Realistically, I don't think Ford's case (or any of the other sexual crimes accusations so far) could go anywhere, even before fair judges.

But also realistically, if Kavanaugh were to be found guilty in a fair trial of something like what Ford describes (and regardless of what legal term applies), I'm pretty sure if the SCOTUS were to hear the case, they would upheld the conviction. The other conservative members of the court wouldn't sacrifice their names and place in history for him. Also, I don't think they would prevent a trial, if there is a case based on a reasonable amount of evidence.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...The therapist's notes - the part she allowed to be released - contradict the letter to Feinstein, and in her testimony a few days later to the Senate she says the therapist was wrong, but she also contradicts again the letter to Feinstein in re: number of people allegedly at the party. There are other contradictions between different statements she made ....

... very probable lies or else confusion about the door ...

I don't find any of these possible inconsistencies to be compelling. None seem to be about the traumatic events best remembered, the criminal actions. It's as silly as bringing up fear of flying on an airplane. For example, regarding the door, married couples tend to often hold things inside to talk about later after blowing up about them. So, if a door was put up unilaterally, then the husband might be pissed off after the fact. Front door to the house could be a big deal because it's long lasting and you may have to deal with it everyday. Also, the credibility on whether it was put up before 2011 is a little thin, like an Internet conspiracy theory etc.

 

[angelo]

forget the damn door for a moment!...........All Dr Ford's witnesses failed to provide collaborating evidence. Her best friend couldn't remember a thing about any event.
It would be an extremely incompetent judge or jury that would find the accused guilty with the evidence presented.

 

[Jarhyn]

forget the damn door for a moment!...........All Dr Ford's witnesses failed to provide collaborating evidence. Her best friend couldn't remember a thing about any event.
It would be an extremely incompetent judge or jury that would find the accused guilty with the evidence presented.

And then the FBI didn't follow up on the evidence that WAS available: the July 1 calendar entry, an FBI questioning of principle witnesses, and examination of Tobin's 1982 home for matches to the testimony and selection from lineup.

If the home matches, and especially if she IDENTIFIED it, we have strong evidence she was at Tobin's house, where BK, MJ were, on July 1. That's the scene described by Ford and verifies her story.

 

[angelo]

forget the damn door for a moment!...........All Dr Ford's witnesses failed to provide collaborating evidence. Her best friend couldn't remember a thing about any event.
It would be an extremely incompetent judge or jury that would find the accused guilty with the evidence presented.

And then the FBI didn't follow up on the evidence that WAS available: the July 1 calendar entry, an FBI questioning of principle witnesses, and examination of Tobin's 1982 home for matches to the testimony and selection from lineup.

If the home matches, and especially if she IDENTIFIED it, we have strong evidence she was at Tobin's house, where BK, MJ were, on July 1. That's the scene described by Ford and verifies her story.

But her witnesses and best friend do not verify her accusations. Surely that fact alone dismissed her case.