Bizarre, Criminal law

Grassley Refers New Case Of Alleged False Statements To The Justice Department From the Kavanaugh Hearings
I have previously written about the mutually assured destruction that could await the two parties if they pursue alleged false statements related to the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.  Now, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred a new possible target for indictment to the Justice Department and this referral could prove a strong case for such an indictment.  My objections in the prior column concerned difficulty in proving intentional false statements over the description of habits or incidents occurring decades earlier.  However, the letter from Grassley details alleged admissions from Judy Munro-Leighton that she knowingly lied in claiming to be a previously identified “Jane Doe” and to have been raped repeatedly by Kavanaugh in the backseat of a car.

She is accused of  “materially false statements” and “obstruction”. Grassley is citing the type of evidence that would worry any defense counsel.

Grassley says that the “Jane Doe” letter provided to Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Cal.) was promptly investigated: “Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky.”

He alleged that she “admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by … Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original ‘Jane Doe’ letter . . . When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the ‘Jane Doe’ from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: ‘No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”

If she wanted to “grab attention,” she succeeded.  The more dangerous claim would be false statements to any congressional or federal investigators.  It is not clear what false statement preceded her reported admission. The letter reads that the original letter lacked any name or address and was vehemently denied by Kavanaugh. It added:

“Then, on October 3, 2018, Committee staff received an email from a Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton with a subject line claiming: “I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA — Kavanaugh raped me.”  Ms. Munro-Leighton wrote that she was “sharing with you the story of the night that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend sexually assaulted and raped me in his car” and referred to “the letter that I sent to Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19 with details of this vicious assault.” She continued: “I know that [‘]Jane Doe[’] will get no media attention, but I am deathly afraid of revealing any information about myself or my family.” She then included a typed version of the Jane Doe letter.”

Judy Munro-Leighton appears to live in Kentucky and is 70-years-old. As discussed by Heavy.com, a 2005 Washington Post article described Judy Munro-Leighton as a history teacher and an organizer of protests against the Iraq War. The letter makes out a prima facie case for false statements to Congress.  Obstruction may be more difficult to prove but the false statement charge is a favorite of prosecutors because it treated as cut-and-dry type of charge by jurors and judges alike.

55 thoughts on “Grassley Refers New Case Of Alleged False Statements To The Justice Department From the Kavanaugh Hearings”

  1. OMG! What possible reason would she have to tell blatant lies? Because of all the embarrassment and all the media circus, and blah, blah, blah, blah.

    Isn’t that the very thing the Democratic Retards Who Comment Here asked and said about Christine Ford? Then, when given multiple reasons why a person would lie, they just kind of ignored it. Sooo, I guess now, they have to chew on this latest revelation. Yeah, women lie, and Democrats lie, and Democratic Party Women lie the most of all.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. The intent to “grab attention” seems to be a recurring theme in the attacks against Kavanaugh.

    when Ford’s husband was asked to explain the reason Christine’s parents and siblings had not signed onto that letter of support from family and friends that had been released to the press, he replied:

    “She didn’t always get along with her parents because of differing political views,” Russell Ford said. “It was a very male-dominated environment. Everyone was interested in what’s going on with the men, and the women are sidelined, and she didn’t get the attention or respect she felt she deserved.”

    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-family-has-been-nearly-13259004.php

    RLI

  3. Unless proven fabricated sexual assault allegations face consequences the behavior will be encouraged.

    If an accusation is proven to be a lie, it is an assault and should be prosecuted. Obviously this does not refer to real victims who merely cannot price their case.

    Such fraud is a slap in the face to real rape victims.

    1. The reason “nothing happens” for false rape allegations is because they’re usually made by a crazy starved-for-attention women and it’s hard to see the point of locking them up.

  4. It’s too bad Trump won the election. Just think if he lost, we wouldn’t have had to go through all this.

    1. Independent Bob – Just think of what we would be going through with Hillary as President, if Trump lost.

  5. Enough incoherence and hysteria!

    Repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.

    Re-implement the restricted-vote republic which was the original intent of the American

    Founders.

    President Trump has the same justification and rationale as Lincoln for issuing related

    executive orders and “proclamations”: 25 million extant illegal invaders,

    unconstitutional and criminal, aiding and abetting, allied “sanctuary cities” and foreign

    invasion forces looming on the border.

      1. @ Surimike – So, who exactly would you suggest start voting for our US Senators? Do you want to go back to letting our state legislatures elect them?

        1. Not a bad idea. Students of congressional behavior have noted that House members turn their heads at complaints emanating from constituents but that Senators are motivated by complaints from donors. We’d get a Senate with a different skill set – one less invested in publicity and fundraising campaigns and more invested in building relationships with state legislators (and the sort of people you find in state legislatures). Of course, there are potential problems out the backside, which is why there was a movement to have Senators elected by the public.

          Another alternative would be to organize Congress like a colonial assembly and have a popularly elected lower house who choose the upper house. Ideally, the two chambers would be functionally differentiated, with the lower house concerned with legislation and budgetry and the upper house concerned with oversight.

    2. So you are suggesting it was a mistake to abolish slavery (13th Amendment) recognize the citizenship of anyone born on US soil or to US parents (14th Amendment) Allow anyone to vote regardless of ethnicity, gender or economic status (15th and 19th Amendments). Do you intend to make this retroactive going back to when these various amendments were ratified (How do you intend to prove that you deserve US citizenship) or do you simply intend to apply them from here on out thinking that the resulting oppression will only apply to people who don’t look like you. I am betting on the second option due to your “invasion forces looming on the border” despite the caravan of asylum seekers being nowhere close to the US border.

      1. You’re not from around here. ‘George’ and ‘Michael Aarethun’ offer nuggets of palaeolibertarian discourse on every thread. Not sure whethet it’s toungue-in-cheek or not. So does the commenter ‘dhili’. Since he’s logorrheic, it’s best to ignore him.

  6. You don’t suppose they will actually go after Cory Booker for “I am Spartacus”. They kind of slipped this one under the radar. I didn’t even hear about it.

    1. So who sent the Jane Doe letter to Senator Harris? No. Wait. We’re not supposed to know who the real Jane Doe is. We’re only supposed to know that Judy Munro-Leighton is not the real Jane Doe. She’s a seventy-year-old prank emailer from Kentucky. Lock her up.

      1. Let’s consider the alleged plot to smear Mueller a “prank” as well, and forget about pursuing it.
        If it’s a prank for anyone to jump into any investigation and interfere with baseless allegations, we can forget about charging “pranksters”.

        1. Paying someone to say something false might still be punishable. Meanwhile, if Judy Munro-Leighton is the real author of the Jane Doe letter to Senator Harris, then her goose is cooked, for sure. Otherwise, Munro-Leighton is guilty of impersonating a Jane Doe. Maybe you could treat it as a double negation. A fake Jane Doe impersonating a fake Jane Doe equals the real Jane Doe making a false statement to Congress. So how do you prove that the author of the Jane Doe letter made a false statement to Congress without assuming that Munro-Leighton is the author of the Jane Doe letter to Senator Harris?

          1. From the details in this column, Munro- Leighton admitted that she sent the letter and made those allegations.
            If she is prosecuted, that will be a key element.
            If that isn’t enough, a criminal investigation can likely trace the letter back to her, if it hasn’t already.

            1. Munro-Leighton sent an email to The Committee claiming that she was the author of the Jane Doe letter to Senator Harris. Munro-Leighton subsequently denied that she was the author of the Jane Doe letter to Senator Harris. I’m beginning to suspect that Turley is from The Berenstein Bears universe rather than the Berenstain Bears universe in which the rest of us live. Come to think of it, you might be one. too.

            3. Excerpted from the article linked above:

              In the letter sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Republican Sen. Grassley of Iowa said his committee had investigated the allegations made by Judy Munro-Leighton, a woman who claimed she was the author of an anonymous handwritten letter that detailed the graphic sexual assault allegations.

              Repeated for emphasis: “. . . handwritten letter . . .”

      2. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – when you accuse a potential Supreme Court Justice of rape, it is more than a prank. You have an odd sense of proportionality.

        1. Prove that Munro-Leighton sent the Jane Doe letter to Senator Harris and lock her up.

        2. PC Schulte,..
          You have a mandate from Diane/ Irwina to “Prove that Munro-Leighton sent the Jane Doe letter to Sen. Harris and lock her up”.
          I’ll look at other articles on this matter, but just from what I read in this column, she’s on the hook for writing that letter.
          Leaving that aside, we have seen upteen instances of rampant speculation on L4B’s part about the “collusion guilt” between Trump and those associated with the Trump campaign, with the Russians in the 2016 election.
          E.G., “If Manafort knows, then Mueller knows ( this or that) and Trump knows what Mueller knows blah blah blah”; her speculation is virtually endless when it comes to building a structure of speculation / conjecture that houses the conclusion that she wants.
          Well over two years into this investigation, there have been no charges brought on that “collusion” issue.
          One of the responses to that, which I am 99% sure came from L4B/ Diane/ Irwina, was that “the absence of evidence does not mean that evidence is absent”, or very similar words.
          So the “demand for proof” in one case is absent on her part…..she keeps repeating that “Robert Swain Mueller the Third will not be deterred”, as if it were a cherished mantra of her coven.
          Hypothetically, if we’re 5 years out from now and in the same boat, with no charges/ convictions related to the collusion charge, we’d keep getting the same speil ( spell?) from her.
          Her patience and her standard of “prove it” are, for “some” reason, much more stringent in cases of perjury or interfering with an investigation related to the Kavanaugh matter.
          So to be consistent, if you decide to accept her mandate, you should have unlimited time and resources.
          You should have the FBI and other federal agencies at your complete disposal.
          You can assemble a staff of 15 or mostly partisan, seasoned prosecutors to help with your investigation.
          Your supporters will chant “In Schulte I Trust” or “Paul C. Schulte will not be deterred” in solidarity with your task and objective.
          If you accept her challenge/ mandate, be sure to go for the “Mueller Standard” of “proof” and approach that she has endorsed.

          1. Wednesday November 7th, 2018, is just two days away. No more 60-days before an election gag rule. Ha-Ha!

            How’s Trump’s open-book take-home test with private tutors checking his answers coming along?

          2. Turley wrote, “She [Munro-Leighton] then included a typed version of the Jane Doe letter.”

            The original anonymous Jane Doe letter was “handwritten.” Munro-Leighton sent a typed version of that handwritten letter that she says she read online and copied. Nevertheless, if Pablo Citation Eschoolbus can get a handwriting sample from Munro-Leighton [assuming that Grassley hasn’t already done so], and if Don Pablo is a handwriting expert on top of everything else in which he has expertise, then . . . maybe Grassley already has done that. Do you think?

            1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – she claimed to be the victim. She was older than his mother. Even Chrissy’s parents won’t back her statement and only give her the most lukewarm of support as a human being.

              1. If Judy Munro-Leighton’s handwriting doesn’t match the handwriting in the original, anonymous “handwritten” Jane Doe letter sent to Senator Harris without an address, then Judy Munro-Leighton is an impostor of the actual author of the original, anonymous “handwritten” Jane Doe letter sent to Senator Harris without an address. Go ahead on and lock her up for . . . something. You figure it out.

                Turley garbled the story in his usual Pavlovian way. You have to learn how to read what Turley didn’t write based upon the mangling of the story contained in what Turley did write. It’s all right there in Turley’s original post. You just have to do the head-scratching to decipher it.

                1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – what you have to do is realize that Munro-Leighton is going to be investigated and even if nothing happens, she is going to have to buy a new supply of Depends.

                  1. Evidently, the false statement that Munro-Leighton made to Congress was in the email she sent to the committee falsely claiming to be the author of the original, anonymous “handwritten” Jane Doe letter that had been previously sent to Senator Harris. I have no idea with what crime Munro-Leighton might be charged.

                    However, my newfound colleague, Mr. Nash, has uncovered truly fascinating information about the timeline for Munro-Leighton’s email to the committee relative to the original, anonymous handwritten Jane Doe letter sent to Senator Harris. If only Don Pablo could trouble himself to read and follow the whole thread the way Mr. Nash does, then . . . Oh! Who am I kidding? Ubi Pablito will never change.

                    1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I think you might want to read Tom Nash a little more carefully.

                    2. The timeline is significant; Munro-Leighton was attempting to bolster the rape claims in the Jane Doe letter by “putting a name to” an anonymous accusation.
                      If the date of her stunt was Oct. 3 ( I’d have to double-check, but I think that was the date she claimed to be Jane Doe), she clearly wanted to “pile on” to the Ford/Swetnick/Avenatti attempts to torpedo Kavanaugh confirmation.
                      The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing had concluded by Oct.3, but the confirmation vote was held 2-3 days later.
                      Kavanaugh was confirmed on Oct. 6, I think.
                      Also, “Colleague” 😒and “Nemesis” 😡are two different things.

          3. L4B is correct in that Munro-Leighton confessed to sending the letter, to being Jane Doe, then recanted her “Jane Doe confession” and stated that she was not the sender of the original Jane Doe letter.
            This is pointed out in JT’s column, and a more careful reading of it by me last night showed that, incredibly, L4B was right.
            And I was wrong in thinking that she stuck with her original story that she was “Jane Doe”.
            So Munro-Leighton now denies being “Jane Doe”, and I haven’t seen where there’s been an identification of who actually sent the letter.
            At a minimum, Munro-Leighton was trying to give legitimacy to the Jane Doe letter by claiming that she was Jane Doe ( who claimed that Kavanaugh raped her).
            A. On the rare occasions where L4B is right, and I am wrong, I can admit it and show that I’m a bigger man than she is.
            B. Munro-Leighton is complicit in the Jane Doe “hoax” by claiming to be Jane Doe.
            C. Munro-Leighton’s claim that she was Jane Doe was Oct. 3, I think, after the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing/ circus.
            But before the confirmation vote.
            Sen. Grassley was dealing with the ranking Democrat on the SJC sitting on Ford’s allegation for week after week, during the long confirmation process and hearing, then springing this on Grassley when the confirmation hearings concluded.
            Since it was very likely that Kavanaugh had the votes to be confirmed, Ford and Feinstein in Grassley’s lap.
            It was clear that Grassley was angry at Feinstein, especially, for the way this was handled.
            Then Ace Avenatti and the incredible Twilight Zone stories of Ms. Swetnick pop up, and Jane Doe, then possibly other “pranksters” we don’t know about add to the mix.
            It’s not surprizing that he’s fed up with the “pranks” and making criminal referrals.

            1. Oh Mr. Nash, Sir! That is so big of you. Give yourself a string of good emojis on the house. You deserve them. You’ve earned it.

              BTW, did you read the bit about the original Jane Doe letter having been “handwritten”?

              1. Yes, I did read it…first, a more careful reading of this column showed that Munro-Leighton subsequently denied that she wrote the Jane Doe letter.
                I scanned some other articlesabout this, too.
                Some of the earlier ones left the impression that she did write the (original) Jane Doe letter, but up-to-date articles covered her subsequent denial.

          4. PC Schulte,…
            You need not prove in your investigation that Munro-Leighton wrote the original Jane Doe letter.
            If you accept the Special Counsel-like role that I described earlier, you will investigate who not only who wrote the letter, but also “any matters arising” out of your investigation of the letter.
            Sort of a fishing expedition. ( I don’t want to offend anyone by calling it a “witch hunt”).
            In any case, be sure to get that investigative blank check as well as the other conditions that I recommended, before accepting the job.

      3. Enough with the “lock her up” rhetoric. It serves only to gin up intolerance for differing political positions. It is counterproductive and unamerican.

        2. M. Cutter,
          A false accusation of rape goes well beyond “differing political positions”.

    2. PC Schulte,…
      I have a feeling that the “Spartacus” comment is still on Trump’s radar.
      It could become as linked to Booker’s name as as the name of “Pocahontas” is to Sen. Warren.

      1. Spartahontas??? Or Pocatacus??? Trump might need a speech coach for Pocatacus. Better stick with Spartahontas.

  7. From reading this article I could not learn if this person admits that she lied. Or said that Kavanaugh did anything to her.

    Those who lie: can.
    Those who can’t lie: cheat.
    Those who can’t cheat: teach teachers.

  8. Interesting BBC article: Truth about false rape assault accusations by women

    Over the past 20 years, only 2-10% of rape accusations (Prof Ford’s lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape) are proven to be fake.

    The FBI has put the number of “unfounded” rapes – those determined to be false after investigation – at 8%.

    According to a 2017 report by the US National Institutes of Health, fake accusers “were primarily motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other behavior such as adultery or skipping school.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

    1. The link also says, “Figures from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest only 35% of all sexual assaults are even reported to the police. ” So if you nearly triple the number of real assaults, the number of false reports remain the same and the percent of false reports goes down significantly to less than 1%.

      1. bettykath – when you consider that the definition of sexual assault has been so broadened to contain the known world, the answer from women, who are self-reporting, is nonsensical. Therefore, your escalation and the de-escaltion is nonsensical.

        1. Paul, it’s bettykath. Given her body of work on this blog, it’s reasonable to assume her comment is rooted in nonsense.

    2. The studies range from 41% to 2% for false sexual abuse accusations by females. The numbers don’t help much unless you want to make the ludic and division fallacies all at one time.

  9. “Splendid!”

    Brazil, Turkey, Slovakia… tyranny’s contagion spreads around the world
    Nick Cohen
    2018 Nov 03
    The Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/03/brazil-turkey-slovakia-tyranny-contagion-spreads-around-the-world

    is well written. Unfortunately,

    Fascism is on the march
    Peter Koenig
    2018 Nov 03
    dissidentvoice.org

    is much less so despite being a thoughtful essay from a former World Banker. Still, give it a try:

    https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/11/fascism-on-the-march/

  10. I don’t know if these citizens are chargeable or not but let’s assume for argument’s sake they are. Yes, members of Congress by all means prosecute. Nail them to the wall. Punish them to the fullest extent, because they must have seriously derailed our nation by their misdeeds.

    The scope of what is alleged with these women surely necessitates a big penalty. It is not at all like malfeasant people who work in government who weaponize a government agency against entire classes of citizens, like Louis Learner with her involvement in the IRS scandal. Nor Eric Holder, or Clapper directly lying to Congress about their illegal activities, the latter with his “not wittingly” claim being according to Edward Snowden the final straw that led to his going public on the government spying on ordinary citizens (for better or worse). By all means do nothing to those who are politically connected and powerful but castigate the ordinary person who committed a violation. Ruin them in the process as well, not just have them answer for a crime. But be sure to give rewards to those in office who evade prosecution if they promise to protect someone above them.

    For myself I can remember the very moment when Congress as a whole lost its legitimacy with me. Before if I took exception with a particular member it was not necessarily reflective on others. But after this, it came more than apparent they foster a shield of protection for their own, rendering them above the law, and they only care for themselves eventually.

    After I saw this hearing in 2010 ,as depicted in the below video, Congress lost any bit of respect I had for the institution.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDsRSSrnDR4

    After numerous provable instances of malfeasance and ethical violations, all he received was tempered admonishment from his cohort Nancy Pelosi, that he pay back taxes, and he offer a pathetic and embarrassing appeal to his war record. Justice would have sent him packing.

    The institution truly lacks honor. I don’t see this changing in my lifetime.

    3. Could we refer some of Grassley’s lies at the same time….

      It would be completely out of character for you not to try.

Comments are closed.