Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

No shyt? For these kinds of crimes specifically? I know there's usually no SOL for murder.

I looked this up last week, and I guess if I get a minute I can find it again, but it seems to me that even if Ford's case was prosecuted in 1982, the most a prosecutor could hope to get from a jury would be 4th degree sexual assault. Higher degrees involve actual rape in the statutes. Hard to see how a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that more than 4th degree was committed even taking Ford at her word and discarding Kav and Judge's denials, as well as the denials of other people named by Ford as being there today. If that is the case, 4th degree isn't a felony and the SOL expired long ago for non-felony sexual assault.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

A lot of truth to all that.

But don't you feel sorry for Mr. Avenatti? The guy just wants justice.

Avenatti will get his justice when he makes the foolhardy decision to run for President.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

SOL has probably run on those offenses, so they could come forward now without fear of prosecution. uno would likely know.

Doesn't matter. Use common sense. Why would two men come forward and admit to a sexual assault that was purportedly done 35 years ago by a man they don't even know?

Even if you did do it, you keep your mouth shut, and hope no one ever finds out it was you.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Marcy Wheeler over at emptywheel made a good point that I'll paraphrase here.


Kavanaugh spent that entire Fox interview saying that he had never sexually assaulted anyone. Immediately after his first use of that term 'sexual assault", he pivoted to how he had never even had intercourse in high school, nor for many years after. He's trying to equate "sexual assault" with the actual sex act. No penetration, no sexual assault. Can't have sexual assault without sex.

He then went on to say never committed "sexual assault", like nine times over the course of the interview.


It's "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Kinda ironic, that.

 

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Doesn't matter. Use common sense. Why would two men come forward and admit to a sexual assault that was purportedly done 35 years ago by a man they don't even know?

Even if you did do it, you keep your mouth shut, and hope no one ever finds out it was you.

Sure, but I was just basing my comments on DGF's post that two people may have already come forward. I know that post didn't claim they identified themselves.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I looked this up last week, and I guess if I get a minute I can find it again, but it seems to me that even if Ford's case was prosecuted in 1982, the most a prosecutor could hope to get from a jury would be 4th degree sexual assault. Higher degrees involve actual rape in the statutes. Hard to see how a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that more than 4th degree was committed even taking Ford at her word and discarding Kav and Judge's denials, as well as the denials of other people named by Ford as being there today. If that is the case, 4th degree isn't a felony and the SOL expired long ago for non-felony sexual assault.

And all of that is irrelevant to what is happening today. He is in the middle of a job interview not a court proceeding.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

How do you determine what constitutes credible, and what's just a woman making up stories?

I mean, for me, just reading his yearbook page tells me everything I need to know how what sort of person he was in high school, and whether he was capable of doing something like this.

Let me ask you this question.

Have you ever had the responsibility to make this type of decision? I'm not talking about sitting up here in the peanut gallery where you and I and everyone else is at watching these Senate events unfold. I'm talking about it being your responsibility, with real consequences to both parties, to make a credibility decision on this type of issue.

I have. I will tell you, it is not easy. In fact, it's one of the harder things I've had to do.

It wasn't as a juror, where someone's freedom was at stake, but I would have the help of 11 other people to shoulder the responsibility. It was in the employment setting. And it hasn't been on just one occasion.

I will tell you that it feels different when it's up to you. When you hold their fate in your hands and it's your decision that will be second-guessed. In each of those instances there were always people who would say, "I don't know how you can't believe him because of _________," or "it was __________ that made it clear to me she was telling the truth."

It is not an easy task.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Sure, but I was just basing my comments on DGF's post that two people may have already come forward. I know that post didn't claim they identified themselves.

i'm wondering if he wasn't confusing that with the man who reported to the committee that he had assaulted two men from the boat in Newport who had allegedly raped his friend?

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

And all of that is irrelevant to what is happening today. He is in the middle of a job interview not a court proceeding.

Oddly, I think I looked it up because you posted that the SOL hasn't expired in MD.

The question was, why would two men come forward and expose themselves to prosecution. They aren't exposed to prosecution as far as I can see.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Let me ask you this question.

Have you ever had the responsibility to make this type of decision? I'm not talking about sitting up here in the peanut gallery where you and I and everyone else is at watching these Senate events unfold. I'm talking about it being your responsibility, with real consequences to both parties, to make a credibility decision on this type of issue.

I have. I will tell you, it is not easy. In fact, it's one of the harder things I've had to do.

It wasn't as a juror, where someone's freedom was at stake, but I would have the help of 11 other people to shoulder the responsibility. It was in the employment setting. And it hasn't been on just one occasion.

I will tell you that it feels different when it's up to you. When you hold their fate in your hands and it's your decision that will be second-guessed. In each of those instances there were always people who would say, "I don't know how you can't believe him because of _________," or "it was __________ that made it clear to me she was telling the truth."

It is not an easy task.

You're assumption being that you're actually invested in making the correct determination. The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have already admitted that they are not.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Oddly, I think I looked it up because you posted that the SOL hasn't expired in MD.

The question was, why would two men come forward and expose themselves to prosecution. They aren't exposed to prosecution as far as I can see.

Still, you want to admit to something like that if you don't have to?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

So high school age girls only drink when forced to? You must have gone to some different parties then I went to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Even if they chose to get drunk that literally changes nothing.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Avenatti will get his justice when he makes the foolhardy decision to run for President.

Very true.

Doesn't matter. Use common sense. Why would two men come forward and admit to a sexual assault that was purportedly done 35 years ago by a man they don't even know?

Even if you did do it, you keep your mouth shut, and hope no one ever finds out it was you.

This.

The fact that Kav won't open himself up to a full investigation into the matter, is all I really need to know to determine he lacks the integrity to sit on the highest court in the land.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

i'm wondering if he wasn't confusing that with the man who reported to the committee that he had assaulted two men from the boat in Newport who had allegedly raped his friend?

I called that a crackpot-ish claim and got flack. The Newport guy recanted his claim entirely last night.

It's been reported that the Judiciary committee has spoken to two men who claim they were actually the ones who assaulted Ford. No more details so far that I've seen.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Hearing has started.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Still, you want to admit to something like that if you don't have to?

They are either lying or telling the truth. Reasons for lying are self evident. Telling the truth could be political, or actual feeling guilty about it after seeing how it's wrecked Ford. And/or Kavanaugh I guess. I agree that altruism in political matters is exceedingly rare.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Let me ask you this question.

Have you ever had the responsibility to make this type of decision? I'm not talking about sitting up here in the peanut gallery where you and I and everyone else is at watching these Senate events unfold. I'm talking about it being your responsibility, with real consequences to both parties, to make a credibility decision on this type of issue.

I have. I will tell you, it is not easy. In fact, it's one of the harder things I've had to do.

It wasn't as a juror, where someone's freedom was at stake, but I would have the help of 11 other people to shoulder the responsibility. It was in the employment setting. And it hasn't been on just one occasion.

I will tell you that it feels different when it's up to you. When you hold their fate in your hands and it's your decision that will be second-guessed. In each of those instances there were always people who would say, "I don't know how you can't believe him because of _________," or "it was __________ that made it clear to me she was telling the truth."

It is not an easy task.

That may be true (I was on a jury and i didnt find it that hard but that was my experience) but it isnt that much of an issue when you refuse to even pay attention to what is going on. Of all the GOP that are in the Senate maybe 3 are actually paying attention. They arent weighing anything. They dont care if Ford is credible and they certainly dont care if Kavanaugh is.

And before you tell me "well the Democrats are the same way" the Dems are the ones asking for more information. The Dems are the ones that wanted his records opened, the Dems are the ones that want the accusers heard. They wan to know everything so at least they can pretend to make an informed decision. The GOP honestly wouldnt care if he was a serial killer (to use your earlier post) they would still be voting to confirm tomorrow.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Grassley in his opening statement is destroying Dr. Ford and her testimony before she even testifies. He is issuing judgement in his opening statement.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Marcy Wheeler over at emptywheel made a good point that I'll paraphrase here.


Kavanaugh spent that entire Fox interview saying that he had never sexually assaulted anyone. Immediately after his first use of that term 'sexual assault", he pivoted to how he had never even had intercourse in high school, nor for many years after. He's trying to equate "sexual assault" with the actual sex act. No penetration, no sexual assault. Can't have sexual assault without sex.

He then went on to say never committed "sexual assault", like nine times over the course of the interview.


It's "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Kinda ironic, that.

stupid point (or not a point at all).

why would one not use sexual assault? that was what the woman said he did.
he then added he was a virginal nerd who didn't pop in a chick until much later in life. not relevant, but he said it.

don't see where he said "if you don't nut it, you can't commit sexual assault".

more projecting on others of ones own thoughts here.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Is Grassley drunk?