Kavanaugh report's biggest bombshells: Grassley probe reveals details behind mistaken identity claims, more
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Weeks after Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation -- and the sexual assault allegations against him -- captured the country's attention, the Senate Judiciary Committee has released a massive report on those accusations that's largely flown under the radar in the run-up to the midterms.
But the 414-page document, authored by the Republican majority and released over the weekend, contains a number of key revelations.
Among them: the report summarizes a statement from a man who believes he may have been involved in an encounter with Christine Blasey Ford around the time of her claim of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Some of this emerged during the Supreme Court confirmation process, but the report provides more details.Ford was the key witness against Kavanaugh. In detail, she said Kavanaugh tried to remove her clothing during a high school but had trouble because she was wearing a bathing suit underneath them. She said she ran off when Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge jumped on top of them and they fell off the bed. Kavanaugh denied the accusation and, on Oct. 6, the Senate confirmed him to the Supreme Court.
The man who claims he may have had the encounter with Ford was one of 40 people committee investigators interviewed as part of its probe into the sexual allegations against Kavanaugh, which was done alongside the FBI background check that was compiled in a matter of days.
'NO EVIDENCE' TO BACK KAVANAUGH ACCUSERS' CLAIMS, SENATE PANEL'S REPORT ON FBI PROBE FINDS
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in releasing the report, said there “was no credible evidence to support the allegations against” Kavanaugh.
Ford testified she was 100 percent positive Kavanaugh assaulted her, rejecting the notion of a case of mistaken identity.
But the report gave details from the purported witness claiming exactly that scenario. The man told the investigators that when he was a 19-year-old college student, he had visited Washington over spring break and kissed a girl he believes was Kavanaugh’s accuser.
“He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to-20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke,” the report said.
The Van Ness Metro is in Northwest D.C. His name was redacted in the report but investigators interviewed him the day before Ford testified Sept 27.
The report also summarizes statements from another man who said that after graduating high school in Hampton, Virginia, in 1982 he made several trips to D.C. that summer.
During one trip, he attended a house party where he kissed and made out with a woman he met who he believes could have been Ford, the report says.
The man “said that based on old photographs of Justice Kavanaugh he has seen on the news, he believes the two of them share a similar appearance,” the report says. His name was also redacted.
“Although each individual described details that in some respects seemed to fit Dr. Ford’s allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, both men described consensual encounters,” the report concludes.
Ford’s attorney did not respond immediately to an email seeking comment.
The report also contains these other disclosures:
Witness Tampering?
Committee investigators are in the process of trying to determine if Ford friend Monica McLean, a former FBI employee, tampered with a witness.
“Several media outlets have reported that the FBI’s supplemental report indicated that Leland Keyser, a friend of Dr. Ford, felt pressure from Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement to the Committee that she did not know Justice Kavanaugh or have any knowledge of the alleged incident,” the report says.
Ford said that when Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party, Leland Keyser was one of the people downstairs.
The report added that according to the news articles, Keyser reported that McLean and others contacted her to suggest she “clarify” her account.
McLean’s attorney did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Mistaken Identity at Yale?
The report summarizes an interview with a Yale grad who said that a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity -- who was not Kavanaugh -- had a reputation for exposing himself publicly.
The man was interviewed after Deborah Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh had thrust his penis in her face when they were at Yale. She said she was drunk and wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh until she thought about it for a week and spoke to her attorney. Kavanaugh vehemently denied her accusation.
KAVANAUGH ACCUSER REFERRED TO DOJ FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, GRASSLEY’S OFFICE ANNOUNCES
The reports the man, whose name was redacted, also provided a yearbook photo of the frat brother exposing himself.
The report says the man said he had personally witnessed the flasher expose himself at a party and that the flasher was in the same residential college.
Ford Friends
The report summarizes a statement from William Rand, who went to the University of North Carolina with Ford and told investigators that Ford had a very robust and active social life.
His statement seemingly was at odds with Ford’s assertions that she had a difficult time making friends due to her encounter with Kavanaugh, according to the report.
“He also stated that Dr. Ford did not seem to be afraid to be in rooms or apartments with only one entrance, which contradicts her claim to the Committee that she had to build a second front door to her house due to the trauma of the alleged assault,” the report says.
DOJ Referrals
The report also says that the committee has referred four people to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
They are a Rhode Island man who recanted an allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman on a boat in Newport in 1985; Judy Munro Leighton, who claimed to have written an anonymous letter asserting Kavanaugh forced her to have oral sex; and Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenati, who also represents the porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Avenatti told Fox News that the Grassley report was “garbage.”
”There is no evidence my client or I did anything wrong,” he said. “We are still waiting and hoping the FBI fully investigates this matter. Chuck evidently doesn’t have any juice.”
Tags
Who is online
133 visitors
Funny he says there is 'no evidence', he doesn't say he or his client didn't do anything wrong........
Destroying an innocent man's reputation is just another day for Democrats.
No regrets, no learning.
The only question is what allegation they will make up to slime the next nominee.
The Democrats are morally bankrupt.
Hey, you are back. (Forced) Vacation for a while?
I'm so flattered that you noticed I hadn't been around for a few days! It was no forced vacation. It was a sanity break from certain posters on here. It helped my blood pressure immensely.
that wasn't very nice.
Always important to take care of your personal health. I'm out of here after today until Tuesday for some fun with friends.....away form here.
That's what I did - had some fun with friends.
I'm touched by your concern.
If this report is 100% accurate, what is stopping The Senate Investigative Committee from indicting Ford for willfully lying under oath to the Senate and the American people?
(1). First, the Senate can't indict anyone for anything. That's not how our legal system works.
(2). Politics.
(3). Her allegations are so vague as to make it impossible to prove she's lying. Unless there's evidence of her admitting to intentionally lying, she could never be successfully prosecuted.
Vagueness is the easiest target to hit.
I don't think you get how this works.
She either truly believes it was him or is smart enough to never admit otherwise. This report makes it clear why we must presume innocence till guilt is proven in a Court of Law. A lot of People on the Left said many things about the allegations but now that we can see the results of the investigations we can see there isn't enough evidence for any reasonable person to believe he's guilty. No prosecutor would even try to get an indictment, in fact if these women had gone to Law Enforcement first these cases would never have even reached the desk of any Prosecutor because there's no real evidence and a huge amount of Reasonable Doubt. I think a lot of People owe Kavanaugh an apology but I doubt he'll get one, most likely they'll ignore the facts and go on implying that he's a rapist who was made a Supreme Court Justice by the Republicans because that's the narrative they want to feed their Base.
And apparently, neither do you.
Actually, vagueness is not easily proven as lying, it only causes one to suspect lying. Almost everyone involved in the hearings believes that she believes something happened to her along the lines of what she was claiming; but there is no proof. For someone to be credibly accused, there has to be some sort of proof, and the only so-called proof anyone can come up with is a bunch of lewd comments in a yearbook. I know from experience that a lot of high school boys will boast about things and not be telling a single piece of truth over it. I wasn't one of those that boasted in my comments in yearbooks though.
Been referred to the FBI for investigation. That's how it works.
Ford wasn't 'willfully lying'. She believes that Kavanaugh assaulted her 30+ years ago.
Had the SJC been able to question her prior to the hearing...would there have been a hearing at all? I believe that's why Feinstein held on to the letter for so long...and why Ford's attorneys jumped into the drivers seat and started talking to the media. They knew there wasn't a real case here...just enough to sway the public...and that's exactly what they did. I believe the SJC is still waiting for Ford's attorneys to turn over that 'evidence' they claimed they had.
Sway the public? In what way?
Kavanaugh still got his SCOTUS seat so what is all this hand wringing about now?
We can start with the hopes that Kavanaugh would withdraw. Kavanaugh's affirmation became a sudden affront to every woman who ever suffered sexual abuse. A vote for Kavanaugh became a vote against women. Kavanaugh was declared guilty by the public and many screamed for impeachment. If they couldn't stop the confirmation, they wanted to appear to be the 'good guys'.
Yes, Kavanaugh has been seated...but the battle still roils in the background.
55% of American woman believe Democrats were “just using the allegation for political purposes in order to block Kavanaugh’s nomination.”
A Stark Gender Gap Emerges in Americans’ View of Kavanaugh
There IS a difference between thinking he shouldn't be confirmed based on his record and thinking the Dems used allegations for political purposes.
But these women are basing their opinion of Kavanaugh on all the hearsay the Media was putting out not on the Facts. Based on the Facts and Evidence Kavanaugh wouldn't be convicted by an all Female Jury in the most Left Leaning City in America.
Seriously? Based on the evidence and facts presented, any police department in the nation would begin an immediate and thorough investigation of Kavanaugh and the surrounding circumstances.
Beyond that-
FYI, neither of those examples was Kavanaugh.
Only in a fevered mind would one think what you've said is remotely credible. Thank God our legal system does not work the way you want it to. Maybe you should take up resdience in a place that has a legal system that would please you. Like North Korea, or possibly Iran?
Polygraphs are notoriously innaccurate, that's why they are inadmissable in a court of law.
As to answering questions, 'I can't remember, I don't know where it was, I don't know when it was' are all things that are called reasonable doubt in the minds of real jurors.
All the 'accuser' needs to do is file a report. Has she done that yet? No? Gee
So if a woman goes into a police station and tells them that she thinks she was raped at a party, the police are going to say, "tough luck"?
This was not a court of law, and law enforcement still uses them for investigative options.
Again, this is not a courtroom (you seem to have issues with that fact), it occurred 30+ years ago, and both participants were intoxicated, but at least she answered all the questions, unlike Kavanaugh.
But she has book offers and a GoFundMe pot of cash. She's done pretty well for herself.
She has not at this point and doubtful she ever will
Can only be done with the permission of the individual, the police cannot force a polygraph.
And it meant so much to her that she never bothered mentioning it to anyone in authority until 35+ years later. You seem to have issues (since you need to personalize things). Additionally, everyone that she said were corroborating witnesses totally disagreed with her 'version' of events. And 3 different groups of people have been referred to the FBI for investigation-where real indictments can come from, where you end up in real court
Her choice, not yours, and that has no bearing, one way or the other, on whether the assault occurred.
Never even implied a "forced" polygraph. Police can request one however if they want to clarify something. My statement was that she volunteered to take it, she did so and passed, he refused.
Reporting of Sexual Violence Incidents
The way she was treated by certain Congressmen just supported those fears, embarrassment, and lack of trust.
If you are going to start presenting lies as facts, this conversation will go nowhere. The witnesses that were contacted could not say that they knew about it since they either did not remember or were not in the room during the suspected assault. They did NOT refute the claim.
Referred by the highly partisan, Republican headed, Congressional committee?
Ask yourself this, if they truly believed Kavanaugh innocent, we were they so opposed to a full FBI investigation of the charges? Why was the investigation, when finally allowed, limited to 1 week and given a list of only 4 people they could interview. Why was the FBI not allowed to interview the accused OR the accuser , or any of the possible witnesses, or Kavanaugh's roommate at the time?