About That FBI Investigation . . .

. . . on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh that President Trump ordered up as a result of Sen. Flake caving to Democrat squawks. We all know the FBI would have very little to go on the Kavanaugh side if PJ Smyth,  Mark Judge and Leland Keyser continue to insist (as they already have, in written testimony that subjects them to possible perjury charges) that no such party occurred.

However, there is still a potentially fruitful area of investigations regarding the allegation, and that is how they came to be. Ace has an interesting set of 10 questions for investigation: If The FBI Is Investigating These Allegations, They Absolutely Must Investigate Ford's Credibility

Questions that must be asked of Ford, and her lawyers, and Democrats -- under oath.

1. Democratic staffers, particularly those of Diane Feinstein, must be asked under oath and under penalty of felony if they leaked Ford's name and/or her letter to friendlies in the media.

2. Ford must be asked, under oath, which therapist notes she gave to the Washington Post. She was asked this yesterday, but suffered one of her notorious memory lapses and said she didn't know and would have to ask her lawyers. Which she then proceeded to not ask them.

3. Obviously, any time she claims she doesn't know and that only her lawyers would know, her lawyers must be asked under oath.

Her lawyers, by the way, cannot invoke lawyer-client privilege regarding notes they gave to a third party. Information given to a third party is not a confidential lawyer-client communication and not shielded by privilege.

There is no such thing as "Lawyer-Feinstein privilege," and Ford's political operators with legal licenses should not be permitted to invent one.

4. Her therapist's notes must be taken up by the FBI. Literally nobody in America believes that Ford and her husband were at a marriage counselor about a disagreement about adding a second door to the house.

What were they really in therapy for? People have been known to lie in therapy if it's needed to keep themselves out of trouble from their spouse.

5. Why did she lie when she claimed she could not fly? Did her lawyers tell her to say that? The parties can invoke privilege here, but their invocation of privilege -- refusing to answer questions in an investigation they demanded -- should be noted and publicized. 

That's a good start. Go to the article for the rest.  He also makes a point about the dogs that didn't bark:

But just as in non-political circumstances multiple accusers claiming one man assaulted them tends to suggest they're making genuine allegations, one person making accusations against multiple alleged assailants tends to suggest that person is probably not a real victim, but a serial accuser.

If five women accuse a man: That man is probably guilty, absent strong evidence to the contrary.

If one woman accuses five different men for five different incidents: that woman is probably delusional or a fabulist, absent strong evidence to the contrary.

Note that the Democrats never claimed "And this is the first time Ford has ever made this type of accusation!"

Were that the case, I would imagine they would have shot that arrow from their quiver.

But the did not shoot that arrow from their quiver.

So I assume, tentatively, that that arrow is not in their quiver.

I would like to know if she made other allegations, who she reported them to, and what the final disposition was in any investigations into any prior allegations.