New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Meadmaker said:
Thanks for that. It clears up some confusion. I had seen pretty authoritative sounding statements that said the statute of limitations had expired, but other statements that it had not, and my own reading of Maryland law suggested that it had not. Apparently, the laws have changed since 1982, so current law is not the relevant law to apply.


So, there isn't anything that Kavanaugh, Judge, or an assaulter to be named later need fear in terms of criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

I'm still not clear on this: Does the statute of limitations indicated here apply to *actual rape*, or just *attempted* rape?
 
It must make everyone (except for Ford and, well, pretty much all women) ecstatic that Kavanaugh probably can't be prosecuted for a crime he committed in 1982. The question is still - however - should the bar for the supreme court be set at "can't be prosecuted for a crime he probably committed"? Or perhaps "only tells obvious lies under oath about stuff that I don't personally consider that important"?

Because the obvious answer is "no". Kavanaugh should not be seated. Doing so would be an affront against not only all women of the nation, but against the justice system itself.
 
crescent said:
Two things you might be getting conflated:

1: This is just a background check sort of investigation, not a criminal investigation. The sorts of crimes claimed by Ford would not normally be investigated by the FBI anyway, because they would not be federal crimes. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they might be able to continue investigating that - at least if the criminal activity is something that would be a federal crime. Otherwise, it is just find out what you can during the time you have, to see if there is anything to suggest we should hire someone else.

2: The news reports said that the investigation would not look into allegations made by Julie Swetnick. So if someone who they interviewed with regards to the investigation into Ford's allegations says something in regard to Ford's allegation, they can follow through on that. They just could not look into Swetnick's allegations, or any of other more anonymous stories circulating out there (one story of a rape on a boat, another of an assault at a restaurant)(At least, that was my understanding.)

2b: The President seems to have retracted the restriction against investigating Swetnick's claims anyway.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks!

That clears a few things up.
 
Lindsey Graham promises 'full scale' probe into Democrats' handling of Ford-Kavanaugh allegation

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to launch a thorough inquiry into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to find out whether there was any wrongdoing in how they managed the sexual misconduct allegation Christine Blasey Ford leveled at Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham said, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

-- Washington Examiner (Sept 30, 2018)
Click to expand...


Only three things are certain in life: Death, Taxes, and Lindsey Graham becoming the next Attorney General.
 
Lurch said:
I'm still not clear on this: Does the statute of limitations indicated here apply to *actual rape*, or just *attempted* rape?
Click to expand...

I can speak to current Maryland law, because that's what I have read.

Under current law, there is a crime of rape, which is forcible sexual intercourse. It's a felony, and there is no statute of limitations. There is attempted rape. That's a felony, with no statute of limitations. Then there are varying degrees of sexual offenses that have different penalties. At the lowest, there's groping someone against their will. (I can't remember the legalese for that, and I won't try.) That's a misdemeanor, and has a statute of limitations, UNLESS the groping involved smothering, strangling, or any action which put the victim in fear for her life. Then it's a felony, with no statute of limitations.


So, under current law, attempted rape is a felony and has no statute of limitations. However, according to the letter that River posted, it appears that in 1982, attempted rape was a misdemeanor.


Under current Maryland law, the assault that Ms. Ford described would basically be an aggressive groping, and so would be a misdemeanor, except that she has also alleged that by covering her mouth, the attackers made her fear for her life. That fear would make such an attack a felony.


However, in 1982, the laws were different, and the authors of that letter were familiar with the 1982 laws, and reached the conclusion that that attack would have been a misdemeanor and subject to the statute of limitations, and would not be prosecutable even if it could be proved to have happened.
 
In high school I went to a party where there were no adults. CZ, at one point pushed me in a dark room and pinned me to the bed. He was a big guy, a football star, and I had trouble breathing. Luck had it that another of the guy football players saw it and grabbed CZ off of me.


I bring it up because I could not even tell you the month it happened, whose home it was, who else where there. But I know what he did. So, I just did a search and located him on Facebook. He is a Trump supporter, misogynist, a bully, still. I'm pretty sure he has no memory, he was quite drunk.

I think I may need to message him.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Only three things are certain in life: Death, Taxes, and Lindsey Graham becoming the next Attorney General.
Click to expand...

So why would he give up a secure senate seat to become Trump's doormat, especially after seeing how Trump treats veteran senator and early Trump supporter Jeff Sessions? For that matter, why has Graham -- once one of Trump's most outspoken critics -- made himself Trump's lap dog?

The South Carolina Republican, who recently endorsed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush after ending his presidential bid in December, was asked whether he preferred Trump or Cruz as the nominee during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

“It’s like being shot or poisoned,” Graham told reporters Thursday in response. “What does it really matter?”
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/lindsey-graham-trump-cruz-choice-218069

Some speculation:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/what-happened-to-lindsey-graham.html
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/why-lindsey-graham-and-trump-are-best-friends-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

Kinda makes me wonder if Trump has something on him personally. Graham could support the leader of his party without being so blatantly fawning.
 
Meadmaker said:
Thanks for that. It clears up some confusion. I had seen pretty authoritative sounding statements that said the statute of limitations had expired, but other statements that it had not, and my own reading of Maryland law suggested that it had not. Apparently, the laws have changed since 1982, so current law is not the relevant law to apply.


So, there isn't anything that Kavanaugh, Judge, or an assaulter to be named later need fear in terms of criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...
Perjury aside, of course.

Not saying it's been proved, but it matters.

Also, I'm totally not keen on the argument that a man should be selected for the top court, since his previous crimes were a long time ago. Depends, mind, on the severity of the crimes. Not sure whether you disagree.
 
Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments

According to the sources, the president’s Saturday night tweet saying he wants the FBI to interview whoever agents deem appropriate has not changed the limits imposed by the White House counsel’s office on the FBI investigation — including a specific witness list that does not include Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.

Also not on the list, the sources say, are former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s account of his college alcohol consumption, instead describing him as a frequent, heavy drinker. The FBI is also not authorized to interview high school classmates who could shed light on what some people have called untruths in Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook.
Click to expand...
 
Aridas said:
Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments
Click to expand...


Also from above link:
Separately, a White House official made clear that the White House is the client in this process. This is not an FBI criminal investigation — it is a background investigation in which the FBI is acting on behalf of the White House. Procedurally, the White House does not allow the FBI to investigate as it sees fit, the official acknowledged; the White House sets the parameters.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...vestigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

So the White House is stage-managing a sham that will only talk to people who won't challenge Kav.
 
Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

Dear Chairman Grassley,

In order for this FBI investigation regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to be complete, it is imperative the bureau must not only look into the accusations made by Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, it should also examine the veracity of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate should not constrain the FBI to one week and must allow time for a full investigation. I would request that you inform the FBI that you will not consider their work complete until they examine the truthfulness of Judge Kavanaugh’s statements under oath while testifying before the Senate throughout his career, given the very serious fact that lying to Congress is a federal crime.

If you are concerned with a delay in this confirmation process, remember that Senate Republicans refused to allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court for nearly a year.

In addition to investigating the accusations made by multiple women, a thorough investigation should include a review of Judge Kavanaugh’s numerous untruthful statements in his previous testimony before Congress. Specifically:

In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

Additionally, several statements made by Judge Kavanaugh under oath regarding his treatment of women and his use of alcohol appear not to be true. The scope of the FBI’s investigation must include investigating the following statements:

Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly told the committee he never drank to the point where he didn’t remember something. He also denied ever becoming aggressive when he drinks. However there have been many reports from those Judge Kavanaugh attended high school, college and law school with that contradict this assertion. Was he being truthful with the committee?

Judge Kavanaugh testified he treated women “as friends and equals” and “with dignity and respect.” Numerous entries in his school yearbook would seem to contradict this. Was Judge Kavanaugh’s statement to the committee truthful?

Judge Kavanaugh claimed that he and Dr. Ford “did not travel in the same social circles.” Dr. Ford said she dated Chris Garrett, referenced as a friend in his yearbook. In fact she testified Garrett introduced her to Kavanaugh. Was Judge Kavanaugh’s statement to the committee truthful?

Kavanaugh claimed he did not drink on weeknights but an entry on his calendar for Thursday July 1 states, “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, Pj, Bernie, Squi.” Kavanaugh clarified to Sen. Booker that “Skis” referred to beer. Was his original statement to the committee truthful?

A fundamental question the FBI can help answer is whether Judge Kavanaugh has been truthful with the committee. This goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court. If a thorough investigation takes longer than a week, so be it. First and foremost, we need the truth.

Sincerely,

Bernard Sanders
Click to expand...

And... despite Sanders being completely correct here, does anyone believe that Grassley or pretty much any of the other Senate Republicans actually care enough to back this up?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
NBC: "according to several people on the condition of anonymity."

Translation: Fake News!
Click to expand...

crescent said:
Two things you might be getting conflated:

1: This is just a background check sort of investigation, not a criminal investigation. The sorts of crimes claimed by Ford would not normally be investigated by the FBI anyway, because they would not be federal crimes. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they might be able to continue investigating that - at least if the criminal activity is something that would be a federal crime. Otherwise, it is just find out what you can during the time you have, to see if there is anything to suggest we should hire someone else.

2: The news reports said that the investigation would not look into allegations made by Julie Swetnick. So if someone who they interviewed with regards to the investigation into Ford's allegations says something in regard to Ford's allegation, they can follow through on that. They just could not look into Swetnick's allegations, or any of other more anonymous stories circulating out there (one story of a rape on a boat, another of an assault at a restaurant)(At least, that was my understanding.)

2b: The President seems to have retracted the restriction against investigating Swetnick's claims anyway.
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
Okay, thanks!

That clears a few things up.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong on the second point. The President said that the investigators had a fair bit of freedom, but that's being contradicted in statements made by Conway and in off-the-record communications to the press.

The scope of the investigation seems very limited indeed.
 
Stacyhs said:
What do you think are the odds that he "forgot or misremembered" everything written in his yearbook relating to sexual or drinking slang?
He "forgot or misremembered" what "boofing", "ralphing", and "devil's triangle" all mean? How convenient.

You think he "forgot or misremembered" what a "Renate alumnius" was when he claimed the term was " used to show affection, to show she was one of us"?
This is the yearbook 'poem' that another boy wrote about Renate:



K's best bud at the time, Mark Judge, described in his book
(The Guardian)

When asked by Sen. Leahy if he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh" K became belligerent and accused Leahy of trying to make fun of an alcoholic:


K would neither deny nor confirm that he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh".
Click to expand...

River said:
Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
Click to expand...

Nice try but it doesn't work. When Ford didn't remember something, she said she didn't remember it. She didn't make up **** to explain it away. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, simply made up **** in an attempt to make what he wrote appear uncompromising. Face it: Kavanaugh LIED...and knowingly lied. Your flagrant attempt to excuse this away is pitiful.

ETA: Can you provide a single piece of credible evidence that "boofing" has ever meant "farting"?
Can you provide a single piece of credible evidence that "devil's triangle" has ever referred
to a drinking game?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom