Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Badger]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

First,  a claim the something happened 35 years ago, refuted by a witnessed, where the documentation shows that the the the accuser's story changed, would be tossed out in a preliminary, if a prosecutor were stupid enough to file.  There would need to be more.

Second, it might make a difference, even if proven, that he was a juvenile.

 it might not apply to a juvenile.

JJ, for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Speaking is a long time criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who apparently understand the facts case far far better than you, you are officially talking out of your ass.

[JG]

The democrats must be grateful to Gillibrand for sticking to her principles and being the first one to push for Franken to resign, or else, it would be very hard for them to put Kavanaugh's nomination into question with Franken still in their ranks.

[J. J.]

That is an interesting hypothesis clouded only buy the niggling fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that she did not remember Cavanaugh's identity at the time. Not at all.

Let's be clear.  There is no evidence that Kavanaugh's name came up until 2012, six years after he was appointed a judge, and 16 years after Ford's parent's appeared before Kavanaugh's mother. 

There is no documented evidence that Kavanaugh's name came up until 2018. There is documented evidence, from 2012, of an assault on Ford while she was in high school, but it differs from the current account, materially. 

Is there more evidence out there that supports Ford's account. Possibly. Should they look for that? Yes.

[Badger]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

Especially if alcohol was involved and decades went by before she said anything of this. Under the influence and in a dark room, it is very easy for a victim to not remember their attacker's face or identifying features. It's also very easy to be confused about what you did see trying to think back when questions are asked.  As an example, a couple years ago, I was assaulted by my neighbor. I didn't know his name, and his name wasn't on the lease for the townhouse next door. So the cops had to rely on what little physical descriptions I could give (as well as one witness statement from a neighbor who was across the street), which wasn't much because I only ever saw him at night, like I did the night of the assault. And while they asked me questions to help me think of anything else, one cop asked if he had any identifying tattoos, like a face or neck tattoo. I wasn't sure about it, which led me to question if maybe he did. When they brought me a photo lineup, I wasn't able to identify the attacker and picked the wrong person, thinking of questions like the ones cops had asked me days before to try and help me remember his face.

That is an interesting hypothesis clouded only buy the niggling fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that she did not remember Cavanaugh's identity at the time. Not at all.

I'm sorry, but you were lying of so-called reasonable questions hear sound less like pulling up anything remotely based in what actually happened or what anyone knows about the incident, and just a case of wanting to be contrarian for the sake of being contrary, a wholly unreasonable degree of what if ism, and a political ideology that seems to support " whatever triggers the Libs".

For all you go on about not wanting to rush to judgment and asking reasonable questions, it is very very clear you rushed to near immediate judgement on this matter, which is shown by a you're asking a bunch of very borderline nonsensical questions.

There's nothing nonsensical about the questions asked, they're very reasonable questions that should be asked to get a better understanding of what could have possibly happened that night. It's possible she doesn't really remember his identity at the time, he's 2 years older and they may not have regularly interacted in the same circles. Maybe she met him at a previous party or school event. She could have remembered some facial features and saw a guy that looked similar in a yearbook and got a name that way.

You know, no matter how many times you claim your questions are reasonable, that doesn't change the fact they really aren't. One can could have or maybe any set of facts out of existence. But that's not analysis, that's just what if ism.

 I'm not saying there shouldn't be further confirmation on the matter. I look forward to both of them testifying on Monday. The point here is for someone who has derided a rush to judgement based on political tribalism rather than on the facts of the case, you have from the get-go engaged in intellectually lazy speculation that is completely divorced from any known facts of the case under the rubric of " reasonable questions", for no apparent other reasons then a combination of being contrarian for the sake of being contrary plus supporting any cause that you perceive "triggerz the libs".

[J. J.]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

First,  a claim the something happened 35 years ago, refuted by a witnessed, where the documentation shows that the the the accuser's story changed, would be tossed out in a preliminary, if a prosecutor were stupid enough to file.  There would need to be more.

Second, it might make a difference, even if proven, that he was a juvenile.

 it might not apply to a juvenile.

JJ, for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Speaking is a long time criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who apparently understand the facts case far far better than you, you are officially talking out of your ass.

This is part of a flame war that was escalating I understand, but it is a personal attack, and now that it was reported (not by me, and not by Badger), I need to do my job based on the TOS, so I am deleting it (here just to make the point, but not in all the numerous quotes thereof), but given the circumstances, not infracting. I don't know why there is this litigation on whether or not K can be convicted of a crime, when that is not the issue before the Senate, and thus it all seems off topic, but whatever. Torie

[brucejoel99]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

From the preponderance of evidence shown so far, there's nothing with which charges pressed against Kavanaugh could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (& that analysis comes from somebody who thinks this preponderance of evidence is definitely more than enough to warrant a rejection of Kavanaugh's nomination).

And again, I still can't believe you think prosecutors ought to base decisions of whether to prosecute an individual for a crime on public opinion.

[fhtagn]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

Especially if alcohol was involved and decades went by before she said anything of this. Under the influence and in a dark room, it is very easy for a victim to not remember their attacker's face or identifying features. It's also very easy to be confused about what you did see trying to think back when questions are asked.  As an example, a couple years ago, I was assaulted by my neighbor. I didn't know his name, and his name wasn't on the lease for the townhouse next door. So the cops had to rely on what little physical descriptions I could give (as well as one witness statement from a neighbor who was across the street), which wasn't much because I only ever saw him at night, like I did the night of the assault. And while they asked me questions to help me think of anything else, one cop asked if he had any identifying tattoos, like a face or neck tattoo. I wasn't sure about it, which led me to question if maybe he did. When they brought me a photo lineup, I wasn't able to identify the attacker and picked the wrong person, thinking of questions like the ones cops had asked me days before to try and help me remember his face.

That is an interesting hypothesis clouded only buy the niggling fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that she did not remember Cavanaugh's identity at the time. Not at all.

I'm sorry, but you were lying of so-called reasonable questions hear sound less like pulling up anything remotely based in what actually happened or what anyone knows about the incident, and just a case of wanting to be contrarian for the sake of being contrary, a wholly unreasonable degree of what if ism, and a political ideology that seems to support " whatever triggers the Libs".

For all you go on about not wanting to rush to judgment and asking reasonable questions, it is very very clear you rushed to near immediate judgement on this matter, which is shown by a you're asking a bunch of very borderline nonsensical questions.

There's nothing nonsensical about the questions asked, they're very reasonable questions that should be asked to get a better understanding of what could have possibly happened that night. It's possible she doesn't really remember his identity at the time, he's 2 years older and they may not have regularly interacted in the same circles. Maybe she met him at a previous party or school event. She could have remembered some facial features and saw a guy that looked similar in a yearbook and got a name that way.

You know, no matter how many times you claim your questions are reasonable, that doesn't change the fact they really aren't. One can could have or maybe any set of facts out of existence. But that's not analysis, that's just what if ism.

 I'm not saying there shouldn't be further confirmation on the matter. I look forward to both of them testifying on Monday. The point here is for someone who has derided a rush to judgement based on political tribalism rather than on the facts of the case, you have from the get-go engaged in intellectually lazy speculation that is completely divorced from any known facts of the case under the rubric of " reasonable questions", for no apparent other reasons then a combination of being contrarian for the sake of being contrary plus supporting any cause that you perceive "triggerz the libs".

I find it very concerning that you're a public defender but think it's acceptable to just take an accuser at their word and that asking questions is nonsensical.

But I guess they call 'em public pretenders for a reason.

[Badger]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

First,  a claim the something happened 35 years ago, refuted by a witnessed, where the documentation shows that the the the accuser's story changed, would be tossed out in a preliminary, if a prosecutor were stupid enough to file.  There would need to be more.

Second, it might make a difference, even if proven, that he was a juvenile.

 it might not apply to a juvenile.

JJ, for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Speaking is a long time criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who apparently understand the facts case far far better than you, you are officially talking out of your ass.

Bager, you may be a "former" prosecutor for a good reason.  Think Mike Nifong, another "former prosecutor."  

Someone "claiming" they were attack would not be enough to get a conviction, especially unverified.  

Seriously? Did you really just imply that I am no longer a prosecutor, not only for reasons beyond my own volition, but because like Mike Nifong I covered up evidence exonerating victims of sexual assault? REALLY?!?

FTR, I left the prosecuting biz because the office I was Chief assistant in was having a horrible Spate of politics resulting in people fleeing the last year or two I was there. I got fed up and decided to join the rush, and partnered up with a long time buddy of mine when we decided to start making some real cash.

You really need to get over your primary characteristic of never ever being able to admit when you might be wrong. Ignoring plain facts is simple obstinance. Trying to claim you know more about the legal system and charging decisions than someone who's been practicing criminal law for almost 25 years goes beyond pigheadedness.

Go back to reporting the price of gold.

[Torie]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

First,  a claim the something happened 35 years ago, refuted by a witnessed, where the documentation shows that the the the accuser's story changed, would be tossed out in a preliminary, if a prosecutor were stupid enough to file.  There would need to be more.

Second, it might make a difference, even if proven, that he was a juvenile.

 it might not apply to a juvenile.

JJ, for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Speaking is a long time criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who apparently understand the facts case far far better than you, you are officially talking out of your ass.

Bager, you may be a "former" prosecutor for a good reason.  Think Mike Nifong, another "former prosecutor." 

Someone "claiming" they were attack would not be enough to get a conviction, especially unverified. 

Enough of this personal back and forth. Thank you.

[Badger]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

Especially if alcohol was involved and decades went by before she said anything of this. Under the influence and in a dark room, it is very easy for a victim to not remember their attacker's face or identifying features. It's also very easy to be confused about what you did see trying to think back when questions are asked.  As an example, a couple years ago, I was assaulted by my neighbor. I didn't know his name, and his name wasn't on the lease for the townhouse next door. So the cops had to rely on what little physical descriptions I could give (as well as one witness statement from a neighbor who was across the street), which wasn't much because I only ever saw him at night, like I did the night of the assault. And while they asked me questions to help me think of anything else, one cop asked if he had any identifying tattoos, like a face or neck tattoo. I wasn't sure about it, which led me to question if maybe he did. When they brought me a photo lineup, I wasn't able to identify the attacker and picked the wrong person, thinking of questions like the ones cops had asked me days before to try and help me remember his face.

That is an interesting hypothesis clouded only buy the niggling fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that she did not remember Cavanaugh's identity at the time. Not at all.

I'm sorry, but you were lying of so-called reasonable questions hear sound less like pulling up anything remotely based in what actually happened or what anyone knows about the incident, and just a case of wanting to be contrarian for the sake of being contrary, a wholly unreasonable degree of what if ism, and a political ideology that seems to support " whatever triggers the Libs".

For all you go on about not wanting to rush to judgment and asking reasonable questions, it is very very clear you rushed to near immediate judgement on this matter, which is shown by a you're asking a bunch of very borderline nonsensical questions.

There's nothing nonsensical about the questions asked, they're very reasonable questions that should be asked to get a better understanding of what could have possibly happened that night. It's possible she doesn't really remember his identity at the time, he's 2 years older and they may not have regularly interacted in the same circles. Maybe she met him at a previous party or school event. She could have remembered some facial features and saw a guy that looked similar in a yearbook and got a name that way.

You know, no matter how many times you claim your questions are reasonable, that doesn't change the fact they really aren't. One can could have or maybe any set of facts out of existence. But that's not analysis, that's just what if ism.

 I'm not saying there shouldn't be further confirmation on the matter. I look forward to both of them testifying on Monday. The point here is for someone who has derided a rush to judgement based on political tribalism rather than on the facts of the case, you have from the get-go engaged in intellectually lazy speculation that is completely divorced from any known facts of the case under the rubric of " reasonable questions", for no apparent other reasons then a combination of being contrarian for the sake of being contrary plus supporting any cause that you perceive "triggerz the libs".

I find it very concerning that you're a public defender but think it's acceptable to just take an accuser at their word and that asking questions is nonsensical.

But I guess they call 'em public pretenders for a reason.

One, this is a senate confirmation hearing rather than a criminal trial. While the burden still lies on the Accuser to show this assault occurred, the standards of that burden of proof are vastly different.

Secondly, the numerous corroborating statements to third-party shows this is anything but a recent invention. There is zero motive to lie here. The two choices here are either a, she is that a respected psychologist and college professor in her mid-50s is so fundamentally mentally unstable that she imagined the entire incident, because whether she's mistaken about how many people in the room it is inconceivable she was mistaken about being grabbed held down and clothes trying to be ripped from her while her mouth was covered, under such circumstances issues like what color shirt was Cavanaugh wearing, really don't come into play, or be, she's telling the truth. Oh, I suppose there's JJ's unique theory that she was mistaken and it was some other guy at the party who actually we ually assaulted her and not Cavanaugh, which literally does not bear out an answer. Not to mention is grossly inconsistent with Cavanaugh's denial of nothing never no way like that ever happened rather than, yes, I was there, and I'm the guy that pulled Mark judge off of her. So no, this is not not not no matter how many times you repeat this, simply taking the victim at their own word.

Third, I'm not a public defender, I'm an attorney in private practice. While I do take some Court appointments, the large majority of my criminal clients are privately retained at close to $250 per hour.

Fourth, as a former public defender I can authoritatively state the reason people call them public Pretenders is sheer ignorance, considering most of those attorneys, while some are inexperienced, practice criminal law in the same courts 52 weeks a year rather than spending significant portions of their practice doing other things like divorce work and bankruptcy, Etc. So yeah, the term comes from sheer ignorance. Welcome to the club.

Again, you've made it very clear with out explicitly stating so that your "reasonable questions" belie that you mostly made up your mind from the get-go that poor Brett Kavanaugh was about to lose out on his god-given right to "his dream job" because of a liberal Lynch Mob rushing to judgment.

[J. J.]

Seriously? Did you really just imply that I am no longer a prosecutor, not only for reasons beyond my own volition, but because like Mike Nifong I covered up evidence exonerating victims of sexual assault? REALLY?!?

No, I'm suggesting that you are attempting to use the fallacy of appealing to authority.  Even if you were a current prosecutor, your statement that someone "would" be convicted is the same fallacy. 

You can say, "If I were a prosecutor, I would prosecute.  I think the case is that strong."  Many, if not most.prosecutors say that.  Many, if not most, prosecutors get their heads handed to them in court even with that claim.

I have no problem with you personally, but I do have a problem with your claim to authority.

[Badger]

Seriously? Did you really just imply that I am no longer a prosecutor, not only for reasons beyond my own volition, but because like Mike Nifong I covered up evidence exonerating victims of sexual assault? REALLY?!?

No, I'm suggesting that you are attempting to use the fallacy of appealing to authority.  Even if you were a current prosecutor, your statement that someone "would" be convicted is the same fallacy. 

You can say, "If I were a prosecutor, I would prosecute.  I think the case is that strong."  Many, if not most.prosecutors say that.  Many, if not most, prosecutors get their heads handed to them in court even with that claim.

I have no problem with you personally, but I do have a problem with your claim to authority.

Sir, surely it is better that I rely on my own extensive professional Authority than you stubbornly hold fast to your complete lack thereof?

Good day, sir.

[MT Treasurer]

70% + chance republicans keep control so risk isn't that great . Plus Dems don't have stones to pull a Merrick Garland for 2 years.

Uh, it definitely is. Trump can thank many of his supporters in ND, WV, IN, etc. for that.

[J. J.]

Has Ford responded to the invitation yet?

I think that she should be given the chance to testify in executive session, at her option. 

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Has Ford responded to the invitation yet?

I think that she should be given the chance to testify in executive session, at her option. 

Uh, it's been known since yesterday that both Ford and Kavanaugh will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday (September 24th).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Has Ford responded to the invitation yet?

I think that she should be given the chance to testify in executive session, at her option. 

Uh, it's been known since yesterday that both Ford and Kavanaugh will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday (September 24th).

Apparently Ford has not officially agreed yet: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/grassley-kavanaugh-accuser-hearing-827921

[Alabama_Indy10]

Has Ford responded to the invitation yet?

I think that she should be given the chance to testify in executive session, at her option. 

Uh, it's been known since yesterday that both Ford and Kavanaugh will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday (September 24th).

No she hasn’t.

[Torie]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

That would make sense if the Senate were trying to get at the truth. But Republicans' primary interest is obviously not to get at the truth in this case.

It's to see if they can somehow still shove Kavanaugh through while minimizing the PR damage as much as possible.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1042091401662668805

[Devout Centrist]

Isn’t it obvious that Judge is a deranged weirdo who comes off as a probable rapist? Look at the guy’s YouTube.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

I don't get why Trump doesn't agree to testify to Mueller and his overall demeanor is that of a guilty person.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

Republicans don't have an interest in turning this into a spectacle. All they need to do is placate 50/51 Republicans, so what Feinstein or Durbin or Hirono wants doesn't matter whatsoever.

[Torie]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

Republicans don't have an interest in turning this into a spectacle. All they need to do is placate 50/51 Republicans, so what Feinstein or Durbin or Hirono wants doesn't matter whatsoever.

Well, maybe, but isn't there an upside for the Pubs? The second accused denies it all, and the therapist could be asked if she thinks that the four versus two was a typo, or that she was told four, and whether K's name came up, and what the description of the perp was, and so forth. There would be a a particular upside if the Dems are not really pushing for it, because at least as to the therapist, they might have been in contact.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

Republicans don't have an interest in turning this into a spectacle. All they need to do is placate 50/51 Republicans, so what Feinstein or Durbin or Hirono wants doesn't matter whatsoever.

Well, maybe, but isn't there an upside for the Pubs? The second accused denies it all, and the therapist could be asked if she thinks that the four versus two was a typo, or that she was told four, and whether K's name came up, and what the description of the perp was, and so forth. There would be a a particular upside if the Dems are not really pushing for it, because at least as to the therapist, they might have been in contact.

Simple probability tells you that more witnesses/a longer hearing = more likelihood of something disqualifying coming out, which R leaders want to avoid at all costs. On a related note, this is why the original hearing was crunched into four days and stretched very late into the night on two of those days. Less days = Less Time, and later hours = Senators get tired and basically give up so they can go to bed.