#8C FBI Kavanaugh conclusion: falsified by Grassley or false

[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Either Senator Grassley misrepresented that the FBI confirmed “there is no corroboration” of Ford’s allegation about Kavanaugh or the investigation reflected malfeasance by the FBI

One of the following statements is true:

Senator Grassley’s Executive Summary falsely stated that the FBI investigation confirmed “there is no corroboration” of Dr. Ford’s allegation or
The conduct of the FBI investigation reflected malfeasance since it reached a demonstrably incorrect conclusion.

The Supplemental FBI Investigation Executive Summary states that:

“The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford ….”

The Executive Summary was released by the Senate Judiciary Committee and not the FBI. Thus, it is uncertain whether the Executive Summary accurately describes the results of the FBI’s supplemental investigation.

The committee was chaired by Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, throughout the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. So, he and the other Republican members would bear responsibility if the executive summary doesn’t accurately describe the FBI’s investigation.

There is corroboration of almost all of Dr. Ford’s story

There is definitive corroboration of virtually all of Dr. Ford’s testimony about the event where she was sexually assaulted. That corroboration is fully detailed in the discussion further below. And the existence of the corroboration is readily apparent. So, the FBI could not have honestly and competently conducted its investigation without discovering such corroboration.

Thus, if the Executive Summary reflects what the FBI communicated to the committee, the FBI has engaged in malfeasance. The FBI misconduct could be either in conducting its investigation or in communicating the results of the investigation. Those two things are functionally equivalent.

The Executive Summary also references the Senate Judiciary Committee’s conclusion after its investigation. For the same reasons, the committee couldn’t have honestly concluded that there’s no corroboration of Dr. Ford’s allegation.

The comments herein will focus on the FBI investigation. However, every observation or criticism of the FBI investigation applies equally to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation.

One way or the other, the Executive Summary reflects FBI malfeasance

Any competent investigator would conclude the event described by Dr. Ford is the July 1 party detailed in Kavanaugh’s calendar. Thus, his calendar corroborates virtually all of her memories about the event where she was sexually assaulted. Her corroborated memories are listed further below.

His calendar entry also provides information she didn’t recall. Such information includes:

the exact date that she was assaulted (07/01/82),
the precise location (Tim Gaudette’s house), and
the party attendees whom Dr. Ford didn’t recall by name (Timmy, Tom, Bernie, and Squi).

There are multiple reasons no competent observer could have overlooked the significance of the July 1, 1982 event. That includes journalists, investigators, prosecutors, and FBI agents. Those reasons are explained further below.

Accordingly, if the FBI considered the July 1 event, a failure to reach the correct conclusion would reflect malfeasance. But the question of whether the two events are the same was apparent and had been raised by Senator Whitehouse. So, it would reflect malfeasance not to have addressed the issue, unless the FBI was prevented from doing so.

It would also reflect malfeasance if the FBI’s communication of its conclusions was inaccurate or facilitated an inaccurate description. For example, if the FBI was prevented from considering the significance of Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry, that should have been clearly reflected in its report. Finally, it would reflect malfeasance in my view if the FBI permitted its investigation to be misrepresented to the public.

Both the FBI and Senator Grassley’s committee were necessarily at fault

It’s possible the FBI expressed a limited conclusion about corroboration. An example would be that none of the people identified as witnesses corroborated any details of Dr. Ford’s story. That would have been an accurate statement. However, no corroboration by witnesses is entirely different from their being no corroboration at all, in this instance.

The importance of that distinction would have been readily apparent to both the FBI and Senator Grassley. So, any failure to accurately describe the FBI’s investigation could not have been faultless.

Moreover, as explained below, every observer should have known the event described by Dr. Ford is the July 1 party. So, the committee’s conclusion reflected malfeasance, even if the FBI’s investigation was accurately described in the Executive Summary.

Moreover, the FBI couldn’t possibly be faultless. It would have known after-the-fact if the committee’s description of its investigation was inaccurate. And the FBI should not have permitted the American people to be deceived in its name. Specifically, the FBI should not have accepted Senator Grassley’s characterization of its investigation if it was prevented from considering Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry.

The FBI malfeasance would be foundational if it relates to the conduct of its investigation or its communication of the conclusion

FBI involvement in supporting a Republican con job on the American people would be a significant development. That would be true even if the misconduct was limited to not correcting a false description of its investigation.

However, FBI malfeasance in conducting or communicating the results of its investigation would be of even more concern. That would reflect on the FBI’s capacity to carry out its fundamental mission on behalf of the American people.

On reflection, I’m understating the significance if the FBI passively permitted its investigation to be mischaracterized. Even that would reflect on the FBI’s capacity to carry out its fundamental mission on behalf of the American people.

A topic for any congressional investigation should be to identify the nature and source of the FBI malfeasance. Testimony from the FBI is required only to explain specifically how and why it engaged in misconduct. That the FBI was at fault in some respect is already demonstrable since the conclusion attributed to it is false.

What would the motivation have been for a dishonest investigation or a dishonest communication of the FBI’s conclusion? What’s the impact?

The apparent motivation for either a dishonest investigation or a dishonest communication about the investigation’s conclusion would have been to achieve what actually occurred. What happened is that almost everyone accepted the false conclusion that there is “no corroboration” of Dr. Ford’s allegation. The plainly visible evidence disproves that conclusion.

As a consequence, the investigative efforts by the media and by Congress were impeded following Kavanaugh’s confirmation. More specifically, the consideration of July 1, 1982, was effectively shut down even though its relevance is obvious.

For example, “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino, is a lengthy and well-researched book about the Kavanaugh proceedings. Yet it does not even once mention the crucial July 1, 1982 date or the events of that day.

I am not suggesting that the media’s failure to pursue the crucial storyline concerning the Kavanaugh proceedings is justifiable. It is not in my view, despite the Republicans’ propaganda efforts. Blog #12 will consider the failures of the nonpartisan media in covering the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings.

Manipulation of the FBI to facilitate rejecting victims’ allegations is part of the Republicans’ systematic approach

In Blog #8A, I didn’t include manipulation of FBI investigations among the pillars of the Republican’s comprehensive systematic approach for undermining and rejecting sexual-assault allegations. That failure occurred because I was unaware of the purported Executive Summary of the FBI’s investigation.

However, manipulation of FBI investigations of victims’ allegations should be included as the eleventh component of the Republicans’ systematic approach. It is a highly impactful element of their system because of the FBI’s reputation and credibility, and its pivotal role.

Despite the reported FBI conclusion being obviously flawed, it has gone unchallenged. By contrast, Ms. Mitchell’s report on Dr. Ford’s allegation was promptly severely criticized in multiple articles by former prosecutors.

This moment represents a singular opportunity to address the misogyny underlying the false or falsified FBI conclusion

In any he-said, she-said controversy, there would be no remedy for such dishonesty by or relating the FBI. There would be no way to prove that a purported FBI conclusion is false. Moreover, there would absolutely be no way to prove that it is knowingly false.

So, Dr. Ford’s allegation against Justice Kavanaugh is a Unicorn. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in which the bad guys have provably been caught red-handed. Thus, the response by the Democrats and by the nonpartisan media should reflect the singular nature of the opportunity.

The opportunity is not just to expose the FBI’s and Republicans’ misconduct. The real opportunity is to expose the Republicans’ systematic approach and the misogyny that motivates it.

How did we get to this point in the discussion?

Blogs #1 to #4 describe proof that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. Blog #2 describes definitive evidence that she attended the July 1, 1982 house-party. Blog #3 and Blog #4 explain his admissions of guilt in 2018 and 1982, respectively.

Blogs #5A, #5B, and #6 describe evidence that Kavanaugh is the leader of a conspiracy among most or all of the other July 1 party attendees. Blog #10 will provide additional insight into that conspiracy.

Blogs #7A and #7B discuss the Republican coverup of the evidence of Kavanaugh’s guilt, particularly Senator Collins’ role. They also discuss various impacts of the coverup. Blogs #8A and #8B explain the Republicans’ comprehensive systematic approach for undermining and rejecting victims’ allegations.

Blogs #7C, #7D, and #8A describe the critical roles in their systematic approach played by members of the news media. Examples of the active roles played by specific journalists will be described in Blog #8D.

Blog #8C

This is Blog #8C in my series of blog posts. It wasn’t originally anticipated. But I somehow missed the FBI Supplemental Investigation Executive Summary. More specifically, I missed its claim that the FBI investigation confirmed there is no corroboration of Dr. Ford’s allegation.

So, I added Blog #8C to discuss the FBI investigation. An honest and competent FBI investigation would not have confirmed that conclusion.

Blog #8C will review the definitive proof that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Since the evidence of her presence is conclusive, Kavanaugh’s defenders can’t offer an effective counterargument.

Nevertheless, Blog #8D will examine the arguments that have been offered in defense of Justice Kavanaugh. Those arguments were expressed by Kavanaugh, Senator Collins, Rachel Mitchell, and various journalists who were acting as advocates. That examination confirms there is no counterargument to the conclusion that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 party.

Dr. Ford recalled seven details confirmed by Kavanaugh’s 07/01/82 calendar entry

Dr. Ford identified the seven details listed below about the house-party where she was sexually assaulted by Justice Kavanaugh. The seven details that Dr. Ford recalled are each confirmed by the description in Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry. They include:

The general location: suburban two-story house in the Montgomery County, with a narrow stairway leading to the second floor.
The general timing: summer of 1982
Brett Kavanaugh was present
Mark Judge was present
P.J. Smyth was present
At least one other male was present
The underage attendees were drinking beer

Dr. Ford also stated that the house was “not far from the country club” where her family belonged. However, given a distance of 10 miles, the characterization of “not far” is too subjective to be used to confirm the two events are the same.

Her characterization is reasonably consistent with Tim Gaudette’s house. However, the details listed above are already sufficient to establish that the two events are the same.

There is no credibility issue relating to the details Dr. Ford’s recalls

Dr. Ford identified the seven details she recalls in her testimony on September 27, 2018. She provided essentially the same details in her first public statement about the assault. That statement was made on September 16, 2018, through a Washington Post article.

The existence and content of Kavanaugh’s calendars didn’t become public until September 25, 2018. Thus, Dr. Ford knows the listed details from her own recollection. She is the only person who admits to having any memory of the event she described. So, no other person who might have witnessed the event is the source of her knowledge.

Thus, there is no credibility issue relating to Dr. Ford’s testimony about the details she recalls. The fact that she knew those details on September 16, 2018, is proof that she knew them from her own recollection. The fact that her details correspond to Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry is the basis for the proofs that she was there.

Dr. Ford was undoubtedly at the July 1, 1982, house-party

As I’ve detailed in Blog #7C and Blog #2, there are two common-sense proofs and a statistical proof that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party. All three proofs should have been evident to the FBI if its investigation was unconstrained.

Both of the common-sense proofs are simple and easily visible, as explained below. They are each within the capacity to produce of anyone with a college education. And a college education would not be required.

So, every FBI agent would have understood the two common-sense proofs. And many FBI agents would find the statistical proof that Ford was at the house-party to be straightforward.

Common-sense proof #2 revisited

Common-sense proof # 2 demonstrates that the probability Dr. Ford was not at the July 1, 1982 event is substantially less than 1%. Therefore the probability that she was present substantially exceeds 99%.

This simple proof focuses on the likelihood that Ford could have guessed the names of the boys she identified. She identified Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, and Mr. Smyth by name as having been present.

Each sophisticated observer would have intuitively understood the improbability that Dr. Ford could have randomly guessed even one name. The small amount of information required to estimate the probability is readily accessible. It is publicly available information about the house-party and its attendees.

Dr. Ford had no particular connection to any of the boys she named

Dr. Ford had no significant connection to Kavanaugh, Judge, or Smyth. She didn’t go to the same high school with any of them. There wasn’t even a close association between her high school (Holton Arms) and their high school (Georgetown Prep).

She didn’t belong to the same country club as Justice Kavanaugh or the other named boys. The only boy who attended the July 1, 1982 house-party, and who has been identified as belonging to her country club, is Squi Garrett. He is one of the four boys she didn’t recall by name as having attended the event where she was assaulted.

The probability that Dr. Ford was at the house-party substantially exceeds 99%

The probability that Dr. Ford would have randomly picked Kavanaugh out of all of the boys she might have selected is much less than one out of one-hundred (1/100), or 1%. The pool of boys out of which she might have made a random selection would have been several hundred.

The pool includes all of the boys whom she might have encountered, however briefly, of about her same age. That includes most boys who attended high schools in the same general area. It also includes boys in her year, Kavanaugh’s year, or the year behind her.

Precisely the same analysis applies to both Mr. Judge and Mr. Smyth. Again, the probability that she would have randomly picked either of them is much less than 1/100, or 1%.

The probability of Ford randomly naming the three boys is much less than 1%

Thus, the probability that Dr. Ford could have correctly identified all three boys she named as having been present at the house-party, without being there herself, is much less than one percent (1%). And it is closer to zero percent than to 1%.

Therefore, the probability that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982, house-party is greater than 99%. And it is closer to 100% than 99%.

Exceeding the 99% probability threshold means it is beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that Ford was at the July 1 party. Since the probability is closer to 100% than to 99%, it is far beyond a reasonable doubt that she was there.

Sophisticated observers would have intuitively reached the same conclusion without needing to do the calculation

Most sophisticated observers, including FBI agents and media observers, would have immediately understood the essence of common-sense proof #2. They would have understood the improbability of anyone guessing the names of any of the boys.

So, they would have understood that the probability Dr. Ford was at the July 1 event is overwhelming. Thus, they would have analyzed the likelihood of Kavanaugh being guilty of the sexual assault based on that understanding.

Moreover, the probability calculation above only takes account of what Dr. Ford provably knew about the house-party. It doesn’t even take account of her testimony that she was at the event she described. Considering both factors, it’s virtually certain that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Many sophisticated observers would have understood that nuance as well.

Dr. Ford had no ulterior motivation for naming any of the boys she identified

The only non-random reason for Dr. Ford to have identified any of the three boys is that her story is truthful. The only boy present that she had a connection to is Squi Garret, whom she didn’t recall having been there. In addition to belonging to her country club, they briefly dated.

There only non-random reason for Dr. Ford to have identified Justice Kavanaugh as her attacker is that he assaulted her. He has claimed not to recall ever having met her. She testified that they knew each other, but not well. She also testified that she is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who sexually assaulted her.

Also, there is no non-random reason for Dr. Ford to have identified Mr. Judge as a participant in the assault except that he was there. Naming him as a witness and participant made her accusation more challenging to sustain. It gave Kavanaugh a ready witness who would be motivated to deny the assault occurred. So, the only reason for Dr. Ford to identify Mr. Judge as present during the sexual assault is that he was there.

Even if Dr. Ford had a non-random reason to select a particular boy, that wouldn’t change the conclusion

However, let’s assume that Dr. Ford had a non-random reason for picking any one of the three boys, other than that she was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Such an unrelated non-random reason wouldn’t make it more likely that he was present at the July 1 event.

Moreover, the probabilities of her other two selections having been correct would have remained unchanged. Thus, the likelihood that she was present would still be closer to 100% than to 99%.

Common sense-proof #1 revisited

Common-sense proof #1 would have been evident to any competent observer of the Kavanaugh proceedings. That proof should unavoidably have been apparent to every senator and to every member of the news media who covered, observed, or paid attention to the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. Most of the proof was specifically discussed during the proceedings.

The details Dr. Ford recalled were stated in her testimony

Dr. Ford described the event where she was sexually assaulted in her opening statement. The details of her testimony matched the details she had described in a September 16, 2018, Washington Post article. That was her first public statement about her allegation.

Very little changed as a result of her responses to the questions from Ms. Mitchell and the Democratic senators. An exception is her testimony about the driving time between her country club and the house where she was assaulted.

She stated that her home was about a 20-minute drive from her country club. She also stated that the house where she was assaulted was between her house and the country club.

Kavanaugh’s calendar entry was a focal point of his testimony

The existence of Justice Kavanaugh’s summer of 1982 calendars became public on September 25, 2018. His calendars were of obvious interest as a potential source of corroboration of the details Dr. Ford recalled. Multiple news reports on September 26 focused on the July 1, 1982 calendar entry.

Justice Kavanaugh mentioned his calendars during his opening statement. Ms. Mitchell then specifically questioned him about the July 1, 1982 calendar entry. It was immediately apparent that there were material similarities. He also gave important testimony about his practices in keeping his calendars.

Justice Kavanaugh was asked a series of questions by Ms. Mitchell about the correspondence between Dr. Ford’s description and his calendar entries. His answers to those questions were deceptive or false.

In particular, he answered “No” to Ms. Mitchell’s question whether anything in his calendars “remotely fit” Dr. Ford’s description. That answer was inescapably false. Moreover, that his response was knowingly false was evident in real-time as he testified.

Senator Whitehouse brought special attention to the July 1, 1982 calendar entry

The similarities between Dr. Ford’s description and the house-party detailed in Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry were further highlighted during a hearing on September 28, 2018. Senator Whitehouse made a presentation about the potential relevance of the correspondence between the two events. The senator argued, in effect, that the two events are the same.

Senator Whitehouse’s presentation sparked a series of articles by right-leaning journalists. In those articles, the journalists disingenuously attempted to debunk Senator Whitehouse’s theory that the two events are the same. Several of those articles will be discussed in Blog #8D.

No observer could have avoided being aware of the possible significance of the July 1, 1982 calendar entry.

Given Dr. Ford’s testimony about the event where she was assaulted, Justice Kavanaugh’s calendars were immediate of interest when he mentioned them. That interest was intensified when he described his July 1, 1982 calendar entry in response to Ms. Mitchell’s question.

Senator Whitehouse’s presentation emphasized the potential importance of the July 1, 1982 calendar entry. So, the similarities between her description and his calendar entry would have been unavoidably apparent to any observer.

That includes all senators, members of the news media, and FBI agents assigned to the matter. It also includes Ms. Mitchell. However, her questioning of Justice Kavanaugh indicates that she was already aware of the calendar entry’s significance.

The apparent difference between the events Ford and Kavanaugh described is that she and Ms. Keyser weren’t in his description. Senator Whitehouse addressed that discrepancy by suggesting the omission from Kavanaugh’s calendar might have been intentional. So, every awake observer was aware of that possible interpretation of Ford’s omission.

Several journalists who were Kavanaugh supporters also concocted two other purported discrepancies. The first is that the distance between her country club and Tim Gaudette’s house is inconsistent with her description. She described the place where she was assaulted as “not far” from her club. The second is that she described the location of the assault as a “house,” and Gaudette’s house was a “townhouse.” Those two purported discrepancies will be addressed in Blog #8D.

The July 1 house-party is the only event in Kavanaugh’s calendar that materially fit Ford’s description

Kavanaugh testified that no entry in his calendars “remotely fit” Ford’s description of the event where she was assaulted. But that was a blatant lie concerning the July 1 calendar entry since it significantly fit Dr. Ford’s description.

No competent observer could have missed the fact that his answer was knowingly false concerning the July 1 entry. Her description that at least four boys were present, of which she named three, is enough by itself to constitute a significant fit. And for Kavanaugh’s statement to be accurate, the July 1 entry would have to be less than a remote fit with Ford’s description.

A review of Kavanaugh’s calendars confirms that his assessment is accurate except for the July 1 calendar entry. Anyone who didn’t double-check should have assumed that his statement was correct with that one obvious exception. So, the July 1 party should have been viewed by all observers as presumptively the event Dr. Ford described.

Common-sense proof # 1 has only two parts, and the first part is already complete

The conclusion of common-sense proof # 1 is that the July 1, 1982 event is the house-party Ford described. The proof only has two parts. And the first part was complete by the end of the September 28, 2018 hearing. No thinking was required.

Proof part one, and Senator Collins version of events:

The first part of the proof is that:

The July 1, 1982 house-party significantly fits Dr. Ford’s description of the event where she was sexually assaulted; and
That house-party is also the only event in his calendar which even remotely fits her description.

Thus, the July 1 house-party is the one Dr. Ford described if the event actually occurred. That’s part one of the proof, and it required no thought or analysis.

The only way that the event Dr. Ford didn’t happen is if she fabricated or imagined it. If she fabricated or imagined the event where she described being sexually assaulted, then the sexual assault never happened. That, in essence, was Kavanaugh’s defense.

The likelihood that Dr. Ford fabricated or imagined the event should have been assessed as nonexistent. Her testimony was credible and rational.

So, there is no evident basis for anyone to have believed that the event Dr. Ford described didn’t happen. Nevertheless, Senator Collins made a series of disingenuous arguments to that effect.

Senator Collins’ twisted view of reality

The senator argued, in effect, that Dr. Ford wasn’t at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Instead, Senator Collins irrationally claimed that Dr. Ford was assaulted by someone else at a different event at which Justice Kavanaugh wasn’t present.

Senator Collins could have accepted the obvious conclusion that the event Dr. Ford described is the July 1 house-party. But that would have required a lot of explanation by Justice Kavanaugh.

For example, why did he and the other attendees all claim not to recall that Dr. Ford was there? Also, Kavanaugh would have had to explain his claim that he doesn’t recall ever meeting her. He would have also had to explain why Ford would have told the truth about being at the party and then lied about being in the bedroom. So, Senator Collins disingenuously claimed to believe that the two events are different.

Proof part two:

However, there is a simple, obvious, and dispositive basis to conclude that Dr. Ford didn’t fabricate or imagine the house-party she described. The similarities between the event Dr. Ford described and the house-party detailed in Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry eliminate the possibility that she fabricated or imagined the event she recalls.

There are only two alternatives. The first is that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party, and it was the event at which she described being sexually assaulted. The second is that Dr. Ford fabricated or imagined the event she described.

The similarities between the two events eliminate the second scenario as a possibility. Accordingly, common-sense proof #2 results in the unavoidable conclusion that the July 1, 1982 house-party is the event Ford described. There are no qualifications to that conclusion.

Also, there are no counterarguments. A counterargument would have to support the conclusion that Dr. Ford made up or imagined the event. But there are no such weighty counterarguments and the similarities eliminate the made-up or imagined alternative.

The actual counterarguments made on behalf of Justice Kavanaugh will be examined in my next blog post, Blog #8D.

Every observer should have understood part two of the proof

Every observer of the proceedings had to understand part one of common-sense proof #1. That part of the proof was clearly laid out in the confirmation hearings and required no thought. That effectively put every observer halfway between third base and home plate in baseball terms.

Only one simple and obvious thought was required to get home. The home plate is the conclusion that the two events are the same. That obvious thought is that the similarities between the two events eliminate the possibility that Dr. Ford is a liar or delusional.

Accordingly, no competent observer in the senate, the news media, or the FBI could rationally claim not to have understood common-sense proof #1 in my view. The same statement is true of Ms. Mitchell, in my opinion.

Anyone who wants to argue that they didn’t understand should explain in writing how that could be possible. Justice Kavanaugh, Ms. Mitchell, and FBI Director Wray should be required by the House Judiciary Committee to explain how that could have been possible under oath.

The only way not to have reached the correct conclusion would have been to stop thinking. Since everyone started between third base and home plate, one would have had not to start thinking. But the only reason to try not to think would have been to avoid a known destination.

The statistical proof that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982, house-party

Blog #2 describes a statistical analysis of the probability that Dr. Ford was not at the July 1, 1982 house-party. The analysis uses the probabilities that she could have guessed each of the seven details for which her description and Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar entry are in alignment.

In that analysis, individual probabilities were assigned to each of those seven listed details. Those probabilities represent high-side estimates of the likelihood that Dr. For could have guessed the details if she hadn’t been at the house-party.

The likelihood that she could have guessed all seven details is the product of the probabilities that she could have guessed the individual items. The likelihood that she could have guessed those details is also the probability that she was not at the house-party.

The probability that Dr. Ford was not present at the house-party is effectively 0%

Despite taking a conservative approach to the assignment of the individual probabilities, the calculated probability that Dr. Ford was not present at the July 1, 1982 party is less than one-hundred-thousandth of 1%. Correspondingly, the probability that Dr. Ford was present at the house-party is very close to 100%.

Moreover, that calculation is based solely on the details that she recalled. The calculated probability that she was there doesn’t take account of her testimony that she was at the house-party. Taking account of both considerations, we should view it as certain that she was at the July 1 house-party.

Only quantitatively sophisticated observers could have performed a statistical analysis of the probability that Dr. Ford was at the party. However, many observers and most institutions could easily have obtained such an analysis. That includes the FBI, the Senate Judiciary Committee members, any significant media organization, and Ms. Mitchell.

An honestly conducted FBI investigation would not have supported the conclusion that “there is no corroboration” of Dr. Ford’s allegation

I take it as a given that the FBI is competent. Thus, any deviation between (1) the results of the FBI’s investigation and (2) what an honest and competent investigation would show is due to malfeasance by the FBI in conducting its investigation.

Thus, if the Executive Summary reflects the actual results of the FBI Supplemental Investigation, the investigation was not honestly conducted. My conclusion is based on the corroboration of virtually all of Ford’s recollections about the July 1, 1982 house-party.

Moreover, that corroboration is not difficult to discern. The FBI agents assigned to the case should have each been aware of both common-sense proofs that Dr. Ford was there. And they should have derived or obtained a statistical analysis of the probability she was there.

Any miscommunication of the FBI’s conclusion would be equally problematic

The same criticism would apply if the FBI miscommunicated the results of its investigation. That would reflect misconduct, which is just as serious as wrongdoing in the conduct of the investigation.

A failure by Senator Grassley to accurately communicate the results of the FBI’s investigation would involve equivalent FBI misconduct in my view. The FBI should not have permitted its conclusion to be inaccurately represented by Senator Grassley to the American people.

The FBI cannot perform its function on behalf of the American people if its work product is misrepresented or falsified. Accordingly, that outcome is just as problematic as if the FBI fails to produce a work product.

There is a second reason the stated conclusion of the Executive Summary does not reflect an honest investigation

There is another obvious inconsistency with the conclusion that there is no corroboration of Dr. Ford’s allegation. Justice Kavanaugh made multiple blatantly false statements in his testimony about Dr. Ford’s allegation. Those statements do not require an assessment of his credibility. Instead, they objectively establish that his testimony is not credible.

Justice Kavanaugh’s multiple lies related to her allegation should have been viewed as an admission of guilt in 2018. For that reason as well, it should have been impossible for the FBI’s investigation to confirm that there is no corroboration of Dr. Ford’s allegation.

No competent investigator could have missed Kavanaugh’s 1982 admission of guilt

Every observer had to be focused on the two differences between Dr. Ford’s description of the event where she as assaulted and Justice Kavanaugh’s description in his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. Those differences are that his calendar entry doesn’t indicate that Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser were present.

So, once any investigator realized that Dr. Ford was at the house-party, it should have been unavoidable that Kavanaugh falsified his July 1 calendar entry by omitting her. That conclusion was apparent to me in real time during Kavanaugh’s testimony on September 27, 2018. It is the subject of Blog #4.

The falsification of his calendar entry would have been evident to any competent observer. Also, it should have been viewed as a admission of guilt in 1982. Accordingly, the FBI should have directly or indirectly reported Kavanaugh’s omission and admission. They should also have been reflected in the Executive Summary of the FBI’s Supplemental Investigation.

Kavanaugh’s omission of Ford disposes of the mistaken identity theory

Kavanaugh’s omission of Ford from his calendar puts an end to a nonsensical argument made in his defense. The argument was that Dr. Ford’s accusation against Justice Kavanaugh is a case of mistaken identity. The argument was always absurd given Ford’s credible testimony that she is 100% certain that Kavanaugh assaulted her.

However, in omitting Ford from his calendar, Kavanaugh was not attempting to protect another person. He was protecting himself because he is guilty of sexually assaulting Ford. Thus, we can lay the mistaken-identity theory to rest.

Senator Grassley explained certain limitations on the FBI’s ability to express the results of its investigation

Senator Grassley made the following statement about FBI investigations during the September 27, 2018 confirmation hearing. (Emphasis added.)

“Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the FBI doesn’t perform any credibility assessments or verify the truth of any events in these background investigations.

I’ll quote then-Chairman Joe Biden during Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearing. This is what Senator Biden said, quote, “The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. They say he — he said, she said, they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand, they do not — they do not — they do not reach conclusions.”

Senator Grassley’s description puts into question the ability of the FBI to have articulated certain findings concering Dr. Ford’s allegation. However, Dr. Ford’s allegations are not a he-said, she-said matter. Dr. Ford was provably present on July 1, 1982, and Kavanaugh’s calendar entry confirms virtually all of the details she recalled.

Also, none of the findings described herein are based on credibility assessments. They involve objective analysis of the facts taking account of the visible evidence.

That even includes the observations that multiple statements by Justice Kavanaugh in his testimony are factually untrue. Those observations reflect on his credibility, but they are not based on assessments of his credibility. They are based on plainly visible facts.

The policy highlighted by Senator Grassley cannot explain or justify a false communication

The constraints reflected in Senator Grassley’s description may have affected the FBI’s ability to explicitly state certain readily evident conclusions, such as that Kavanaugh is guilty of the sexual assault. However, even things that couldn’t be explicitly stated could have been made apparent by describing the relevant facts and fact-findings.

There may have been limitations on the FBI’s ability to explicitly communicate the truth about Dr. Ford’s allegation. However, there was no need or justification for the FBI to convey a false conclusion about her allegation. And FBI acceptance of a dishonest characterization of its investigation is unacceptable regardless of who was primarily responsible.

Looking forward

Blog #8D describes the impact of the proof that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party on the various Republican defenses of Justice Kavanaugh against her accusation. The Republican defenses were focused on obscuring the evidence that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982. Thus, the proof that she was present at the July 1 house-party pretty much decimates their defenses.