I do not think that is correct. It is my understanding that the police department could investigate and present the results of the investigation to the DA who determines what they can charge. The Police said they can only investigate if Forde files a complaint. She has not. There may be some barriers to prosecution but there are no barriers except her lack of filing a complaint to investigate. The Maryland State Police says its policy is to investigate allegations only when a criminal complaint has been filed; Ford has not filed a criminal complaint. If such a complaint were filed, the state police would turn it over to Montgomery County police. Montgomery County police, too, note that no accuser of Kavanaugh’s has come forward to request a police investigation. The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. There were two laws against attempted rape in Maryland in 1982 and that would be the relevant legal standard.... 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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.a56865fb72e7
Debra Katz, the attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, who leveled sexual-assault allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, admitted during an April speech that her client’s decision to come forward was partly motivated by a desire to put “an asterisk next to” Kavanaugh’s name before “he takes a scalpel” to Roe v. Wade. https://www.yahoo.com/news/blasey-ford-lawyer-admits-client-171246314.html
Old dude holding up a HS yearbook from the 70s is still about the funniest thing ive ever seen, as far as how it looked and the national stage it was on.
lol, she said herself that she came forward to make it known what happened prior to him being put on the SC. this is not groundbreaking stuff, nor in any way counter to her claims.
And now it has been made known that she had at least 1 other motive totally unrelated to the alleged sexual assault.
I’ve never heard of liberals using virtue signaling / social justice warrior-ing as a means to secretly advance some secondary goal or motive. You sure this was the libs?
For a woman seeking acknowledgement of a traumatic sexual assault; why would how he would vote on RvW even pop into her mind?
Then it raises the questions; would she have come forward if he was an Obama appointee who supports RvW? How much was she motivated by how he might vote on RvW; 10%, 50%, 90%, 99%? I have yet heard a Weinstein or Epstein accuser (or any other sexual assault accuser) say they were motivated by how they might vote.
If he gets another opportunity to fill a vacancy you know it’s going to be Amy Coney Barrett. When she was just mentioned as a possibility last time the Nadia and Democrats ran with the crazy catholic thing, so yeah it’ll be pretty ugly.
I'm guessing yes, she would have, for the same reason: this person would have demonstrated a lack of ability to respect a woman's rights over her own body. you're making a slippery slope argument, where if someone was at all motivated to speak up their whole testimony is now invalid, yet if nothing motivated them there would be no testimo.... oh, I see.
Had that been any Democrat nominee, there is 0.0% chance that she or anyone else would have come forward, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.
