About That Investigation - Be Careful What You Wish For

Sen. Chuck Grassley asks FBI to probe false allegation against Brett Kavanaugh

The Senate Judiciary Committee asked the FBI on Saturday to investigate a man who made an unfounded rape claim against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and then later recanted, saying the man had acted in bad faith.

Chairman Charles E. Grassley said the committee had to waste resources tracking down the claim by the man, who said Judge Kavanaugh raped one of his friends back in the 1980s. The man said he and another friend went to beat Judge Kavanaugh up — then said he recognized him recently when television showed Judge Kavanaugh after he was nominated to the high court.

Mr. Grassley didn’t name the man, but after reporters tracked him down, he recanted.

“Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations,” Mr. Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.

I'm not convinced lying to Congress should be a crime, but, like the Logan Act, let's at least threaten to enforce it equally on both sides.

Lindsey Graham promises 'full scale' probe into Democrats' handling of Ford-Kavanaugh allegation 

Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to launch a thorough inquiry into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to find out whether there was any wrongdoing in how they managed the sexual misconduct allegation Christine Blasey Ford leveled at Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"We're going to do a wholesale, full scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again," Graham said during an interview on ABC News' "This Week."

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham continued, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ it all:

Mitchell added, “There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.”

Mitchell wrote that a “‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them….I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Mitchell then listed her reasons for that conclusion. They included:

That Dr. Ford “has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”

That Dr. Ford “has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”

That “when speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”

That “Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.”

That “Dr. Ford’s Account of the Alleged Assault Has Not Been Corroborated by Anyone She Identified as Having Attended – Including Her Lifelong Friend.”

That “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.”

That her “account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.”

That “Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.”

That “Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.”

That “Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.”

That “the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”

Is that all? And then this, via Maggie's Farm:



I'm not sure about "pop-psychology" like this, but there are some odd mannerisms there.