Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Rev. Rye]

538: Kennedy wasn't a moderate

He wasn't quite as conservative as some others, but he was no moderate. Plus, you never know how a justice will vote once they're on the court. Kennedy wasn't expected to be a swing vote when nominated.

Admittedly, that may be true. Then again, with the low bar set in the past couple years, “not as conservative as the others” borders on a breath of fresh air.

[John V]

Another person allegedly at party says it didn't happen

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

[Angrboda]

I already posted the link but here it is again:

Judge Won't Testify before the Senate on Monday

No, not that judge. Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh's friend who was in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly tried to rape Christine Blasey Ford. Judge may have talked to a lawyer and discovered that there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for rape, attempted rape, and related crimes, so there is a big downside and little upside for him to testify. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) could subpoena him, but it is unlikely that he will do it, since he would prefer that the whole issue of Kavanaugh's behavior one night when he was about 17 would just go away.

Judge Won't Testify before the Senate on Monday

There appear to be differing opinions on this. Perhaps it's a matter of which specific charges would apply.

COULD KAVANAUGH FACE STATE CHARGES?

The allegations Ford detailed to The Washington Post appear to be misdemeanors that would be beyond the statute of limitations under Maryland law, said Randolph Rice, a Baltimore-based attorney who specializes in sex crimes.

The allegations could be interpreted as second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, Rice said. But both charges are misdemeanors and would be far beyond the statute of limitations, which is typically one or three years, depending on the offense.

(WashingtonPost.com)

[Jehanne]

If he is lying, then he is guilty of perjury, a felony.

[Angrboda]

If he is lying, then he is guilty of perjury, a felony.

True, but that's not a question of the statute of limitations. I think the main concern is whether charges for the assault could still be brought.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Who cares?  If Kavanaugh did what he did, then, he's a felon.  No statue of limitations, which means that he can (and, probably should) go to jail over this.  As such, he does not belong on the Court; the Republicans will have to start over.

IF he did it, he was a juvenile. His records would be expunged because civilized countries do not (or at least should not) let the actions of minors, no matter how heinous, brand them for their entire lives and prevent them from contributing as much to society as they are capable of achieving.

(Full disclosure, I work at a company that services ex-felons by providing housing, assisting job placement, and access to mental health care. I don't see this as a partisan issue; but rather, having a criminal justice system that does not inflict life-long punishment. This is one issue were I have a definite left-leaning bias. The criminal justice system needs major overhaul to not perpetuate the very injustices it is meant to correct)

[Jehanne]

Point conceded.  But, if he is now lying under oath, then, he's a felon today.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Absent an actual conviction in a court of law, how could anyone fairly weight the various testimonies to determine if someone is committing perjury? I have no reason to NOT believe that the accuser believes her story. That doesn't make it true.

(Thanks, Jor)

[Angrboda]

I have no reason to believe that the accuser believes her story.

Freudian slip?

[Jehanne]

Absent an actual conviction in a court of law, how could anyone fairly weight the various testimonies to determine if someone is committing perjury? I have no reason to NOT believe that the accuser believes her story. That doesn't make it true.

(Thanks, Jor)

Perjury, as determined by Congress, is different than perjury as determined in a criminal court.