Mark Judge . . . went from not willing to testify under oath before the committee to being

[Liberal In Red State]

willing to be interviewed by the FBI. Who thinks it might be because he didn’t know what Dr. Ford would say or what evidence she had that would brand him a liar. Now that he knows what she has testified to before the committee . . . He’s more than willing to be Kav’s cover and deny . . . deny . . . deny.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Lying to the FBI is a felony. I'm sure his lawyer will remind him about that.

[Scurrilous]

22. Yep.

Don't @#$% with the Feds.

[Calista241]

42. Which means he cannot change his story.

He's already taken out a sworn statement as to what happened. Any change to his story now means he'll be prosecuted for lying under oath.

Besides, there is no physical proof at all. This happened 36 years ago. The only person saying something happened at a party he was at is Doctor Ford. He can legitimately say "I don't remember" and have a nearly certain expectation that it will be believed.

And the FBI has 7 days to develop leads, interview subjects, make conclusions and write a report. Nothing is going to come of this in time for it to mean anything. The FBI is going to assign like 2 agents to this, and they'll spend the vast majority of their time over the next 7 days flying and driving to different places to interview people.

The real risk for Kavanaugh is that more people will come out of the woodwork to accuse him of new stuff. If I were a part of Kavanaugh's media operation, I would have people, and perhaps even have Kavanaugh, go on all the Sunday talk shows preparing everyone for more "ridiculous, crazy accusations" to come out. MTP would give almost anything to have Brett Kavanaugh interviewed by Chuck Todd.

The best case for Democrats is if one of his law clerks comes out and says he tried to assault them. That'd end this whole farce.

[Kaleva]

49. His lawyer released a statement but I don't think Judge has given a sworn statement.

[Calista241]

51. At the bottom of his statement it reads:

"I am submitting this letter under penalty of felony."

It's the same letter where he states his commitment to cooperate with any investigation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-friend-mark-judge-i-will-cooperate-with-fbi-probe-of-sex-assault-claims.html

[Kaleva]

53. What does that mean "I am submitting this letter under penalty of felony."?

What law may he have broken if he lied in the letter and I see no place where the letter was notarized.

"As far as i understand it, just claiming you are under "penalty of felony" doesn't mean anything. It's like saying "God strike me down if I tell a lie". Penalty of *Perjury* is a thing... which means a sworn statement, like the one Avenatti delivered, but merely asserting a felony can be charged is meaningless."

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1799666

[Calista241]

54. It's the same thing.

CSPAN and MSNBC were talking about it as Grassley kept using the term during the hearing. Kavanaugh used it also if I remember correctly.

[Kaleva]

56. But the letter you refer to isn't a sworn affidavit.

Such a letter spells out the oath that the affiant is taking which is missing in the letter you mention. Thus the phrase "I am submitting this letter under penalty of felony." is meaningless.

[Jersey Devil]

78. Agreed - "under penalty of felony" by itself means nothing

I have been a lawyer for 47 years and have never heard that term until these hearings. What he said was not testimony, wasn't sworn and wasn't even notarized. So what "felony"?

[Kaleva]

83. It's like saying "Cross my heart and hope to die!".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

61. Exactly..and that is pretty much what Phillip Mudd

Said this morning. Not enough time. But...tonight he sounded more like FBI will take challenge of impossible task to find something quickly. Judge won't be help

[marylandblue]

2. He is willing to testify now because he has no choice

You can't just send a letter to the FBI and call it a day.

[NorCen_CT]

10. Especially when your attorney is the only one who signed the letter.

[john657]

17. He certainly does have a choice, he can refuse to talk to the FBI,

they can't force him to be interviewed if he wishes not to.

[marylandblue]

20. They are.investigating a crime by his good friend Brett

He is the only witness, his ex-girlfriend is going spill the beans on both of them anyway, and no he won't talk to the FBI? That'll be a lot of help for an old friend.

[john657]

21. I am replying to the statement that he has no choice,

he does have a choice, he can refuse to talk to the FBI, we do have a right to refuse to talk to law enforcement.

[marylandblue]

24. ok

[rzemanfl]

23. You are correct. I skipped over that step. n/t

[brush]

34. Oh no no no! Ever heard of the word subpoena? Either talk, lie or plead the 5th but...

you can not just refuse the FBI.

[john657]

37. The FBI can't issue a subpoena, and you're wrong,

you have the right to remain silent, and as an american, he absolutely has the right to refuse to be interviewed.

He won't refuse because he now knows what Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh has said and can avoid any pitfalls or he can just repeat what he's already said, he has no recollection of the party.

[brush]

39. You mean plead the 5th? Guess he'd better do that because they won''t just question him.

An ex of his already was reported saying he admitted to her of participating in a gang rape.

[john657]

43. No, I don't mean plead the 5th, he can flat refuse to talk to the FBI

and there's really nothing they can do about it short of getting a court to issue a subpoena to appear before them and answer and that just ain't going to happen.

But this is a moot point because he's already said he's willing to talk to them, so I suspect he's just going to repeat his earlier statement that he has no memory of any party where this happened and that will be that as far as Judge is concerned.

[brush]

45. Earlier you said they can't issue a subpoena now you say they can. Which is it?

[john657]

46. Re-read what I wrote,

No, I don't mean plead the 5th, he can flat refuse to talk to the FBI

and there's really nothing they can do about it short of getting a court to issue a subpoena
to appear before them and answer and that just ain't going to happen.

I bolded it for you.

[brush]

48. Didn't you post this?: "The FBI can't issue a subpoena, and you're wrong,"

[john657]

50. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.

I suggest you re read the part I bolded.

I'll clearly spell it out for you, the FBI cannot issue a subpoena, they can request the court to issue one, but the FBI cannot issue it's own subpoena, and the FBI isn't going to get a court to issue one.

One more time, the point is moot, Judge has agreed to talk to the FBI.

[brush]

63. Apparently you have a memory problem. Below is your entire post #37...

Where you say the FBI can't subpoena. Why are you contradicting yourself?

The FBI can't issue a subpoena, and you're wrong,

you have the right to remain silent, and as an american, he absolutely has the right to refuse to be interviewed.

He won't refuse because he now knows what Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh has said and can avoid any pitfalls or he can just repeat what he's already said, he has no recollection of the party.

[john657]

64. Apparently you also have a reading comprehension problem.

Notice where I say the FBI can't issue a subpoena?

The FBI can't issue a subpoena, and you're wrong,

Now, you'll notice in another post, I said the FBI can request a court to issue a subpoena.

No, I don't mean plead the 5th, he can flat refuse to talk to the FBI

and there's really nothing they can do about it short of getting a court to issue a subpoena
to appear before them and answer and that just ain't going to happen.

So just where do I contradict myself?

[brush]

65. You're playing with words. Of course the FBI has to take steps to a subpoena.

You just cleaned up your flat out denial in the first post.

Not fooling anyone.

[john657]

66. LOL.

really pathetic there.

Not trying to fool anyone.

[brush]

67. Yes it is pathetic that you forgot what you first posted then tried to play it off.

[john657]

68. Again, reading comprehension fail,

but whatever tickles your fancy.

[brush]

69. Yeah, sure.

[empedocles]

3. Perhaps the FBI, like Mueller, interviews others, before key targets, like mark judge

[erronis]

14. Of course they do. Normal background info as well as collaboration.

I don't know if Judge will be asked to submit a character reference statement beforehand but that would include names, dates, addresses, phone#s, etc. These will be vetted.

Of course there is a lot of now public info about how Judge and his friend Kav engaged in FFFF and other behaviors.

[bettyellen]

4. But denying in detail is dangerous....

[Stallion]

7. True-They Bragged to Someone Somewhere-No Doubt

[bettyellen]

11. And routine belligerent behavior is going to surface.

[techne7319]

5. My guess...

It sounds like he’s willing to cooperate, but that doesn’t mean he has any information or recollection.

[Fred Sanders]

8. He has the testimony Ford gave, nice gift to him by Republicans before being questioned for real.

Too bad his two books about himself and his inebriated college and h.s days can not be deleted.

[techne7319]

18. I don't know...

I don’t know what’s covered in the books and regardless of Ford’s testimony, I would be surprised if he could (would) recount specifics to the night in question. I have to think he’s been contacted by the WH and/or Kav, and that they’ve made clear what he “remembers.”

[Fred Sanders]

25. My point is he has Ford's detailed testimony. Most witnesses do not have that advantage before

being questioned by cops. Helps a lot with crafting the answers if deceit is on the agenda...ask any cop.

[brush]

35. It's not just what he denys remembering. It's what others remember what he told or bragged...

about. They're not just going ask him and that's it.

His ex-girlfriend has already been reported saying that he admitted to participating in a gang rape back then.

[techne7319]

41. As others have pointed out in this thread...

He may or may not have much information that he can or will tell to the FBI. He can refuse to answer, may really not remember details, etc... My understanding is that this investigation is not a criminal one. It is a background check into Kavenaugh. The rules are different for each. I’m sure others including his girlfriend will be questioned as well. No doubt there is information to be had and I hope/believe the FBI will get everything they can to complete the report. I’m just saying that Judge may not be the “star” witness many think or hope he will be. Willing to be interviewed and willing to fully cooperate by “spilling all the beans” are two different things.

[Corgigal]

6. Like he has a choice.

Mighty white of him, but it wouldn't surprise me if he lied.

[rzemanfl]

9. If he talks to them the choices are lie or tell the truth. The Statute of Limitations

Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

has run as to Dr. Ford, so he can't take the fifth. As pointed out below, he can refuse an interview.

[john657]

19. Those aren't his only choices,

he can refuse to be interviewed and there's nothing the FBI can do about it.

[democratic friend]

29. If he does that, it will not help Kavanugh at all

The republicans want a thorough investigation and that includes judge.

[john657]

30. I agree, all I'm pointing out is that he does have a choice

not to talk to the FBI.

[democratic friend]

31. Very true. You are correct.

[john657]

32. BTW,

welcome to DU.

[democratic friend]

33. Thank you!

[brush]

36. Where are you getting that from? He can talk, lie or take the 5th but he can't just refuse.

[techne7319]

70. Yes he can refuse...

He CAN’T plead the 5th. He is being interviewed by the FBI as part of a BACKGROUND CHECK into Kav. This process is NOT a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. It’s not a trial. Pleading the 5th is for someone who is involved in a TRIAL as a defendant or witness. He has every right to refuse to answer any or all questions. I’m sure the FBI will be tough on him and will be effective in their questioning, but he’s under no obligation to say anything. This process is not a legal matter. Yes, it appears that he has agreed to be “interviewed,” but anything beyond that is speculative at this point.

[john657]

72. Thank you.

People seem to think that they have to talk to the FBI, which just isn't true at all.

[brush]

73. At least he's agreed to be interviewed. I don't expect him to incriminate himself and his friend...

though. But he has to be careful as the FBI won't only talke to him. An ex-girlfriend has said he confessed to her that he participated in a gang rage back then.

And there is no statute of limitation on sex crime charges in Maryland.

[john657]

74. At the time of the alleged sexual assault,

in MD, it was a misdemeanor with a 1 year of statute of limitations, so he or Kav can't be prosecuted.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211206586

[brush]

75. That's not what Paul Butler and Avenatti just said on AMJoy.

[john657]

76. Did you even bother to read the letter?

It's from the police chief and the DA, they state that the law was changed and the statute of limitation removed in 1992, Judge and Kav cannot be prosecuted because the statute of limitation at that time has run out.

[john657]

77. Here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html

If such a complaint were filed, the state police would turn it over to Montgomery County police.


2. Montgomery County police, too, note that no accuser of Kavanaugh’s has come forward to request a police investigation.

And even if an accuser went to the local department, the statute of limitations appears to have long since passed for pursuing the allegations described in Thursday’s dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

[Fred Sanders]

80. You are clearly correct, as the many experts say in your link.

The facts as alledged by Dr. Ford would be at their highest attempted rape, circa 1982 law in Maryland.

The more recent alleged crimes in college per Ramirez, I am not sure if currently prosecutable in Connecticut.

[john657]

81. Even if it isn't, and there is sufficient proof that he committed these allegations,

then at least he can be denied a seat on the SC and he can be shamed out of public life.

Just him lying under oath should've been enough to keep him off the SC, but we all know that doesn't matter to the pubs.

[john657]

71. He most certainly can refuse,

this isn't a criminal investigation, it's a background investigation, ergo, he doesn't have to talk to the FBI, he can tell them to go pound sand and there's nothing they can do about it.

[BigmanPigman]

13. He'll lie, they do that before even thinking of telling the truth.

Second nature. By "they" I mean GOPers, not alcoholics or addicts.

[Corgigal]

15. Also not bad knowing some background

that could blackmail at Supreme. Could be helpful one day.

[SallyHemmings]

16. He may not remember much

If they got as drunk as reported, they may not remember. It was significant to Dr. Ford. But it was probably one of many incidents of bad behavior for this dynamic duo. Judge is an admitted alcoholic, Kavanaugh is clearly in denial.

[WeekiWater]

12. I would want to know his friends names later in his drinking days.

It’s normally pretty ugly near the potential end of an alcoholics drinking days and drunks often boast or repent with a drinking partner. Someone might even come forward.

Lots of ways to go at this.

[Equinox Moon]

26. PBS said he would talk with the FBI only if it was confidential.

I thought that was a very telling piece of information.

[RockRaven]

27. Now that he has seen Dr. Ford's testimony, he knows what he needs to evade or deny

without overdoing it (and unnecessarily increasing his chances of getting caught in a demonstrable lie).

[Mike Nelson]

28. He has to talk...

… but he has choices. He can have a lawyer present. He can talk by saying he's not going to answer questions that might be incriminating. Take the 5th. Obviously, he has lawyers, now. My guess is that his words about the attack will be "unreliable" due to his admitted alcoholism. But he can be helpful with names and places... The FBI will hopefully have enough to indicate that the Ford attack could have happened & probably enough incidental material to contradict Kav's sworn testimony.

[ecstatic]

38. As a recovering addict, won't that hurt his recovery?

Central to an addict's recovery is making amends for past actions/mistakes. It's probably why he told his ex girlfriend about his rapey past. Lying for Kav now could ultimately kill him. Not to mention, Kav kind of kicked him under the bus yesterday.

[Renew Deal]

40. Like Sam Nunberg, you don't say no to these interviews.

[grantcart]

52. I believe Nunberg had a grand jury subpoena and can be compelled to testify with a Grant

Of immunity.

No one has to discuss anything with the FBI its voluntary.

[Renew Deal]

55. I know

But it also doesn’t look good to the people around you if you refuse to speak. It looks like a cover up.

[Calista241]

44. Everyone here assumes Judge is feeling remorse or is otherwise on our side.

Everything we know about him thus far would seem to indicate otherwise.

He has committed to a story. He's taken out multiple sworn statements. Any change to those statements will subject him to criminal charges.

He can legitimately say that all this happened 36 years ago, and he was an alcoholic, and doesn't remember shit about shit. He cannot attest to Kavanaugh's state of mind. The only thing he can talk about is what he witnessed.

Ford was extremely believable, but there are enough holes in her story that everyone is going to get away with everything.

[Liberal In Red State]

47. Agreed

[eleny]

57. Some investigators must have expertise with people like Judge and achieve success

I mean interviewees who have specific problems like alcoholism and/or other major health challenges.

I've been thinking about the people who work to get information out of captured terrorists. The interrogators who don't believe in torture but a more skillful method of gaining confidence quickly and getting some truths out of their target. Like those law enforcement negotiators who have to work fast to diffuse dangerous situations. I'm confident that the FBI has people like that who can talk to Judge.

So I think there's reason to believe that they'll at least be able to discern if Judge is being honest or cagey. I keep thinking that Judge is more worried about his own involvement. So there's a carrot they can offer him. Some sort of immunity if he's worried about his own legal issues.

Republicans chose to ignore Ford and will probably do the same with any FBI findings. Or if Kavanaugh skates for lack of black & white facts then I'd like to at least know what the FBI thinks about the truthfulness of the people they interview.

[Kaleva]

58. It's not true saying Judge has taken out multiple sworn statements.

Can you quote the oath Judge swore to in any of them?

[Calista241]

62. he submitted evidence to the Judiciary committee. That kind of submission carries legal weight.

This article has a copy of the document he submitted today.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-friend-mark-judge-i-will-cooperate-with-fbi-probe-of-sex-assault-claims.html

[Kaleva]

82. Can you cite some sources supporting your arguement?

That the letter you refer to has legal weight. I bet you can't.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. +1.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. Exactly. And it was announced so soon after

The deal was announced. So the kav fix is in. He knows he's got his bases covered for a week.

[Peachhead22]

79. In all fairness...

There's a big difference between going to Washington and being sat down and subjected to a televised hearing before the Judiciary Committee with all the scrutiny, harrassment and attention that circus entails and sitting down for an interview, either in your home or at a field office, with a couple FBI agents.

Just like there's a big difference between a booksigning at a small bookstore or a book promo at a TV studio, and being subjected to a televised hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Especially in such a tension filled, high stakes time such as this.