During her Monday morning show, NBC anchor Megyn Kelly scolded NBC News Legal Analyst Daniel Goldman for suggesting that FBI agents investigating sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should wander around the Maryland suburbs of Washington D.C. to try to find a house that matched Christine Blasey Ford’s extremely vague description in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the midst of a lengthy panel discussion about the Kavanaugh investigation, PBS In Principle host Amy Holmes pointed out: “I also want it to be clear, with the FBI investigation, this isn’t CSI or Law & Order, they’re not gonna be going looking for forensic evidence. They’re talking to people, they’re interviewing them...” Goldman, a frequent MSNBC pundit and Trump administration critic, chimed in: “But that should not be the only thing there is.”
The former Assistant U.S. Attorney argued in part: “They should look into the house. Try to figure out where this house was, what it was. See, if it hasn’t been renovated, if they can match it up to Dr. Ford’s description.”
An incredulous Kelly replied: “Oh my God, Dan. Seriously?” Holmes noted that Ford “doesn’t even know which house.” Kelly added: “She doesn’t know where it happened. That’s the problem. Is the FBI going to figure out the story she is unable to tell?” Goldman insisted: “Yes.” Kelly pushed back: “No, that’s not its job.” Goldman maintained that it was, Kelly rejected the assertion: “No, it isn’t.”
Goldman proclaimed: “When a victim comes forward, the victim is not responsible to provide the corroboration.” Kelly shot back: “Well, it would great if she could at least give a year and a month and a general location.” She then cited the career prosecutor who questioned Ford on behalf of Republicans during the hearing:
But if you look at Rachel Mitchell, who was the prosecutor that the Republicans asked to do some of the questioning. She submitted a memo saying, first of all, “Not only would I never bring this case as a prosecutor, it doesn’t even come close to satisfying ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ it doesn’t even satisfy, ‘by the preponderance of the evidence’ standard.” Which means 51 percent more likely than 49 percent less likely. Which is the lowest bar in any case. She said it doesn’t even satisfy that.
And she talked about Dr. Ford’s inconsistent account, saying, “First she said it happened in the mid-1980s. Then, she said it happened in the early 1980s. Then she said it happened in the early 1980s but she crossed out the word early. Then she said summer of 1982. Then she said it happened in her late teens. Then she said she was 15. Then she failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame.”
That’s just one paragraph of her memo summarizing why she finds Dr. Ford’s testimony full on inconsistencies.
Circling back to Goldman’s demands, Kelly declared: “And now, we want the FBI to spend this week going back and scouring the Maryland neighborhood and looking at people’s homes and figure out who renovated and when. What it used to look like...”
Goldman asked: “How do you think cases are solved, Megyn?” An exasperated Kelly explained: “They’re not trying to solve this case, Dan! They’re not trying to solve it....Because it’s not a criminal investigation.”
Holmes raised the fact that “even the witnesses that the Professor [Ford] has named of being there say they either have no recollection or the party didn’t happen, including her friend who said, ‘I don’t know Judge Kavanaugh.’” Goldman dismissed that evidence: “You would never remember it, but for the traumatic experience.” Kelly accurately observed: “So all of the evidence that helps him, you discredit?”
Near the end of the segment, Holmes noted that “for the Republican side, the fear is that you’re gonna have more Michael Avenatti cases. And then that turns into a real circus.” Referring to a third accuser against Kavanaugh being represented by the Democratic attorney, Kelly told viewers:
Michael Avenatti is upset that his client, Julie Swetnick, is not being talked to by the FBI. This is the one who claims she was – was the victim of an alleged gang-rape that Kavanaugh did not participate in. But she says she allegedly claims that he was at a party where one happened.
The host then detailed all of Swetnick’s massive credibility problems:
And it’s emerged from various reporting this weekend, she faced allegations of her own misconduct during a stint at a Portland company 18 years ago. That company claims she told them she graduated from Johns Hopkins, but they learned the school had no record of her. She also falsely described her work experience at a prior employer. They said she engaged in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct herself. They said she made false and retaliatory allegations against her co-workers, that they had been inappropriate with her. They said she took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits. At the same time, in D.C., there was a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend, who claims she harassed him, his wife and their baby. I could go on.
She concluded: “So the people who are very upset that the FBI is not looking into Julie Swetnick’s allegations, there are reasons for that.”
Goldman countered that Avenatti was “begging” for the FBI to talk to his client. Holmes and Kelly remarked that the Stormy Daniels lawyer was just “begging for TV cameras,” prompting laughter from the in-studio audience.
Again, Kelly stood out as one of the few reporters asking serious, skeptical questions about the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Here is a full transcript of the October 1 panel discussion:
9:05 AM ET
(...)
AMY HOLMES: I also want it to be clear, with the FBI investigation, this isn’t CSI or Law & Order, they’re not gonna be going looking for forensic evidence. They’re talking to people, they’re interviewing them, then they deliver that information to the Senate to bring this back to where we are, which is the Senate advice and consent.
DANIEL GOLDMAN: But that should not be the only thing there is. That shouldn’t be the only thing there is. Because they should look into Mark Judge’s Safeway records, where Dr. Ford says that she saw him when he worked at a Safeway. They should look into the house. Try to figure out where this house was, what it was. See, if it hasn’t been renovated, if they can match it up to Dr. Ford’s description.
MEGYN KELLY: Oh my God, Dan. Seriously?
GOLDMAN: But these are the ways that an FBI investigation would ordinarily work.
HOLMES: She doesn’t even know which house.
GOLDMAN: Yeah, seriously. If you’re trying to figure out –
KELLY: She doesn’t know where it happened. That’s the problem. Is the FBI going to figure out the story she is unable to tell?
GOLDMAN: Yes.
KELLY: No, that’s not its job.
GOLDMAN: Yes. Let me explain how this works.
KELLY: That’s not its job.
GOLDMAN: Yes, it is.
KELLY: No, it isn’t.
GOLDMAN: In fact, it’s very much. When a victim comes forward, the victim is not responsible to provide the corroboration. As someone who investigated –
KELLY: Well, it would great if she could at least give a year and a month and a general location. Because her story –
GOLDMAN: I think she’s narrowed it down to the summer of ’82. And I would start with that July 1st calendar entry.
KELLY: But if you look at Rachel Mitchell, who was the prosecutor that the Republicans asked to do some of the questioning. She submitted a memo saying, first of all, “Not only would I never bring this case as a prosecutor, it doesn’t even come close to satisfying ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ it doesn’t even satisfy, ‘by the preponderance of the evidence’ standard.” Which means 51 percent more likely than 49 percent less likely. Which is the lowest bar in any case. She said it doesn’t even satisfy that.
And she talked about Dr. Ford’s inconsistent account, saying, “First she said it happened in the mid-1980s. Then, she said it happened in the early 1980s. Then she said it happened in the early 1980s but she crossed out the word early. Then she said summer of 1982. Then she said it happened in her late teens. Then she said she was 15. Then she failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame.”
That’s just one paragraph of her memo summarizing why she finds Dr. Ford’s testimony full on inconsistencies. And now, we want the FBI to spend this week going back and scouring the Maryland neighborhood and looking at people’s homes and figure out who renovated and when. What it used to look like, what it –
GOLDMAN: How do you think cases are solved, Megyn?
KELLY: They’re not trying to solve this case, Dan! They’re not trying to solve it.
GOLDMAN: Why not?
KELLY: Because it’s not a criminal investigation.
GOLDMAN: Shouldn’t we want that?
KELLY: No.
GOLDMAN: Shouldn’t we figure out whether or not this thing actually happened.
KELLY: Every witness –
GOLDMAN: And if you’re right and if nobody else can come out with which house it was and if Mark Judge didn’t work at the Safeway in that summer, then that undermines her claims. But why wouldn’t we want to know that.
HOLMES: If he worked at – you certainly wouldn’t hang, you know, a conviction or a guilty on the Judge over when Mark Judge worked at a Safeway.
KELLY: Right, even if they did see each other.
HOLMES: The allegation is sexual assault. And even the witnesses that the Professor has named of being there say they either have no recollection or the party didn’t happen, including her friend who said, “I don’t know Judge Kavanaugh.”
KELLY: “I’ve never been at a party with him.”
GOLDMAN: You would never remember it, but for the traumatic experience.
KELLY: So all of the evidence that helps him, you discredit?
GOLDMAN: No, there’s plenty of evidence. I think he should – the biggest problem I had with his testimony is that he did not just say, “I welcome an FBI investigation.” And he intentionally didn’t say that.
KELLY: Because he doesn’t trust the Democrats on the committee to interpret anything in a fair way.
GOLDMAN: What do you mean? The Democrats aren’t in control. And let me tell you why that’s important though –
KELLY: No, but he – but the Democrats are the ones saying, “Don’t you demand an FBI investigation?” And his response is basically, “I don’t believe you’re an open-minded trier of facts. So do I want another five, seven, ten days of you trying to beat me up and find things at the last minute to scurry my nomination. No, I’m not really in favor of that because I don’t trust you.”
(...)
9:11 AM ET
HOLMES: But again, for the Republican side, the fear is that you’re gonna have more Michael Avenatti cases. And then that turns into a real circus.
KELLY: Michael Avenatti is upset that his client, Julie Swetnick, is not being talked to by the FBI. This is the one who claims she was –
HOLMES: I’m not sure she wants to be.
KELLY: Was the victim of an alleged gang-rape that Kavanaugh did not participate in. But she says she allegedly claims that he was a party where one happened.
And it’s emerged from various reporting this weekend, she faced allegations of her own misconduct during a stint at a Portland company 18 years ago. That company claims she told them she graduated from Johns Hopkins, but they learned the school had no record of her. She also falsely described her work experience at a prior employer. They said she engaged in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct herself. They said she made false and retaliatory allegations against her co-workers, that they had been inappropriate with her. They said she took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits. At the same time, in D.C., there was a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend, who claims she harassed him, his wife and their baby. I could go on.
So the people who are very upset that the FBI is not looking into Julie Swetnick’s allegations, there are reasons for that.
HOLMES: Right. And she might not like the FBI looking more closely at some of these allegations.
GOLDMAN: Well, she’s – Avenatti’s been begging for the FBI to come –
KELLY: What a shock.
GOLDMAN: So I don’t –
HOLMES: He’s been begging for TV cameras.
KELLY: He has been begging for TV cameras.
GOLDMAN: But I don’t think it’s correct to say that Julie Swetnick does not want to speak to the FBI.
HOLMES: I’m saying that she might not want to for her own good.
GOLDMAN: She submitted a sworn declaration.
KELLY: She’s just making the point that her allegations are tenuous.
GOLDMAN: A hundred percent.
KELLY: And she’s got a history that –
GOLDMAN: And that’s why if he does have the corroborating witnesses, which he alleges that Avenatti has, that those are going to be very critical.
STEPHANIE GOSK: He keeps saying he does.
GOLDMAN: It is – she has some real credibility problems. If I were a prosecutor, I would have real concerns about putting her on the stand. However, that doesn’t mean you don’t bring a case if there is one to be made. The fact that she has –
KELLY: If Avenatti’s got corroborating witnesses, where are they?
GOSK: Where are they? Name them.
KELLY: It’s been a week and he hasn’t put a single one forward. Not a one.
HOLMES: And he didn’t know, when he was called, that his client had a restraining order on her.
KELLY: Yeah.
HOLMES: He didn’t even know this.
KELLY: Yeah, all he said was, it’s all bogus. Which, that’s not gonna cut it.
