Grassley demands Feinstein turn over letter from Kavanaugh accuser: 'I cannot overstate how disappointed I am'

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Wednesday unloaded a torrent of criticism on Sen. Dianne Feinstein for her handling of the sexual assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, telling the ranking Democrat on the committee, "I cannot overstate how disappointed I am."
Saying Feinstein "chose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment," Grassley demanded she immediately turn over an unredacted copy of the letter from Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, that Feinstein received July 30.
Feinstein, D-Calif., shared the letter with federal authorities and other senators only last week, days before a key Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation, after a leak about the letter was published in The Intercept. Republicans have accused Democrats of orchestrating that leak.
Grassley, R-Iowa, who called the document a "significant piece of evidence in Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation process," said that despite multiple requests, he still has access only to a redacted copy of the letter included in supplemental background materials provided by the FBI to a select group of senators.
SUPPOSED WITNESS IMPLICATES KAVANAUGH WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE -- THEN DELETES POST AFTER QUESTIONS SURFACE 
He asserted that he needs the full version of the document in order to "prepare for Monday's hearings" into the allegations against Kavanaugh. Ford's lawyers strongly suggested in a letter late Tuesday that she won't appear at the hearing until the FBI conducts a "full investigation" into her claims.
In a follow-up letter Wednesday, the lawyers, Lisa Banks and Debra Katz, doubled down on that request, even as Republicans characterized it as a stall tactic that did not excuse Ford from providing sworn testimony before the Senate.
"Dr. Ford was reluctantly thrust into the public spotlight only two days ago.  She is currently unable to go home, and is receiving ongoing threats to her and her family's safety," the lawyers wrote. "Fairness and respect for her situation dictate that she should have time to deal with this.  She continues to believe that a full non-partisan investigation of this matter is needed and she is willing to cooperate with the Committee. "
Just days ago, on Monday, Katz had said her client was willing to testify, telling CBS News, "My client will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the Senate Judiciary Committee has the full story and the full set of allegations to allow them to make a fully informed decision."
And Banks said in an interview, "She will agree to participate in any proceedings that she’s asked to participate in.”
But on Wednesday, the lawyers suggested that more witnesses should be called in order for any hearing to have legitimacy. Earlier in the day, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's said that he had no "recollection" of any incident at the house party Ford described, while another witness who had backed up Ford deleted her account online after inconsistencies surfaced and she admitted her statements were not based on any first-hand knowledge.
"The Committee's stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witnesses is not a fair or good faith investigation; there are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding," Ford's attorneys wrote. "The rush to a hearing is unnecessary, and contrary to the Committee discovering the truth."
POLYGRAPH TAKEN BY KAVANAUGH ACCUSER COMES UNDER SCRUTINY -- HOW DOES THE TEST WORK?
Sources told Fox News that Senate Republicans aren't the only ones working to get ready for Monday's factfinding hearing, which appears ready to proceed even without Ford's participation. The White House confirmation team on Tuesday conducted a so-called "murder board" with Kavanaugh, to test him with tough questions he might face during his testimony. Kavanaugh did well in the session, the sources said, adding that "he was solid - there was no wavering."

"I cannot overstate how disappointed I am."
- Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley

However, GOP leaders have signaled there will be no hearing if Ford refuses to show. “If she’s not attending I don’t know what the point of going forward would be,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee. Republican senators gave Ford a deadline of Friday to indicate whether she will testify next week.
Feinstein appeared to wash her hands of the process in a brief interview outside her Senate office with Fox News on Tuesday, saying, "I have no say, I'm the lead Democrat. ... I think it's really too bad that no one called her, or called her lawyer."
WATCH: FEINSTEIN ADMITS SHE CAN'T GUARANTEE ACCUSER BEING ENTIRELY 'TRUTHFUL'
She added: "This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this. Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."
Top Republicans have said they repeatedly called and emailed Ford's lawyers, and have offered to fly staffers to California "or anywhere else" to speak with Ford. They have also offered her either a public or private hearing, but haven't heard back.
In his letter Wednesday, Grassley unequivocally dismissed Feinstein's suggestions that her delays were motivated by a desire to protect Ford's identity, and suggested that her actions had in fact compromised any legitimate desire to preserve her anonymity.
"These allegations could have been raised to me, or to Judge Kavanaugh, while protecting Dr. Ford's anonymity," Grassley said. "Had Dr. Ford not made her allegations public via The Washington Post over the weekend, I still would not know her identity."
He continued: "These allegations could have been raised both within the last seven weeks and in a way that protected Dr. Ford's anonymity. Instead, you chose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment. I cannot overstate how disappointed I am in this decision."
President Trump echoed that line of argument Wednesday, even as he encouraged Ford to speak to the Judiciary Committee and said she deserved to be heard.
"Why did [Democrats] wait until everything was finished and then bring it up? That doesn't look good," Trump said.
Also on Wednesday, Grassley sent two other letters -- one to Ford's attorneys urging her to appear at Monday's scheduled hearing into her allegations, and another scathing missive to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats.
READ GRASSLEY'S OVERTURE TO FORD'S LAWYERS, SCATHING LETTERS TO DEMS
In those letters, Grassley railed against Democrats' "abuse of this confirmation process" through "delay and obstruction ... with every argument available." He reiterated that Monday's hearing would remain on the calendar despite Democrats' objections."
"I will view any additional complaints about this process very skeptically," he said.
The Judiciary Committee chairman flatly disputed claims by Ford's lawyers that he had requested Kavanaugh sit at the same "table" with Ford during Monday's hearing, or that he had only sought a publicly televised hearing. Instead, Grassley said, Ford was offered the chance to testify privately in a confidential session with Republican senators and staffers, without Kavanaugh nearby.
Grassley has also repeatedly rejected suggestions by top Democrats and Ford's lawyers that an FBI probe would be appropriate. He specifically dismissed comparisons made by Ford's attorneys to the FBI investigation of Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against then-nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991, saying that Hill's allegations were non-public when the FBI conducted a few days of background interviews to assess their validity before forwarding them on to the White House.
Once Hill's allegations became public, Grassley wrote, the Judiciary Committee did not request additional FBI assistance.
"We are in the same position the Committee was in after Professor Hill's allegations were leaked," Grassley said. "After that leak, we did not ask the FBI to conduct an investigation. Instead, we reopened the hearing and assessed the testimony that was given on our own."
For her part, Hill told PBS' "NewsHour" Wednesday that the Judiciary Committee could not be trusted to probe the accusations against Kavanaugh fairly, "because I doubt they are qualified to carry out an investigation in a neutral fashion."
On Tuesday, a federal law enforcement official told Fox News, "It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened."
Fox News has learned from a source close to Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate considered a potential key swing vote in Kavanaugh's confirmation, that she had called the FBI's Deputy Director David Bowdich on Wednesday to learn more about the FBI's potential role in the proceedings as part of her "due diligence."
Meanwhile, Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill tweeted Wednesday night that she would not vote for Kavanaugh. In her message, she explicitly wrote that his legal rulings and ideology, and not the allegations by Ford, were the reason for her decision. McCaskill is locked in a tight re-election race in a red state that Trump won handily in 2016.

NFL 2018 Ratings Cartoons

Trump will survey Florence damage during North Carolina visit Wednesday

President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., to travel to Nashville, Tenn., May 29, 2018.  (Associated Press)

President Trump will travel to North Carolina on Wednesday to survey the impact of Florence, the White House said.
Sarah Sanders, White House press secretary, confirmed the president's travel plans Tuesday.
The president is scheduled to arrive at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in mid-morning on Wednesday to visit storm-ravaged Eastern North Carolina, South Carolina's the State reported.
U.S. Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., whose district includes many areas hit hardest by Florence, will join the president in his visit, the report said.
Trump is scheduled to spend much of the day in the area so he may also visit South Carolina, according to the paper.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said Tuesday that he didn't yet know if the president would be visiting his state.
“We don’t know. We’d love to have them,” McMaster told the News & Observer of Raleigh, N.C. “I’ll tell you what, though, we are delighted to have had the attention and communication with President Trump and with (his) administration — officials and cabinet members.
A source familiar with the trip’s planning told the State on Monday that Trump was set to visit Horry County with a stop in the Conway area.
Conway and other Horry County communities are experiencing historic flooding that's expected to worsen over the next week, the paper reported.

The president is scheduled to return to the Washington area by 6:15 p.m., the report said. Other details on his schedule before his return were not immediately available.
Trump tweeted thanks Tuesday to the "great Coast Guard for doing such a tremendous job," with a video showing the Coast Guard at work.
Later Tuesday, he tweeted another video, thanking the "incredible men and women who have done such a great job in helping with Florence."
"This is a tough hurricane. One of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water," Trump said in the video. "Rarely have we had an experience like it. And it certainly is not good."
He lauded the work of FEMA, the military and the Coast Guard as "really something special."

Rush to judgment: Pols, pundits picking sides on Kavanaugh accusation

One of the depressing aspects of the cultural debate sparked by the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh is that so many politicians, pundits and ordinary people have already made up their minds based on very limited information.
I suppose it was too much to ask that people actually wait for the Supreme Court nominee and for Christine Blasey Ford to testify and see what additional information emerges. That’s no longer the way our hyperpolarized society works.
Still, it is striking to see the absolute certainty with which people on the public stage, and many folks on Twitter, are declaring that either he or she is lying.
It's hardly a coincidence that these conclusions are largely driven by ideology. Democratic pols and liberal commentators, who would love to keep Kavanaugh off the high court, are quickly out of the gate saying they believe Ford, or at least that she is credible enough to potentially sink the nomination. Republican pols and conservative commentators, who would love to see the judge elevated, are backing him and doubting Ford (and, in fairness, the eleventh-hour nature of the allegations).
Most would immediately switch sides if a Democrat was facing such accusations. See Clinton, Bill.
The vagueness of Ford's account is only exacerbating the debate. Ford says she can't remember what year the alleged sexual assault took place — she thinks maybe 1982 — or whose house it was. That makes it very difficult to prove, or disprove, and leaves the possibility of a he said/she said that can’t be resolved.
The political maneuvering is under way. Chuck Schumer demanding that additional witnesses be called, such as Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, who was accused of joining in the assault. Lindsey Graham is questioning who paid for Ford's lawyer and her polygraph exam. Republican senators are also carping that Ford hasn't accepted the invitation to testify at Monday's hearing; Mitch McConnell yesterday offered her the option of a closed hearing.
President Trump, for his part, ripped the Democrats for "obstruction" and "resistance," that he feels "terrible" for Kavanagh, and that the FBI does not want to investigate. But he was careful again yesterday not to criticize Ford. “We want to give everybody a chance to say what they want to say,” the president told reporters.
There's already about a million times more interest in the Kavanaugh nomination. Before Ford came forward, there was an intense debate over the degree to which he would move the court to the right, especially on the issues of abortion and presidential power.
But I think much of the public wasn't really engaged, in part because his confirmation seemed to be a foregone conclusion.
Now it's the subject of hot arguments not just on Twitter but in cubicles and kitchen tables. It's reminiscent of the uproar over Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, but also reminds me of other national melodramas, such as the O.J. trial, where everyone had an opinion even on the minor characters.
I raised the question yesterday about how to balance the damage done to Ford's life, if her story is true, with the fact that this alleged attack occurred when Kavanaugh was at Georgetown Prep. And on MSNBC yesterday, New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss put it this way:
"Let's say he did this exactly as she said. Should the fact that a 17-year-old, presumably very drunk kid, did this, should that be disqualifying? That’s the question at the end of the day, isn't it?"
A different, and very moving, take comes from the Atlantic’s Caitlin Flanagan, who describes a sexual assault when she was 15, the impact on her life and how she eventually came to a place of forgiveness.
Without giving away too much, Flanagan says she would view the long-ago allegation differently if Kavanaugh had made some attempt at apology, as other men facing #MeToo accusations have. But of course, this isn't a case of a date gone bad.
Kavanaugh flatly denies that anything like this ever happened. So Republican senators would have to be convinced that he is lying to turn against him.
That is a matter for the messy legislative process. The court of public opinion no longer waits for the evidence.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Polygraph exam taken by Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford comes under scrutiny

One day after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised concerns about the polygraph test taken by Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford, her attorney is refusing to comment on who paid for the examination or provide additional details on how it was conducted.
And experts contacted by Fox News confirmed that while polygraph examinations can be useful, they are ultimately fallible tools that "can be beaten." Without mentioning any particular instances, one former senior FBI agent said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a "conscience."
Even well-intentioned individuals who have come to believe that their false stories are, in fact, true -- whether because of therapist-induced memories or other causes -- can sometimes pass polygraph tests, former FBI officials and psychology experts told Fox News.
Ford provided The Washington Post the results of a polygraph examination conducted by a former FBI agent in August, which reportedly showed that she had been truthful in her allegations. According to the Post, Ford took the polygraph on the advice of her attorney, Debra Katz.
Katz did not respond to numerous requests for comment by Fox News on Tuesday concerning the polygraph.
ATTORNEY FOR KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DOWNPLAYED SEX ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLINTON, FRANKEN
Speaking to Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday, Graham questioned who had paid for the polygraph, which experts told Fox News could cost anywhere from $500 to $1,000.
"If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward ... why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?" Graham asked.
Democratic politicians and operatives have repeatedly cited the claim that Ford had passed a polygraph exam to bolster her claims.
"The woman who says Kavanaugh attacked her has reportedly passed a polygraph test," Paul Begala, a onetime aide to former President Bill Clinton while he was besieged by numerous accusations of sexual misconduct while in office. "Will Kavanaugh take one?"
KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DEMANDS FBI PROBE BEFORE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH
But several experts told Fox News that viewing polygraphs as reliable lie-detector machines is a dangerous oversimplification.

"If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don't have a conscience ... you can beat it."
- Former FBI agent James Gagliano

"It's not the result of the polygraph; it is what polygraph subjects say during the polygraph interview that is most valuable," said Thomas Mauriello, a lecturer in criminology at the University of Maryland who worked as a senior polygraph examiner at the Defense Department.
"The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question.  A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added. "A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination."
WATCH: FEINSTEIN ADMITS SHE'S NOT SURE IF ACCUSER IS BEING ENTIRELY 'TRUTHFUL' 
James Gagliano, a former FBI agent who led a SWAT team in New York for several years and now teaches at St. John's University, told Fox News that while polygraphs are valuable, they "can be beaten."
"In this case, if they want to put this out as irrefutable evidence that this woman is telling the truth because she passed a polygraph -- that's not the way polygraphs work," Gagliano added. "If that were the case, I would've taken every drug dealer, gangbanger, and pedophile I investigated, and I would've thrown them on the polygraph."
Gagliano, who said he was subjected to several polygraphs at the FBI but never administered one himself, said people can sometimes pass polygraphs if they've convinced themselves they are telling the truth: "It's not a lie if you believe it," he said.
"Everyone knows polygraph exams can be beaten," Gagliano added. "If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don't have a conscience, if you don't know right from wrong -- you can beat it."

Ford announced on Tuesday she would refuse to testify about her allegations, despite numerous invitations from Senate Republicans, until the FBI conducts a full investigation into the events she claims occurred at a house in Maryland more than 35 years ago. Ford has been unable to identify who owned the house in question, or why she was there.
"It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened," a federal law enforcement official told Fox News.
Gagliano explained that polygraphs are typically conducted by highly trained professionals who first establish a "baseline" physiological response by asking simplistic questions. Then, Gagliano said, polygraphists often attempt to "scare" examinees by asking a question to make them think they're in trouble, which provides an additional data point.
Speaking separately on "The Ingraham Angle" Monday night, Mauriello explained that numerous factors -- including how questioners pose those complicated interrogatories -- can affect polygraph results.
Asked what it meant that Ford had passed a polygraph, Mauriello said flatly, "absolutely nothing."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, seemed to admit as much Tuesday night, even as she insisted Ford was credible.
"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein told Fox News. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford demands 'full investigation' by FBI before testifying, in letter from her lawyers

Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor claiming Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago, late Tuesday demanded a "full investigation" by the FBI before she attends any congressional hearing or "interrogation" into her accusations.
In response, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who said Ford is still invited to speak to the committee, countered that "nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”
Lisa Banks, one of Ford's lawyers, told CNN that her client "will talk to the committee," but she is not prepared for the hearing on Monday.
She said her client has been faced with threats and she has been figuring out how to protect her family.
"There should be no rush to a hearing," Banks said.
Other top Republicans, including Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who had said they wanted to hear from Ford before voting on Kavanaugh's confirmation, have indicated they would move forward with a vote if Ford chose not to testify.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., tweeted late Tuesday that Republican leadership "took immediate action" to ensure Ford and Kavanaugh could be heard.
"If we don’t hear from both sides on Monday, let’s vote," he tweeted.
Republicans had repeatedly invited Ford and Kavanaugh to testify next week after delaying a planned Judiciary Committee vote that had been scheduled for Thursday. Kavanaugh accepted the committee's invitation, but Ford stayed mum until Tuesday night.
Ford's insistence on an FBI investigation, which a federal law enforcement official told Fox News was "totally inappropriate," throws the entire hearing into doubt: Grassley, R-Iowa, had threatened to nix the proceeding if Ford refused to participate.
It was also sure to add fuel to Republican claims that the allegations -- which were known to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein in July, but revealed to federal authorities just last Thursday -- are part of a concerted effort to stall Kavanaugh's nomination at the last minute.
"While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident," Ford's attorneys wrote to Grassley.
But Republicans on the Judiciary Committee directly disputed that claim Tuesday night, writing in a statement that Ford had been offered a chance to testify privately, and had never been told she would need to sit near Kavanaugh.
WATCH: FEINSTEIN ADMITS SHE CAN'T BE SURE ACCUSER IS BEING ENTIRELY 'TRUTHFUL'
In the letter, Ford's lawyers went on to assert that Ford's family "was forced to relocate out of their home" and that "her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online."
"The hearing was scheduled for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is 'mistaken' and 'mixed up.' While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials."

The lawyers, Debra Katz and Banks, said historical precedent supported the delay, echoing comments by Feinstein, who on Tuesday wrote on Twitter that the FBI had also "investigated Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas," the Supreme Court justice.
However, Thomas was accused of sexually harassing Hill while both worked at federal agencies, in potential violation of federal law; Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual harassment that would fall well outside of any applicable federal or state statute of limitations because the alleged episode occured decades ago.
LAWYER DEBRA KATZ HAD DOWNPLAYED ALLEGATIONS OF SEX ASSAULT AGAINST CLINTON, FRANKEN

"Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations," the letter continued. "A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."
But a federal law enforcement official told Fox News, "It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened."
Because Ford's allegations do not involve any federal crime within the applicable statute of limitations, Fox News has learned that the bureau would require explicit instructions from the White House to conduct any additional probe.

The document concluded: "We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security."
The Judiciary Committee statement Tuesday night condemned any threats against Ford, but maintained that her request for an FBI probe was unfounded.
"The FBI has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it considers the matter closed," Grassley and other top Republicans wrote. "The FBI does not make credibility determinations. The FBI provides information on a confidential basis in order for decision makers to determine an individual’s suitability. The Senate has the information it needs to follow up with witnesses and gather and assess the relevant evidence."
The Republicans also disputed the suggestion in Ford's letter that the committee had not been accommodating: "Contrary to suggestions by Dr. Ford’s attorneys, the committee had no plans to place Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh on a panel together, and never indicated plans to do so. Grassley’s staff offered Dr. Ford multiple dates as well as a choice of providing information in a public or private setting."
Meanwhile, Feinstein and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released statements backing Ford.
"I agree with her 100 percent that the rushed process to hold a hearing on Monday has been unfair and is reminiscent of the treatment of Anita Hill," Feinstein said. "I also agree that we need the facts before senators—not staff or lawyers—speak to witnesses.
"We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford’s wishes and delay this hearing," Feinstein continued. "A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date."
FEINSTEIN FACES GOP HEAT FOR SITTING ON KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS FOR WEEKS
Feinstein had told Fox News earlier Tuesday that she could not be sure Ford was being entirely truthful.
"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein said. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."
Eric Holder, the former attorney general, tweeted late Tuesday that the FBI should do a "routine, normal inquiry concerning new Kavanaugh allegations. This is basic background investigation procedure."
In a separate statement, Schumer said an FBI probe would be consistent with "precedent," adding, "Dr. Ford’s call for the FBI to investigate... demonstrates her confidence that when all the facts are examined by an impartial investigation, her account will be further corroborated and confirmed."
Earlier Tuesday, Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., rejected a comparison to the Clarence Thomas episode.
"You’re talking about history," Graham said. "We’re not looking back. We’re looking forward.”
The attorneys' letter was yet another curveball in Kavanaugh's ongoing nomination drama, which began last week after a leak to The Intercept revealed that Feinstein was in possession of a supposedly damning letter relevant to his confirmation. Republicans have charged that Senate Democrats orchestrated that leak, which then prompted Feinstein to discuss the letter and its then-anonymous accusations publicly and with the FBI.
Ford went public on Sunday, alleging that Kavanaugh forced himself onto her and covered her mouth in the 1980s, when Kavanaugh was 17 and she was 15. Ford did not mention the incident to others by her own admission until 2012, according to The Washington Post, when her therapist recorded her claim that four individuals had committed the assault.
Ford has since claimed that the therapist incorrectly transcribed that detail, and that she had said there were only two people in the room. Her husband has maintained that Ford mentioned Kavanaugh in the therapy sessions.
Ford also told The Post she could not remember in whose house the alleged incident occurred, the exact month of the episode, or why there was a gathering there.
Republicans on Tuesday also reiterated Grassley's criticism of Feinstein for not telling Republicans, even privately, about the claims against Kavanaugh during days of private and public hearings on the nominee.
"Ranking Member Feinstein first received a letter with allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh from Dr. Ford in July," the Republicans' statement read. "However, Feinstein neglected to notify Committee Republicans of the letter until the day of the first Committee markup, six weeks after receiving the letter and well after the vetting and hearing process had concluded."
The statement concluded by charging that Feinstein had not taken the matter "seriously."
"Feinstein referred the letter to the FBI, which added it to Kavanaugh’s background investigation file," it continued. "She should have treated these allegations seriously, as Grassley has done, in immediately acting upon hearing of them."
Earlier Tuesday, a key potential swing vote senator, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, said he would move to push Kavanaugh's nomination forward if Ford refused to show up to the hearing planned for Monday. Graham, R-S.C., has also said that if Ford refused to testify, the committee would move forward with a vote within the week.

John Kerry Cartoons

Cal Thomas: Democrats’ Kavanaugh smears yet another effort to reverse 2016 election results

In statement released by the White House, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh says he is 'willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.'
The woman who alleged in a confidential letter that as a high school student in Maryland in the ’80s Brett Kavanaugh “pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it” has now revealed her identity to (surprise!) the Washington Post.
Christine Blasey Ford, who the Post says is now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California, originally said she did not want to tell her story or reveal her identity. Then the story went public without her consent. The letter eventually found its way to the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Feinstein, citing Ford’s wish to remain anonymous, refused to share it with her Democratic colleagues. “I have, however,” Feinstein wrote in a statement, “referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
“An FBI spokesperson confirmed that the bureau had received the referral … and included it as part of Kavanaugh’s background file,” writes the Los Angeles Times, “as per the standard process.”
Ford claims she didn’t tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012 when she was in couples therapy with her husband, but even then she didn’t mention Kavanaugh’s name. If this sounds like a replay of Anita Hill’s last-minute allegations against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, it should. In football a late hit can bring a penalty. In politics it’s all part of the game.

In football a late hit can bring a penalty. In politics it’s all part of the game.

Kavanaugh denies any inappropriate behavior took place, and as of this writing, both he and Ford have agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a la Anita Hill. Already two Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, both of whom are leaving at the end of their terms, have called for a delay in Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote, which plays into the hands of Democrats trying to block him from the court.
Some Democrats and liberal activists apparently determined to preserve the Supreme Court’s leftward shift have chosen to get down in the mud, throwing it at a highly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg bemoaned how these confirmation hearings have become “a highly partisan show.”
The smear is nothing new in politics, but while it once might come back to stain the one throwing the mud, it is now regarded as a legitimate tool for achieving one’s political goals. The end not only justifies the means, but to the left, it mandates the means.
Republicans should fight back, labeling the smear tactics and those who employ them as demeaning and sullying their office. If one can’t win a civil debate over issues and law, then an elected official should not receive the public’s trust.

Is it any wonder why good people don’t want to serve in government? Who wants to face an avalanche of mud?

“Have you no shame?” was a line made famous during the Army-McCarthy hearings in the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., claimed to have a list of communists who had infiltrated the federal government. The left rode the “McCarthyism” horse for decades, accusing any Republican or conservative of emulating McCarthy when they opposed the liberal agenda or criticized producers of movies and TV programs they believed contributed to the moral decline of the nation.
This letter should be seen for what it is — a last-minute, desperate attempt to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation and part of a broader plan to reverse the results of the 2016 election. This smear campaign includes not only Ford’s perfectly timed letter, but also the New York Times op-ed from an unnamed “official” in the Trump administration and many of Bob Woodward’s “sources” in his new book “Fear.”
These tactics should be denounced immediately, or they will be repeated. Is it any wonder why good people don’t want to serve in government? Who wants to face an avalanche of mud?