Any investigation that is allowed to occur will be branded a “witch hunt” unless the outcome is that which is desired. Then it will be “the best ever”.
@busdriver11 – yep, just talked to him before I posted to refresh my memory of the event. His first inkling of a problem was when his insurance company called up and said, why didn’t you report this accident to us. They had him have his car inspected for damage and/or repairs. He doesn’t know if it was a scam or a case of mistaken identity (i.e. similar LPN) but he was never charged with anything or suffered insurance consequences.
Me? I would want to know the final results!
@MomofWildChild I understand that Kavenaugh went through background checks for other jobs as a judge in the past. Sure, this woman could have chosen to speak up then too. But it is very common for victims to NEVER speak up (more don’t speak up than those that do). Speaking up also involves great risk to themselves (pretty evident now that she did speak up) that most don’t want to endure. Perhaps the fact that he is being considered for SCOTUS, with far reaching power, made her speak up now. It wasn’t on the eve of the vote. She made contact about it wishing to be anonymous back in July. I personally would not question why she never spoke up in the past. Most don’t. The job he is up for now is a huge deal affecting millions of people. Personally, I don’t think she made it up. She prefers it be investigated (if you’re lying, you would not want that), and shared the incident with a therapist way before Kavenaugh was ever nominated to SCOTUS.
Anyway, my point earlier wasn’t about this case as much as your point that anyone up for a job could be in jeopardy if someone comes forth with a “flaw” from long ago in their past. Again, length of time is not the issue to me (particularly for matters of sexual assault), but I believe that someone up for SCOTUS should have every t crossed and every i dotted.
@jym626 – That applies to all sides of a politically charged event.
All this talk about an investigation but it is a 35 year old crime that would have been a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations has run out. The letter was part of Kavanaugh’s file so it is a little late in the game in my opinion. Let her talk in person and the Senate should vote. Sounds like it is now pushed from Monday to Wednesday…not sure what the hold up is now. If she doesn’t want to keep pursuing her accusations about Kavanaugh’s fitness for office she just needs to speak up and say so. She owns this by virtue of bringing it to the attention of the Senate but is acting like this hearing is an accident and a burden on her. Good grief I want her to be a stand up person and see her accusation through. She owes that to the person she accused and their family.
@droppedit - Perhaps… but some verbiage is pretty predictable 
I seem to know a lot of people aged 50 who are not recognizable (not just physically) from the person they were at age 17. Just totally different people. Different character, values, priorities, perspective. In fact, many of the kids I knew at 13 had morphed into completely different persona by 18, and then again by 22, and 30. People change, life changes us. Isn’t that true for others? The boy most likely to succeed in my high school became a violent criminal by midlife, and some of the juvenile delinquents became upstanding citizens. I care about what people are like now, or in the recent past. I don’t care about anyone’s childhood or youth, or who their parents were or what prep school they did or didn’t attend. Don’t we have enough to evaluate of substance in this case, like prior decisions, legal policy, etc?
I have read that for this type of crime, there is no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland where the alleged incident occurred.
I think, @Soozie (double check please) that there would be no statute of limitation if it was deemed a felony sexual assault
I don’t think in the case of the SC the man should get a do over and the woman in effect told, too bad, it was a long time ago, guess you just get to live with the bad memories.
An assault like this gets carried through out her life. She doesn’t get a do over. It is always in the back of your mind when you meet someone. He seems nice enough but is he really a creep? It taints her ability to trust.
edited to add: I read an article that talked about the boys high school. The person interviewed attended at the same time as both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. He said Gorsuch was always a straight arrow, no whiff of wildness. Kavanaugh and Judge were a whole other kettle of fish.
And this is exactly why I think an FBI investigation is a waste of time. The only thing that matters now is the court of public opinion, and in today’s environment, a tie goes to the accuser. Heck, IMO, even a somewhat close tie goes to the accuser. Dr. Ford just has to appear reasonable and sincere; if so, she’ll win over public opinion (and Senate votes against JK).
If its even close to a tie, JK’s career is over. If he is not fit to serve on the high court, it stands to reason that he is not fit to serve on the second highest court. The high court only takes 100 cases a year; the appellates have much broader affect on individual’s lives.
Listened to The Daily in the car yesterday about a woman with a similar story, except the guy later took responsibility, apologized to her. She says that was instrumental in helping her move on (tho prior to the apology she attempted suicide). When he acknowledged it was his bad, not hers, she was able to move past it and go on to a normal life.
The statute of limitations was 3 years. Yes, it applies in this case, according to every Maryland lawyer interviewed. This was a misdemeanor, not a felony.
^ but if he lied about it to congress…
How can you lie about something you don’t remember?
He didn’t say he didn’t remember. He said it never happened, or anything like it.
^Per the Judiciary Committee twitter feed, Kavanaugh was interviewed by Committee staff on Monday on the record and “under penalty of felony”. I guess we have to wait until the hearing to see exactly what his official statement is to Congress.
Yes, this ‘investigation’ was completed by partisan staff. And since the Dem staff were invited by declined to participate, only the Republican staff members attended.
And they didn’t interview Judge. And now they are bullying her with a statement that she has to agree to their terms by 10 tonight or they will vote on Monday. The optics of this are very bad for the GOP.
I think the optics are bad for everyone. No one looks good in this. No one.
They contacted him, and he submitted a written statement (under penalty) instead. Unless he is subpoenaed, he does not have to agree to be interviewed.
(note, he’d give the exact same letter to the FBI if they were tasked to go investigate. Which is why I maintain that an FBI investigation would be a waste of time.)
Indeed, but I would argue that the bad optics are by design. Which side can bludgeon the other side enough to ‘win’ the court of public opinion?