No police report, then? Christine Blasey Ford will not pursue her allegations any further

Probably because the Statute of Limitations rendered that pointless.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...87d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html


A second version of the law — assault with intent to rape — was a felony in the early 1980s, with a 15-year maximum sentence. That law had no statute of limitations, and could be applied to alleged offenses from the early 1980s, according to Brian Shefferman, a longtime defense attorney and former head public defender in Montgomery County.

 

OP

Thank god it's over!

 

The Fascist Left trashed an innocent man, bought unspeakable pain to his wife and children, and divided a nation with their lies.

Mission 1/2 accomplished.

 

I know why neither Dems or Repubs want town hall meetings and it's because they will be held accountable at those meetings.
They think they can hide or preach to their followers instead.

 

Don't need extra senators, since someone is appointed to fill the seat by the state Governor.

 

Problem there is that Ford has not said she suspected he was intent on raping her. According to her, Bart was inebriated, was dry humping her while making a total mess of doing much else other than putting his hand over her mouth to stifle her calls for help. That adds up to insufficient evidence from her to establish the intent to rape.

 

And with nobody able to support her claim, it adds up to insufficient evidence Judge Kavanaugh was even there.

 

So, do you think the paid and organized mobs of Leftist thugs screaming like lunatics are a non-factor?

 

Assault with the attempt to dry hump?

The problem is that Ford only said enough to get a book deal and a $800,000 speaking fee.

If she said 35 years ago to the police what she said last week to the Senate, with the same witness against her, it wouldn't have been close to enough to arrest anyone except possibly her for a false accusation.

 

Both the case law and the scholarship in this area instantiate key moral principles: that it is unfair to put someone to the task of proving their innocence upon a mere allegation; that this rule applies not only to criminal but also to civil proceedings (albeit under different burdens of proof); and that the resulting presumption should apply in direct proportion to the seriousness of the charges and the harm to the accused of an erroneous decision. That is to say, the graver the allegations and possible harm, the more heavily we should weigh the presumption of innocence and lay the burden of proof upon the accuser.

Finally, and perhaps unintentionally, “Believe the Victim” advocates have pursued their mantra with a single-mindedness which seems unwilling to consider the very real costs to women and sexual assault survivors that could result from their efforts. By inveighing against those who seek to enhance the clarity, completeness, and coherence of sexual assault allegations through normal evidentiary processes, they run the risk of reviving and strengthening some of the very malignant stereotypes about women — that women are too weak to withstand the rigors of public debate and disagreement; that women are ruled by their emotions rather than by reason; and that women cannot be trusted with power because they are unable to think independently or to give objective fairness its due.....snip~ same link.


Cosby's case is completely different. There were actual witnesses that testified or gave statements that went against Cosby. Not like here with Kavanaugh. Wherein All of Fords witnesses do not corroborate her story and actually debunk her allegations.

Basically saying she doesn't know what she is talking about. She is lying. That is the bottomline.

 

In absolute terms, I agree. But......there is smoke from his own calendar. But.....let's not flog that dead horse. The fate of Bart is going to be sorted in November. GOP wins...he will survive. DEMS win and he is stuffed if the DEMS are fair dinkum. Yes, that gives Trump a campaign issue and he will use it. "Protect SCOTUS from the DEMS. Keep Bart O'Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court."

 

That is the dead horse I am not going to flog.

 

It was dead 35 years ago.

 

Maybe, but I also think he is in absolute shock that democrats went that far...That they just threw any credibility, or sense of fairness in the trash to smear Kavanaugh....

 

Well, Kavanaugh needn't be in a rush. He has a lot of time within legal limits to consider what he might like to do, and the possibilities are numerous. I won't bore you with lengthy gush of what I would do if I were him. A picture is worth a thousand words....

 

Blahseh Ford no.....I don't want to file any Police Reports. I just want to tell my story to Congress about this Republican guy. No I have no proof or evidence, that's not important. Whats important is the telling of my story. So I can get that out there for the Country.

This is really difficult for me to do.

No kidding Blahseh…..its always difficult to throw false allegations at someone and not be questioned about them. Even if they are a Republican, or Conservative.

 

I don't know about smearing Kavanaugh. He was accused of sexual misconduct and he refuted it. He was asked about dubious items in his yearbook and he gave questionable answers. He is in now and I support him.

 

A common punishment throughout history in many different countries for making deliberate, unproven accusations against a person was for the accuser to have his tongue cut out -- or worse.... Here in the present-day United States, however, we see that such accusers are celebrated by some, hailed as heroes, and have funding sites set up for them.

. "They're even more stupid than we thought!"

 

I think that organized mobs that attend Trump's gatherings are fed a load of nonsense and divisiveness that only serves to add fuel to the fire. Oh, they were not paid and organized mobs. They were women who had been sexually abused and who felt that their concerns meant nothing to the Republicans on the committee. Susan Collins and her remarks didn't help matters.

 

What do you mean "you don't know about smearing Kavanaugh"????? That is clear that is ALL this was about....It was shameful, and now you want to back away from your own posts, and thoughts on the matter during this episode....? No! You don't want me to start posting your own words do you?

 

That result would keep many from exposing their attacker because if they can't prove it or their proof is not believed, off goes the tongue. A bad law.

 

My view is that the questions posed were not a smear. Maybe to you. My views are what I think happened, and not a smear.

 

Sure.....Your typed words say differently.

 

No form of sexual violence against any person, man or woman, is justifiable. That said, the deliberate DESTRUCTION of a man, based on nothing but 'recollections' from 36 years ago, dredged up during 'therapy sessions' is a terribly unfair thing to do! And, when such revelations just COINCIDENTALLY pop-up during important, politicized confirmation hearings at the highest levels, the whole thing is easily attributable to FRAUD AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!

Parenthetically, and on the general theme of 'memories' and 'recollections', did you ever see the Arnold Schwartzenegger movie, "Total Recall"...?

. .