Maryland Will Open Criminal Investigation Of Kavanaugh If Ford Files A Complaint

download-7Not long after President Donald Trump ordered a one-week investigation of the FBI into allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Maryland officials have announced that they will launch a criminal investigation into the attempted rape allegations of Christine Blasey Ford if she files a complaint.  That would create the unprecedented situation of a nominee under criminal investigation as the Senate voted on confirmation.

Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger and Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy noted however that they would have to apply the law as it existed at the time in 1982.

That would mean investigating Kavanaugh 36 years later for a crime that was a misdemeanor (either assault or attempted rape) with a one-year statute of limitations.  According to the Baltimore Sun, they stated “The Montgomery County Police Department and the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office stand ready to investigate any sexual assault allegation from any victim where the incident occurred in our jurisdiction.”

That investigation would by necessity go on for weeks — prompting likely calls for an additional delay.

267 thoughts on “Maryland Will Open Criminal Investigation Of Kavanaugh If Ford Files A Complaint”

  1. Aunt Clara — Kavanaugh may lose his current position over prevarication under oath. Serious charge for a judge, think you not?

  2. I had naively assumed that everyone read “Julius Caesar” in 10th grade. I have since learned that some go through high school without reading anything by Wm Shakespeare!

    So, the lines beginning
    Kavanaugh is an honorable man
    are cribbed from Mark Anthony’s funeral oration in which he uses irony to great effect.

    To be absolutely clear, I view Justice Kavanaugh to have no honor and potentially be a criminal for lying to Congess.


    Julie Swetnick made false accusations before.

    In the suit, Webtrends alleged Swetnick claimed to have graduated from Johns Hopkins University but the company said it subsequently learned the school had no record of her attendance. Webtrends said she also “falsely described her work experience” at a prior employer.

    The suit also alleges Swetnick “engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct” while at Webtrends and “made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her.”

    The suit alleges Swetnick “engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct” directed at two male employees during a business lunch, with Webtrends customers present. Swetnick claimed two other employees had sexually harassed her, according to the suit.

    Webtrends’ suit said it determined Swetnick had engaged in misconduct but could not find evidence to support her allegations against her colleagues. Later, the company alleged, Swetnick took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits in the District of Columbia.

    “While Swetnick issued a sworn affidavit this week attesting to the truth of her allegations against Kavanaugh, news organizations have said they could not corroborate any of her claims. A former boyfriend once filed a restraining order against her.”

    There is a truism that ones character is one’s fate. If a man is a sexual predator, then he will be hounded by accusations and complaints throughout his life. If a woman lied before about inappropriate sexual contact, then she will lie again. There is a pattern indelibly laid down in the strata of their life experiences.

    1. From the same article:

      “The lawsuit was dismissed shortly after it was filed late in 2000, court documents show. In emails to The Oregonian/OregonLive, Avenatti called the allegations against his client, “Completely bogus.”

      “”This lawsuit never had any merit as evidenced by how quickly it was dismissed,” Avenatti wrote. “It was originally filed in retaliation for my client making claims against the company.”

      “Swetnick worked at Portland-based Webtrends for a few months in 2000, according to a civil suit the Portland company filed against her late that year. The company said she was hired as a professional services engineer to work off-site. It’s not clear whether she ever worked in Webtrends’ Portland office.”

      More information:

      1. She has a history of doing this before. Her employer discovered evidence that she had acted in a sexually inappropriate manner at work, and no evidence of her claims that her victims acted inappropriate with her.

        This is the thing about bad people. They tend to create patterns of bad behavior in their lives.

        Her misconduct is out there. The documentation of her actions is out there. I think Kavanaugh should sue her, but I’m not sure if he can since he’s a public figure.

        1. I consider a fabricated sex assault accusation to be a sexual assault in an of itself. Dr Ford might be the unwitting victim of an implanted memory. Swetnick is simply lying, based on the facts available and her past behavior.

        2. ” This is the thing about bad people. They tend to create patterns of bad behavior in their lives.” Exactly. But the trump-stooge is an honorable man.
          this is to “oh, ya, I guess it really applies to him, after all” karen – cindie

    2. I’m sorry, but in the widest definition of a sexual pursuer, which includes almost every young adult, there is a learning process in young adulthood that almost invariably visits at least one incident of over-aggression. It could be learning how obnoxious, lascivious and irresponsible one behaves at the point of stupor drunkenness. It could be a woman who decides to sleep in the same bed with a man she is not intending to have sex with, and then is surprised at his lack of impulse control. It could be a teacher or coach who feels a sexual attraction to a student, and still needs to learn that acting on it is not allowed.

      In any event, the great majority learn better how to take responsibility for their sexuality.
      A small minority of men are self-deceiving sociopaths who DO NOT learn because they can’t see that they’ve done anything wrong or hurt another person. These ones become the serial, premeditating rapists like Bill Cosby and Dr. Larry Nassar. Again, they are a small sliver.

      So, it is entirely incorrect to portray a young man who has technically offended once as destined to become a repeat offender. To cross the line once, and then never repeat it is actually normal sexual development. So, there would be nothing odd about Brett Kavanaugh’s having outgrown immature sexual deviancy.

  4. So why isn’t there a statue of limitations on sexual assault aka groping. How in the world could any DA take this to trial, since the Accuser can’t remember a date or place? And it happened 36 years ago?

    1. MD has no SOL on felony sexual assault. The groping incident would not qualify, but a pattern of organized sex parties with involuntary, surreptitious drugging (such as spiking a Hawaiian Punch with grain alcohol) – that would cross the line into a felony, and could be prosecuted with sufficient eyewitness testimony / corroborating evidence.

  5. “Glenn Greenwald

    Verified account

    7h7 hours ago

    If you want to defend Brett Kavanaugh and argue he didn’t lie in his testimony – even though he so plainly did – you have the obligation to engage with the strongest arguments. This, from @briebriejoy & @camillembaker, makes the case perfectly”


  6. There needs to be a criminal investigation of a Senator from Connecticut named Blummenthal who stated when running for office that he had served in the military in Vietnam. It was a lie. He was on TV last night calling Kavannaugh a liar.

    1. Blummenthal wasn’t under oath when he made that statement. What would they
      investigate? He was elected. Kavanaugh was under oath while lying about a host of things.
      He was lying under oath for a JOB interview for a appointed position. Do you want to be judged by a judge who would lie under oath?

  7. And about Kavanaugh not having any connections to Yale:

    “He was legacy; his grandfather went there. What pathetic perjury.” -Ryan Grim

    “Ryan Grim

    Verified account

    Kavanaugh even lied about his connections to Yale: “I have no connections there. I got there by busting my tail.”

    See this yearbook. He was legacy; his grandfather went there. What pathetic perjury. “

  8. This is not news – this avenue was always open to Ms Ford and her legal team and if they / she had done this , then the investigation she/they want(s) could have been started already.

  9. FBI will contact Mark Judge’s ex girlfriend and ask her about his confession of participating in gang rape (No hearsay here). FBI will then contact Mark Judge and ask him to bring his book “Wasted” which validates Dr. Ford’s timeline of sexual assault to his FBI “interview.
    FBI will, then ask Judge if the “Bart O’Kavanaugh”…. the drunk identified in Wasted who participated with Judge in “drinking , smoking and hooking up” (Wasted) is Brett Kavanaugh.

    Then using the Kavanaugh furnished calender (Discovery) and leading Judge thru “Wasted” , the FBI will look go to Julie Swetwick and review with her Declaration of 10 parties possibly tying times and dates so displayed in Kavanaugh’s furnished calender where she witnessed “Train rape” and was, herself, a victim of Gang Rape where Kavanaugh and Judge “were present”.

    Then they will go to Deborah Rameriz and have her recount her story , under oath, about shoving Kavanaugh’s penis away from her face. Hopefully after an interview with Kavanaugh FBI will discover the girls he dated in 1998.
    Then they will find the ex girlfriend who he physically assualted outside a D.C bar in 1998 and her 3 witnesses of assuault.
    Maybe with luck they will find the woman who was sexually assaulted in boat at Newport in 1998.

    And, then ask Kavanaugh’s 2 Yale Roommates about his excessive drinking and stinking up the bathroom with vomit.

    Finally they will interview the 4 people , including Dr. Ford’s therapist about the 4 affidavits they signed supporting Dr. Ford’s story of sexual assault.

    1. MarryA – then they are going to get all of Dr. Ford’s therapist’s notes and that is going to change everything.

      1. The therapist has signed an affidavit supporting Ford.

        The notes will likely back up that affidavit.

        1. The therapist did not know Blasey from a cord of wood in 1982 or 1985. All she can attest to is that Blasey said X 30 years later. That’s perfectly inconsequential (and the therapists contemporaneous notes conflict with the letter to Eshoo).

          1. Why would the therapist sign an affidavit supporting Ford if her records contradicted her testimony?

            That doesn’t pass the smell test.

            The therapist hasn’t withdrawn her support after she testified either.

            You will need more evidence than that.

            1. MarryA – I want to see all of the therapist’s records. And the question is, which created story is she supporting, or is she supporting Chrissy as a patient.

    2. You sure are gullible. Do you believe everything you read and hear? Glad you’re not an investigative reporter. Don’t quit your day job. Try seeing what’s right in front of your eyes for a change.

  10. I don’t know if it’s true but I heard that a gay, African-American man in New Jersey is accusing Cory Booker of sexually harassing him at a gay bar claiming that Senator Booker is on the down low. He is refusing to go public because — he says — Booker has made death threats.

    See how easy that is? Now, according to Senator Booker and his Democrat colleagues on the judiciary committee, the accuser must be believed and Senator Booker has no presumption of innocence.

    1. “Presumption of innocence” happens in a court of law. This was part of a job interview.

      1. She made a criminal allegation. My money says she doesn’t make a criminal allegation because filing a false report is a crime. And you need to pull your head out of Mazie Hirono’s behind.

          1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, you are incapable of making a coherent point. It is not that someone missed the point, it is that you never made the point to begin with.

      2. By that token every single Democratic senator can be forced to resign if victims come forward with accusations against them. No evidence is no problem. There is no presumption of innocence, and unless victims are believed you support rape culture.

        We can just devolve into lynch mobs again…which was why we developed our Constitutional rights and jurisprudence in the first place.

        This is reverse evolution of society.

        1. You missed the point. Senators are elected. Supreme Court justices are appointed via a job interview called Advice and Consent.

              1. Paul, I have a sexist engineer joke, from the days before PC when we had a sense of humor among the science majors on campus. Regrettably, engineers were the butt of many of our jokes. Nerd humor.

                An engineer rides up to his friends. They ask him where he got the new bike. He said, “You won’t believe what happened. I was sitting on the grass, eating lunch, when this gorgeous blond rode up on this bike. She jumped off, threw her bike to the ground, and pulled off all her clothes. ‘Take what you want!’ she said.”

                The friends replied, “Smart choice. Her clothes would never have fit you.”

                1. Karen S – you almost owed me a keyboard. Very funny. And sooooo true. They can be very focused. 😉 I think that joke hold up well today, but I am not PC.

          1. What’s the difference between getting elected or nominated? This is about convicting a man in the court of public opinion. If all victims are to be believed, without evidence, then everyone will fall by that sword. Senators, and every other human being in this state.

            I’ve remarked before about getting aggressively groped by a lesbian in a gay bar, including grabbing me there…I laughed it off. But what if I lacked scruples? I could name any woman in power that I wanted and destroy her career.

            Democrats are pushing hard to return to the days of the lynch mob.

            That is not justice, and you wouldn’t like to be subjected to it yourself. Accusations must be proven, whether it’s about jail time, getting expelled from a university, or denied a job.

            There is also a remarkable double standard, i.e. Keith Ellison and Beto O’Rourke.

            1. Karen S – I am sure it was DiFi that groped you. She is known for being handsy.

              1. Hmmmm, she does wear pants suits like the lady in the bar. Perhaps I have a repressed memory and should see a hypnotist!

                People are suffering from political poisoning.

              2. Pauly babe –> Why are you such a douche. You need to watch more SNL and get in touch with reality. NOW!

            2. “Those that sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.” When you try to eliminate the constitutional rights of more than half the population, don’t be surprised when many, many people begin charging the pillbox.

              this is to “but hannity seems so knowledgeable and truthful — and he’s a cutie, too” karen – cindie

        2. Al Franken already resigned for this.

          The difference is Democrats are more likely to believe victims. Republicans engage in victim blaming.

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – And you know what? Kavanaugh cites his sources. He is all right by me. 😉

                1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – in his writings he cites his sources, you ignorant twit.

              1. And you don’t make stuff up. For heavens sake you pull it out of ……….. I only hear such horse manuer when listening to Hanity & Feux Comedy and friends.

                1. Christian Staufenbiel – where I have been wrong, I have walked it back, but it was not because I made it up, it was because I thought I was working with good information. However, then someone had better information. That is fine. I am not going to open a vein over it. If I am wrong, I am wrong, big deal. I admit and move on. And I have gotten better about citing my sources. 😉

          1. “The difference is Democrats are more likely to believe victims. Republicans engage in victim blaming.”

            No. The difference is evidence vs no evidence; justice vs lynch mob.

            Why are you so eager to ruin a man’s life without a shred of evidence? Why do you think that innocence or guilt lies in gender?

            I would have been perfectly happy to discard Kavanaugh’s nomination if there was evidence against him proving the allegation. Would have considered it a lucky discovery. I liked Bill Cosby, but the evidence against him convinced me of his guilt. I was not biased in favor of Kavanaugh because I knew nothing about him beforehand. If he was truly a sexual predator, I would have been adamant that he be withdrawn and a suitable replacement named.

            However, the allegation was deliberately withheld until the 11th hour, zero supporting evidence was provided, her named eye witnesses contradicted her claims, and the alleged victim substantially changed her age and the year when this event supposedly occurred. The latter was critically important, because if she was just a few months older, Kavanaugh would have been off to college. This also depended on a repressed memory, which has been debunked by science.

            Repressed memories drove the Satanic hysteria that swept the nation in the 80’s and 90’s, in which therapists got over excited about digging for this new theory, “repressed memories” in their sessions. What turned out was that they were accidentally implanting false memories themselves, memories which were indistinguishable from real ones. People have been released from prison for years, having been wrongfully sent to prison based on false memories. This was a huge scandal in the psychiatric community. The fact that this entire accusation hinges on a repressed memory is a red flag.


            I need something to go on other than a biological female is making an accusation against a biological male from 36 years ago.

            The Democrats have openly stated their mission to block the Kavanaugh nomination, and hold open that seat until 2020, when they hope to retake the White House. The reason is that Kavanaugh would flip a Liberal seat to a Conservative one.

            All of this agonizing could be prevented if people insisted on the appointment of Supreme Court justices that did not legislate from the bench. After all, SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch, not the legislative one. Personal politics and opinion should be left at the carved lintel above the door. All they have to do is judge each case before them based on the law. If people don’t like the law, then there is this entire process to change it, called the legislative process. Cue the music of “I am a bill on Capitol Hill…”

            When SCOTUS does not allow personal opinion to color their judgement about the law, and stop trying to bend the law to conform to their opinions, then it won’t matter if a judge is a Democrat or a Republican. Take Professor Turley, for instance. He has often commented about how his legal opinion differs from his personal opinion about a case.

            The American people should be able to trust their Supreme Court to apply the law, not create the law through precedent.

        3. We are witnessing the Democrats and their corrupt party and the media replace “Due Process” and “Presumption of Innocence” with:

          “No Evidence? No Problem Just Bring It”

          1. And, like Chrissy Ford, you can come forward, no matter how unethically, to bring completely unsubstantiated decades old unverifiable allegations, that literally destroys a good man, and his family, and his career, and his life, while it also tears apart the entire country…all for political gain…..and then walk away…as a hero….with a million dollar GoFundMe campaign.

            If this doesn’t sicken you, I don’t know what’s wrong with you.

            1. When the sole qualification for the job is “will you bail out the day glo bozo when Mueller gets to him?” the candidate pool tends to be sketchy at best, and likely to have skeletons coming out of the woodwork. “If that doesn’t sicken you, I don’t know what’s wrong with you.”

              this is to “but Kav is an honorable man” t-hott bobbie

          2. TBob, Kavanaugh is not charged with a crime. This is a job interview. There is no “Presumption of innocence” in Advise and Consent.

            1. Question for you….you have a doctorate, correct? Do you go around calling yourself Dr. Benson? She’s referred to as “Dr. Ford” all over the place. Yeah, we get it, she has a PhD…yet oddly doesn’t know what ‘exculpatory’ means. Do you find that rather pretentious? I have a friend with a PhD in Physics who doesn’t refer to himself as “Dr”…another who has 2 doctorate degrees and even she doesn’t refer to herself as “Dr.”…I mean, seriously, who does that? They are trying to give this woman some credibility when it is just not there. She’s got nothing. Nothing. What business does she have in bringing flimsy allegations like this forward? Was it unethical on her part? Yes. On Feinstein’s part? Hell yes.

              1. Yes,



                  1. TBob – it is called ODD. It is not curable and there are really no drugs for it. 😉

                1. For a doctor with several degrees, her letter was written sloppily in the penmanship of a fourth grader. Doesn’t she own a computer and printer? Poor lady. And yes, her vocabulary is weak for all those degrees.

              2. I was disappointed to see a “professional” woman behave in such a childlike manner. But that’s just me.

                1. Aunti, why are you so depricating? Oh, you didn’t challenge yourself with higher education.

              3. TBob – some like to be referred to by their academic title and some do not. It is personal. The superintendent of my district got her doctorate and we got an announcement that thenceforeward we were to address her as Dr. So and So. I said that was fine, if she would address me by my title, Master Schulte.

                1. I understand, Master Schulte 🙂 I’m just making the point that the media is referring to her as Dr. Ford to grant some additional cred to her flimsy uncorroborated 40 year old allegations, yet they fail to say “Judge Kavanaugh”…they call him Brett Kavanaugh…while referring to her as “Dr Ford” and it bugs me. Not as much as the baby girl voice and the “I’m just here to be helpful and do my civic duty” act, but it still bugs me.

                  1. She uses baby talk, peers timidly up through her glasses, smiles broadly, and sways back and forth, using body language to engender a protective response from her interlocutors.

                    Her voice changes at key moments. Notably, she spoke baby talk when called on her lying about her fear of flying causing her to fail to testify long before this. Later, she spoke in a firmer voice, and pushed her glasses up on her head, shoulders back and head up.

                    When she cried, she shed no tears and did not wipe her eyes. Audio of her testimony was far more compelling than video. My personal observation showed manipulative behavior. Some women act childish to avoid getting called on the carpet.

                    And you are correct that the media preferentially used her title while abstaining from using his, subtly implying his guilt.

                  2. Or, it’s due to the fact that she’s garnered the undying respect of the vast majority of the rational population due to her patriotic self-sacrifice, such that everyone who counts uses her well-deserved title.

                    this is to “but hannity says she’s a baddie, too” t-hott bobbie

                    1. “patriotic self-sacrifice”? “undying respect”?

                      For what? For unethically bringing forward a completely unsupported accusation from 40 years ago that is now destroying a man’s adult life and tearing apart the country with mass hysteria…?

                      Where a flimsy accusation is enough? Where the accused is presumed guilty, not innocent? And bears the burden to disprove a negative?

                      Where nothing, absolutely nothing, is off limits from childhood to right now? All of your life is fair game to find something, anything…with which to destroy a man’s adult life? And if you are a white man, God help you. Well done, Chrissy Ford.

                      “Undying respect” for this? Shame on you.

                  3. Yo, dude, the media is acknowledging credentials that is NOT a flimsy grant. How many times have you make a physical attack on the female population? I have been attacked on two occasions. It’s time for you to stiffle yourself!

                    1. Christian Staufenbiel – if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. He makes a great point and you should acknowledge it.

              4. TBob:

                If Diane Feinstein had introduced this information to the committee back in July, when she received it, then Ford’s anonymity could have been preserved.

                The committee would have then obtained this information back in July:
                The sworn statements from her named eye witnesses that contradict her story
                Her therapist notes that contradict her story
                The timeline of how she changed her age when this happened in order to have it occur when Kavanaugh was in town
                Her husband’s statement that she opposed Kavanaugh getting on the Supreme Court
                Her own statement that the only reason why she came forward was because Kavanaugh’s approval seemed secure
                Her inability to say where or when this happened
                The fact that the only reason why she said she was 15 when this happened (when Kavanaugh was still in town) was because she could not remember driving to or from the party, and after she got her license, she liked to drive herself.
                The fact that she deliberately scrubbed her social media accounts, to remove photos and comments of hers that were virulently anti-Trump

                They would have conferred with each other, and law enforcement, which would have informed them she has no case. It is an unsubstantiated allegation and, to be frank, has evidence disproving it.

                I consider a fraudulent accusation to be a type of sexual assault. Ford might truly be a victim of an implanted memory. That can only be determined through investigating her therapist. Or she could be lying. Swetnick is definitely lying, and has a history of doing so. Democrats definitely withheld this information, in order to delay the vote and scuttle his nomination. That is in no way justice. It’s warfare.

                I have no use for people who weaponize false sexual assault allegations for political advantage.

                Feinstein should be investigated for ethics violations for withholding this information.

              5. dude, its cultural from the University they attended. Get a life and understand WTF goes on in graduate education. Sheesh

                1. Christian Staufenbiel – I spent much time in the graduate system. You know that grad students are more likely to become unhinged than the rest of the population? Yep, there is even a study on it from the 80s. No, I am not going to look it up.

            2. So if the idiots can convince people that Kavanaugh is a sexual predator and abuser and rapist he is going to be able to keep his current job? These accusations will make that impossible. And ACCUSATIONS based on what? No corroboration. Nothing.

              1. I suggest you post a mean comment on reddit to resolve your frustrations. Or, just keep watching hannity and order some commemorative silver plates–or whatever he’s peddling to the addle-brained oldsters who still tune in.

                this is to “but I thought all sexual assaults had eyewitnesses” auntie

                1. Marky Mark Mark – allegedly this sexual assault did have an eye-witness or have you forgotten.

          3. Yo, dude. Explain when the corruptness began. May I suggest the era of Roger A at feux comedy and the corporate propaganda. You really need to get in touch with yourself. Mitch initiated the charade. I hope the female population grabs your gentitals and make you scream each and every day hence forth until you choose to give up. Make the fire go away!

            What’s your daddy going to do? Look at your father and tell him you love him!

    2. I’m tempted to spread that. But we don’t do that. We actually value truth above all.

  11. This is a storm in a teacup. The woman’s story is clearly an utter fiction – and constitutes yet another attempt to discredit Trump. Did you know that her father works for the CIA – an organisation hardly known for their love of the President? Equally, there is the possibility that Soros is behind the whole sordid affair.

      1. The idea that Soros/Clinton money has been used in this tawdry exercise wouldn’t surprise anyone.

        1. Airplane tickets? Hotel for 1 or 2 nights? Probably the committee sprung for that.

          Grow up.

    1. This is Clarence Thomas all over again! I hope Joe Biden’s emotional explanation of what the FBI does and doesn’t do. Will the FBI investigation be closely watched by Sessions?

      1. Clarence Thomas is a most incapable justice. Scallia called his opinions “crazy”.

        1. Take you Aricept, David, and maybe you’ll stop Making Stuff Up.

          And you need to cite all your work…

                  1. Assuming he makes it, the second most salient question would be: “who will be his counsel at the impeachment proceedings.?

                    this is to “I bet you can guess the most salient question by now” t-hott bobbie

                    1. Remember when Bill Clinton was impeached? What happened? Yeah. I predict the same for Justice Kavanaugh…IF he were to be impeached.

        2. David Benson……..Laura Ingraham clerked for Justice Thomas and has only praise for him. That’s all I need to know.

    2. Her father is 83 years old and retired. He was a litigator at a BigLaw firm. (BTW, her family-of-origin has been keeping a low profile and saying as little as they gould get away with).

  12. If they would investigate based on the law in 1982, and there was a one year statute of limitation in 1982, what is there for them to investigate?

    1. If it’s in any way an honest investigation, the first to be interviewed would be the ones she said were in the room, who have already denied they were there. If they change that, they are guilty of a felony, lying to Congress. This is just another example of Democrats doing anything, real or not, to destroy Judge Kavanaugh. How they would get around their statute date will probably be very creative.

      1. Only Mr. Judge was the only other in the room. He refused to testify in the hearing so clearly is not in contempt of congess.

        Even I know that. You are lost in a miasm of confusion. Seek assistance from a mental health professional.

        1. Judge, Smyth, and Miss Keyser have all provided affidavits to the committee. And he did not refuse to honor any subpoenas. He simply said he would prefer to not testify.

      2. FBI will contact Mark Judge’s ex girlfriend and ask her about his confession of participating in gang rape (No hearsay here). FBI will then contact Mark Judge and ask him to bring his book “Wasted” which validates Dr. Ford’s timeline of sexual assault to his FBI “interview.

        FBI will, then ask Judge if the “Bart O’Kavanaugh”…. the drunk identified in Wasted who participated with Judge in “drinking , smoking and hooking up” (Wasted) is Brett Kavanaugh.
        Then using the Kavanaugh furnished calender (Discovery) and leading Judge thru “Wasted” , the FBI will look go to Julie Swetwick and review with her Declaration of 10 parties possibly tying times and dates so displayed in Kavanaugh’s furnished calender where she witnessed “Train rape” and was, herself, a victim of Gang Rape where Kavanaugh and Judge “were present”.

        Then they will go to Deborah Ramirez and have her recount her story , under oath, about shoving Kavanaugh’s penis away from her face. Hopefully after an interview with Kavanaugh FBI will discover the girls he dated in 1998.
        Then they will find the ex girlfriend who he physically assualted outside a D.C bar in 1998 and her 3 witnesses of assuault.

        Maybe with luck they will find the woman who was sexually assaulted in boat at Newport in 1998.

        And, then ask Kavanaugh’s 2 Yale Roommates about his excessive drinking and stinking up the bathroom with vomit.

        Finally they will interview the 4 people , including Dr. Ford’s therapist about the 4 affidavits they signed supporting Dr. Ford’s story of sexual assault.

        1. You think so? Has it crossed your mind that the FBI might actually clear Kavanaugh yet again? And about those allegations having to do with the boat in RI…guess you didn’t hear that Sen. Grassley has made a criminal referral to the FBI for “apparent false statements to committee investigators alleging misconduct by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

        2. “WSJ has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick’s account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but could not reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations. No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims.”

        3. Ford’s friend Leland still denies any knowledge of such a party or event and states again that she does not know Brett Kavanaugh. Mark Judge has agreed to cooperate and answer questions. Do you know if Blasey-Ford has agreed to be interviewed yet by the FBI?

    2. A pattern with other accusations (Julie Setnick) of organized predatory sex parties where alcohol / drugs were used to disable the target female could be investigated with Ford’s claim of Kav + Judge as sexual predators the stating point. If there were no parallel accusations, I agree, Ford’s case alone doesn’t come up to threshold for investigation.

      1. I think it does exceed the threshold of a vicious attack on Kavanaugh. He should sue her. If she sent a statement under penalty of perjury to the committee, she should be charged. If she makes a false statement to the police, she should be charged. People will argue that it looks bad to sue an alleged rape victim. I say, not if the alleged victim is really a perp.

        Her statement should be investigated, not because it has any credibility, but rather because it may be a terrorist act.

        This has sent shockwaves through the conservative community. Conservatives are being harassed and threatened at restaurants, their businesses targeted, charged with a crime if they won’t bake a cake, called racist in the mainstream media and Hollywood, and now we have seen government power abused in order to target a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. Merely working for Trump will get you death threats now. This is an effort to chase qualified people away from attaining high office or positions. Political terrorism and gutter warfare. This wasn’t a quest for justice, but rather a hit job.

          1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – accusing one of a sex crime is libel per se. I think she would have to defend the suit and prove her case.

            1. New York Times v. Sullivan. Read it and weep. Thanks for playing, “counselor”

              this is to paulie – georgie

              1. Marky Mark Mark – I have read but I doubt you have, and it has changed since then. You notice how careful she was in naming some people (or rather not naming them). It was a bizarre hearing.

    3. They can still investigate the criminal allegation. They just cannot press charges if the statute of limitations has passed.

  13. As this is further investigated and looked into, what do you suppose we may find out about Chrissy Blasey’s “character” and “reputation” during those teen years? Does her character matter when investigating an unsubstantiated decades old allegation? Or are we supposed to just look at Judge Kavanaugh’s character?

    1. Women have options. Men have obligations. The Sztrok-McCabe FBI won’t be looking into anything inconvenient to the Democratic Party for very long.

    2. Tbob – What type of caracter would have made it acceptable to push her into a room, onto a bed, and attempt to rape her?
      I consider this whole blog post to be a distraction. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are not the one’s anyone need be concerned about in a Maryland investigation. It’s the charges of rape with no statute of limitations.

      1. enigma – at best it is a misdemeanor which is time limited. 1 year statute of limitations. And what would Maryland investigate?

        1. I don’t think Maryland investigating the Ford allegations would accomplish much legally. I do believe the actual rape allegations of Avenatti’s client should be. If she’s prepared to make a charge (coming with it possible charges against herself if it’s a false police complaint) it should be investigated.

          1. enigma – Avenatti’s client is complicit. And I have heard attorneys have described her affidavit as vague enough that at this point she is not legally on the hook, but she could be if she testifies.

            How could a woman (and she is a community college student) go to these high school gang rape parties and not rescue the girls, call the cops, accidently spill the punch, etc. ? The sisterhood should take her membership card away. She owes every girl who went to one of those parties a deep apology. This is all assuming what she says is true. That is a big jump to make given all that she has said.

            1. Paul – Stockholm syndrome? Assuming what she says is true, the FBI investigation won’t be uncovering it as the White House has made investigating her claims off limits, along with verifying Kavanaugh’s drinking habits at Yale. The “limited scope” as dictated by Trump sounds exactly like obstruction.

          2. Enigma:

            1) Ms Swetnick has made false allegations about sexual misconduct before. (
            2) Whenever there is a high profile crime or drama, unstable people come out of the woodwork. They want to steal the glory of having had a brush with danger, so they call tip lines and claim they’re the killer/kidnapper, they saw the killer/kidnapper, they escaped the killer/kidnapper, or they have informations on his whereabouts.

            People sift through the crazies. With 325 million people in there US, there are a significant amount of attention seeking unstable people. A report has to be credible. Unless she can provide evidence to back up her claim, why would any reasonable person believe that a girl continued to go to 10 or more parties, where she watched girls get gang raped by a line of patiently waiting men. Amazingly, knowing the drinks were drugged, she drank one, and got raped herself. It sounds like a sick fantasy of a seriously disturbed person, one whom we know to have a history of weaponizing sexual misconduct allegations.

            This would have required hundreds of people to keep silent about a gang rape ring operating in public. No history of it over the years. It makes no sense.

            The FBI can certainly interview her, however, If she’s caught making false statements to them, she can be arrested.

            1. Your argument sounds very much like a female Fox News Reporter that asked how she could keep putting herself in that environment, not recognizing that she herself kept going to work in a toxic workplace, rampant with sexual harassment and abuse. People, especially those that were victims themselves, do things for any number of reasons. Maybe she feared most her rape would be exposed.
              My personal opinion that I won’t express anywhere but here, is that Renate has a story to tell, one she planned to go to the grave with, maybe one day she’ll share it?

              1. “Your argument sounds very much like a female Fox News Reporter that asked how she could keep putting herself in that environment”

                Actually, this is my own common sense. Do you actually expect us to believe that she would go to gang rapes every weekend? On purpose?

                Please provide a rational explanation for why a 20 year old woman would attend at least 10 parties, in which she knew that girls were getting drugged, and then raped by a line of men, and continued attending them.

                This isn’t why did you keep a badly needed job when guys at the office keep coming on to you. It’s not blaming the victim for wearing a short skirt. It’s why did you keep going to parties where sex trafficking and rape took place, every single time, and massive sexual assault happened right in front of you. What reasonable person would attend a gang rape every single weekend? At best it makes no sense, at worse, it would implicate her as participating in sex trafficking.

                What are you doing Friday? Oh, you know, hanging out at the gang rape…It’s delusional.

                If you have an explanation for why a person would attend a gang rape almost every weekend, then please provide it.

                Her story does not hold water.

                This is like when there’s a man hunt, and deluded people flood tip lines claiming they had a near miss themselves, or were targeted by him. They want to get a circle of adoring admirers for their “close escape” or bad experience that never happened. Such claims are discarded as the nonsense they are. That’s why they always differentiate between credible and non credible tips and claims.

                I consider Swetnick’s accusation to be fraudulent, and an assault upon Kavanaugh.

                1. Her accusation includes witnesses, surely an FBI investigation woud either lend credibility to her story of find major holes? Oops, Trump refuses to let the FBI go there. That will give you a week of Avenatti on all the shows releasing additional data, microphones in Senators faces asking them will they consider that information, the media following up on every lead and finding new information. Refusing to investigate Swetnick’s claims (and Kavanaugh’s drinking at Yale which is also off limits) has only given those claims more credibility.

                  1. enigma -Avenatti is supposed to give us supporting witnesses today. You just have to be patient. The Democrats played games, so the President is playing their game tighter than they like. Swetnick does not get enough details to investigate or start an investigation. However, with what she wrote in her affidavit, she is at the least complicit in 9 gang rapes.

                    1. I agree with you somewhat in that Avenatti is dragging outn information instead of simply being straightforward. Then again the intended audience, the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee has no interest in the truth or any information so maybe he’s doing what he feels like he has to do. If you feel Swetnick is complicit in several rapes, I’m sure you want to see the actual rapists get justice as well or are you only interested in prosecuting her?

                    2. enigma – assuming (and this is a big assume) that Swetnick is telling the truth, then of course I would like all of the rapists arrested, the girls given counseling, etc. However, no one has come forward yet to back up her story, then or now. And, were the girls compliant or raped? Or, was it just boys lining up for the bathroom. She says the punch was spiked but she never drank it so how did she know? She is at least two years older than anyone at this party, what the devil is she doing there?

          3. Enigma:

            Do you believe it is a credible claim that a girl attended more than 10 parties, callously watched girls get drugged and raped by a line of patiently waiting men, continued to go to the parties, drank there, knowing drinks were tampered with, on the 10th time, drank a drugged drink herself, and got raped by a train of guys, and never, in all this time, was there a record of a police report? Word didn’t get out to the girls not to go these parties? No emergency room upticks in massive internal damage in girls going to these parties? For Swetnick to know the girls were getting drugged and raped by trains of men, this had to happen right out in the open. And…no one figured this out? They all kept going? Was Swetnick the only female who watched girls get raped over and over and over again? Or was this some sort of performance, where girls would go watch other girls get raped, but they expected to be spared themselves?

            If she did participate in a gang rape party, then she might be arrested for contributing to the 10 or more alleged rapes that preceded her alleged own.

            Please explain your reasoning for considering this a valid claim.

            Yes, if she files a charge with the police, it will be investigated, and she will be at risk of filing a false police report. If she participates in an interview with the FBI, she will be at risk of making false statements to an FBI officer. They will hopefully have her file from a previous employer where she made false allegations against men she, herself, was sexually harassing.

        2. There IS a statute of limitations.
          MD instituted the change in limitations, after the alleged crime.
          Ex post facto prevents any application of that change.

    1. Nick…….by the way. ….that little vignette was compliments of the Democrats’ School of Theater Arts.

  14. I take this statement to mean solely “we are good law officers”.

    Hardy worth mentioning, Jonathan Turley.

  15. Dr Ford should get an Oscar for best performance in a work of fiction. The only criminal charges should be for Dr Ford lying and bearing false witness. While we’re at it let’s investigate Di Fy for acting as an agent of a foreign govt. Red China.

      1. No, he’s not. If she’s telling the truth, you have to believe she suffered a traumatic event in a setting with four other people who recall no such event and that she attended the event with a friend who does not recall ever having met her ‘assailant’ in any venue. You have to take her seriously even though her account of it is protean and she assigned it to one time frame in 2012 and then retconned it to another in 2016 (which conveniently captures Kavanaugh and Judge’s time in high school).

        You also have to believe she was acquainted with her assailants even though their residences and school enrollments would not have placed them anywhere proximate to each other (in a county which had 500,000 people living in suburban tract development) and even though no one as yet has stated seeing them in the same social venue. (Btw, Kavanaugh was an only child and Judge’s sister was not enrolled at Blasey’s school).

          1. Her letter to Eshoo was sent in July 2018. If you had a substantive response rather than a twit about a typo, we’d have heard it.

        1. FORD: During my time at this school, girls at Holton-Arms frequently met and became friendly with boys from all-boys schools in the area, including the Landon School, Georgetown Prep, Gonzaga High School, as well as our country clubs and other places where kids and families socialized. This is how I met Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me.

          1. Betty – in our country, we abolished the lynch mob in favor of evidence and justice.

            You must be aware that people were hanged, shot, beat up, or run out of town throughout history based on fabricated or mistaken accusations, without a shred of evidence. As has been pointed out by others, To Kill a Mockingbird hinged on a false accusation made by a woman. There are plenty of real life examples, too. Gender holds neither innocence or guilt. Such decisions are made by the facts. There must be something more to go on, or else we’re just a lynch mob.

            Why would you see a return to injustice? Would you accept such mob rule against yourself? Should an accusation, without proof, be enough to ruin your life?

            You shouldn’t support injustice against others unless you’d be willing to suffer it yourself.

        2. She could be telling the truth because her therapist implanted a false memory, a common occurrence. She might truly be describing a memory…that isn’t real. There was a whole scandal about repressed memories being false memories accidentally implanted by the therapist, and indistinguishable from reality. The source being a repressed memory is a red flag.

          What is also interesting is that memories are not static; they are not home movies we dust off in our minds. They are reassembled each time. Details we were unsure about years ago become solidified with each retelling until they become sure facts.

          There was an interesting study in which the day after the Challenger accident, kids were asked to describe where they were when it happened. The subjects were then asked the same question a few years later. Many changed their story, often to something more dramatic. They could not believe that they had written the baseline story, when presented to them. They were absolutely convinced of the new story.

          In this case, Ford’s original statement to her therapist was 4 boys in the room, and late teens, when Kavanaugh would be long gone. No mention of his name.

          By 2018, she was 15, 2 boys in the room, and it was Kavanaugh. It’s possible nothing like an assault happened to her at all, but rather a false memory grew like a crystal from a seed of truth, while she was in a relaxed state susceptible to suggestion.

    1. Gary – Dr Ford showed remarkable range in her acting from “I’m just a widdle girl to The Defiant One” in the space of her testimony.

      1. Paul C…LOL…….I thought, at any minute, she was going to burst into the song “I’m Five!” by Streisand!

    2. And lying to congress when she said she was unaware the committee offered to come to California. Unless she lives under a rock, it was all over the news. Grassley announced it live on tv. And about whether or not she gave her therapy notes to the press. It was two weeks ago. Does she have suppressed memory from then too?

Comments are closed.